The release of the JCT Design and Build Contract 2024 revealed a lack of alignment with the Building Safety Act (BSA) 2022, causing industry concern.
- Initial expectations for clarity from the JCT’s updated contracts were not met.
- Problems persist as the new contract does not fully integrate BSA’s provisions, especially for higher-risk buildings.
- The contract’s limited changes, like the dutyholder regime, do not sufficiently address necessary building control measures.
- Parties to the contract face potential risks and the need for significant amendments to comply with BSA.
The JCT Design and Build Contract 2024, introduced in April, was anticipated to align more closely with the Building Safety Act (BSA) 2022. However, it became clear that there is significant misalignment between the two. The new JCT contract lacks the comprehensive incorporation of BSA’s detailed requirements, which has left many within the industry confused and concerned about compliance, particularly regarding higher-risk buildings (HRBs).
While the contract introduces a new dutyholder regime, addressing obligations under the 2010 Building Regulations, and includes provisions for appointing a principal designer and contractor, these changes are seen as inadequate. They do not cover crucial aspects of the BSA, such as the gateway approval process, ‘golden thread’ of building information, or the intricate relationship between practical completion and gateway 3 approval.
The absence of specific provisions for HRBs means that parties using the JCT 2024 contract need to make extensive modifications. Considerations must include how to manage potential delays initiated by the gateway regimen, assign responsibility for building-control applications, and the maintenance of golden-thread information.
Commentators suggest that these regulatory shifts might signal a move away from design and build contracts towards more conventional forms, potentially making the former obsolete. The JCT’s failure to adequately address the BSA’s demands may push clients towards contracts that ensure a unified development team from start to finish.
Despite updates in JCT’s contract language, the disparity from BSA requirements signals a pressing necessity for ongoing collaboration among contract drafters, regulators, and industry entities to develop more comprehensive agreements. This will be essential to ensure safety regulations are effectively integrated into standardised contracts, minimising project risks.
The disconnect between JCT’s latest contract and the BSA highlights an urgent requirement for realignment to mitigate risks for stakeholders.
