Opinion

Carillion collapse means little guys lose out again

Story for CM? Get in touch via email: [email protected]

Comments

  1. Absolutely bang on Chris! This needs urgent action. As a small construction company we have been the victim of late payments for many years from large companies. There is no care about the people that actually supply the skills and materials to deliver these projects. Please keep this as a priority topic to action urgently.

  2. Carillion Canada were able to operate under the Canadian payment terms for subcontractors and suppliers which are far tougher than the UK for nearly 20 years. Also they often had to provide both 50% labour and material payment bonds as well as a 50% performance bond.
    This is the norm for the Canadian construction industry. The UK appears to be still in the dark ages

  3. I have never heard it said that retentions improved productivity and have always believed that their function is to ensure that defects are properly addressed and remedied during the maintenance period. To outlaw retentions would leave main contractors with a far greater problem when a subcontractor’s work was found to be deficient and I would be very interested to hear what legal alternative could be used to ensure that subcontractors would respond properly and efficiently in these situations.

    The subcontractors (and suppliers) who will really suffer as a result of the collapse of Carillion are those poor souls who have just sent in their initial invoices – what will they be paid by the receivers, a few pennies in the pound if anything?

    There is a tendency in government to produce legislation that favours larger organisations who are able to lobby parliament directly and consequently bend legislation to prefer their operating profile, this leads to a situation where larger organisations find it easier to outperform and swallow up SMEs as they grow with the consequent reality that one bloated and oversized contractor has national dominance and places us all in the predicament that we now face.

    Don’t forget that having gained market dominance, Carillion then employed (and kept retention from) SMEs who were unable to compete with Carillion as main contractors.

    Would it not be far better if forthcoming legislation levelled the playing field for SMEs to produce wider diversity in placing government contracts and would this not help smaller contractor far better than trying to outlaw retentions?

  4. Did Carillion not have any CIOB members then?

    http://www.ciob.org/sites/default/files/Rules%20&%20Regulations_0.pdf

    Or will the above just be reviewed?

Comments are closed.

Latest articles in Opinion