ÈȵãºÚÁÏ

It would be safe to say government procurement arrangements are generally complex and often involve the supply of highly technical deliverables.

Installation and commissioning requires an interface between the newly supplied item and existing operations. In the case of building and other capital facilities, decanting of staff, equipment and files from the old facility to another increase the difficulties associated with the procurement process.

In the case of longer term arrangements (for instance in the case of design, build, finance and maintain construction, in which a time frame of 30 or more years is common), disputes may arise several years into the agreement, involving matters that were never within the contemplation of the parties at the time when the original contract was made.

Thirdly, many years ago (in 1979) few offices had fax or even word processing capabilities, the notion of the personal computer at every work station was still years away, telephone systems were closer in technological terms in those of the 1940s than to those of today.

The increasing sophistication of the technology of the workplace has made migration from one system and supplier to another infinitely more complex. It is therefore not surprising that disputes appear to have become more common in the modern world of commerce than was the case only a generation ago.

As technology advances and offices are reconfigured in response, it can only be expected that the range and number of disputes both increase over the next 30 years.

Given the number and complexity of modern business disputes it is therefore essential to incorporate dispute avoidance management and resolution into the municipal procurement process.

Disputes cause attention to be distracted from the primary operations of both the supplier and customer. They cause delay in service delivery, delay in completion and inconvenience all around. They are costly to resolve and all too often lead inevitably to an irretrievable breakdown of the supplier-customer relationship.

While some disputes are inherent in the nature of the supply transaction, far too often disputes are caused or worsened by unco-operative individuals in one or both organizations – suppliers seeking to escape from the responsibility of providing what they have agreed to provide; municipalities seeking to get the benefit of something for which they have not paid.

Disputes also arise too frequently from poorly written and poorly thought through contract documents, which lead to confusion as to responsibility. The drafting of a contract must be approached by the municipality and the customer as the primary mechanism for avoiding future dispute and for reducing the time required to resolve any dispute that does arise.

The goal of every contracting party should be to reduce uncertainty.

Doing so allows the risks associated with a contract to be identified and properly priced into the contract. Disputes are always painful and are frequently expensive. Thus, care should be taken in drafting the contract to confine the range of likely disputes as far as possible.

Buyers and purchasing managers should become familiar with these mechanisms and should acquire an understanding as to when each affords a suitable solution to any dispute that may arise. It goes without saying disputes cannot be avoided entirely.

When disputes arise, as they inevitably will from time to time, it is vital the contract documents contain adequate procedures for containing the cost and other adverse impact of those disputes.

Municipal procurement staff need to work with the legal services division of the ministry – or with outside legal counsel where there is no such branch – to gain a better understanding of which dispute mechanism is best suited to each individual contractual relationship.

Municipalities should develop standard form contract language for the introduction of appropriate dispute mechanisms in all contract documentation. The measures provided for should be used on a timely basis.