28th April 2006, 12:25 PM
Any idea what the reasoning behind that is, 1man? Clause 2.1 seems the most bizarre bit to me (consultant to be a named individual) and I can't see where it comes from or what the purpose is.
How does it square with PI insurance, for example, if the individual is individualy named (excuse grammar) but the consultancy carries the insurances? In other fields consultants are named firms (architects, QS etc)
There is an obvious conflict of interest if a consultant is part of the same organization as the contractor (whichever umbrella they are under).
I suppose there is nothing to stop you amending the standard form of contract and revising 2.1 providing it is set out in the tender documents, in order to name the Bloggs Partnership as consultant.
Strangely fascinating field, to me. Worrying, isn't it?
We owe the dead nothing but the truth.
How does it square with PI insurance, for example, if the individual is individualy named (excuse grammar) but the consultancy carries the insurances? In other fields consultants are named firms (architects, QS etc)
There is an obvious conflict of interest if a consultant is part of the same organization as the contractor (whichever umbrella they are under).
I suppose there is nothing to stop you amending the standard form of contract and revising 2.1 providing it is set out in the tender documents, in order to name the Bloggs Partnership as consultant.
Strangely fascinating field, to me. Worrying, isn't it?
We owe the dead nothing but the truth.