Lorien trying to change terms of engagement at renewal

[northernladuk]

Lorien finally relented and agreed to the following with QDOS:

The Supplier and Client are to agree upon the absence from site/absence of Services in advance and in a manner that does not affect the delivery of the Services to the Client, i.e. any key milestones within the delivery of the project will not be taken off unless agreed in advance.

Nice win. Well done.

[openshac]

Hmm. Endeavour is a very woolly word for a contract isn't it. Interesting, thanks.

Lorien finally relented and agreed to the following with QDOS:

The Supplier and Client are to agree upon the absence from site/absence of Services in advance and in a manner that does not affect the delivery of the Services to the Client, i.e. any key milestones within the delivery of the project will not be taken off unless agreed in advance.

[ladymuck]

I would see if Lorien would accept removing these words from the beginning of the clause:

"obtain prior approval from and"

it then sounds like a much more reasonable requirement.

[northernladuk]

Yes, QDOS did offer alternative wording and came back with the following:

for the contract to be a pass as a minimum 3.18 needs to be removed or amended to read:
“Endeavour to give reasonable notice to the Company and the Client of any period during which the Supplier / Contractor will not be providing the Services;”

Hmm. Endeavour is a very woolly word for a contract isn't it. Interesting, thanks.

[openshac]

Must admit the QDOS response is a bit black and white and Lorien's response makes sense, particularly the bit about using subs. I think it's just a wording problem around 'approval'. If you could just change this to 'agreement' I wouldn't be too worried.

If I have a supplier on site who won't be available for a period of time, be it IBM, TCS, Accenture or an independent contractor, I don't see a problem with a client having issue with it if it lands in a critical period where they would expect their supplier to be on site. There is a line between too controlling and offering a service to client when they absolutely need it.

It's interesting that QDOS is looking at the individual where Loriens response is treating them like a business.

Did QDOS offer alternative wording they would be happy with or did the want the whole clause removing?

Yes, QDOS did offer alternative wording and came back with the following:

for the contract to be a pass as a minimum 3.18 needs to be removed or amended to read:
“Endeavour to give reasonable notice to the Company and the Client of any period during which the Supplier / Contractor will not be providing the Services;”

[northernladuk]

Yes that is what I've done now. Out of interest the main sticking point is the

3.1 The Supplier shall in respect of the Agreement and Assignment(s):
3.1.8 obtain prior approval from and give reasonable notice to the Company and the Client of any period during which the Supplier / Contractor will not be providing the Services;

The objection was:

3.1.8 - This clause is very controlling. An independent contractor should not need to seek the
permission of the Client in order to take time off. For example, notice of holidays etc. should be
provided only out of professional courtesy. I would suggest this clause is removed entirely

and Lorien's response was:

I disagree with this comment. As a limited company supplying services "holiday" (which is a right given to employees) should not be taken during the period of an Assignment. If the Contractor is going to take holiday during the period of the assignment, the business has the right to provided a substitute. If they can't provide a substitute they will be in breach of the contract that requires the services to be provided subject to this clause which does not permit the Supplier to obtain approval to not provided services for agree periods.

Must admit the QDOS response is a bit black and white and Lorien's response makes sense, particularly the bit about using subs. I think it's just a wording problem around 'approval'. If you could just change this to 'agreement' I wouldn't be too worried.

If I have a supplier on site who won't be available for a period of time, be it IBM, TCS, Accenture or an independent contractor, I don't see a problem with a client having issue with it if it lands in a critical period where they would expect their supplier to be on site. There is a line between too controlling and offering a service to client when they absolutely need it.

It's interesting that QDOS is looking at the individual where Loriens response is treating them like a business.

Did QDOS offer alternative wording they would be happy with or did the want the whole clause removing?

[openshac]

Funny as I seem to remeber Lorein contracts being a pain many moons ago but I thought they'd sorted themselves out.

QDOS will negotiate on your behalf won't they? Maybe if you ask them they will speak to the agent who would be pretty daft not to listen.

Yes that is what I've done now. Out of interest the main sticking point is the

3.1 The Supplier shall in respect of the Agreement and Assignment(s):
3.1.8 obtain prior approval from and give reasonable notice to the Company and the Client of any period during which the Supplier / Contractor will not be providing the Services;

The objection was:

3.1.8 - This clause is very controlling. An independent contractor should not need to seek the
permission of the Client in order to take time off. For example, notice of holidays etc. should be
provided only out of professional courtesy. I would suggest this clause is removed entirely

and Lorien's response was:

I disagree with this comment. As a limited company supplying services "holiday" (which is a right given to employees) should not be taken during the period of an Assignment. If the Contractor is going to take holiday during the period of the assignment, the business has the right to provided a substitute. If they can't provide a substitute they will be in breach of the contract that requires the services to be provided subject to this clause which does not permit the Supplier to obtain approval to not provided services for agree periods.

[northernladuk]

Here are some threads about them not being IR35 friendly.

Interesting to see someone as recent as March this year is having problems. I thought they'd sorted their act out.

ir35 lorein site:forums.contractoruk.com - Bing

[Hobosapien]

If they are trying to change the terms to put you inside IR35 when previously working as outside, then counter with a demand for a rate rise to offset as much of the inside IR35 taxation as you can get.

They are using the renewal as an opportunity to re-negotiate terms. You can do the same.

Depending on how long the extension is likely to last (are they likely to offer another extension after this one) it may be worth fighting it or walking if they aren't willing to compromise or compensate you. i.e. how much of a loss are you potentially looking at if you walked or agreed their current terms over the projected life of the contract and is it worth fighting about or looking to move on sooner than you anticipated.

[northernladuk]

Funny as I seem to remeber Lorein contracts being a pain many moons ago but I thought they'd sorted themselves out.

QDOS will negotiate on your behalf won't they? Maybe if you ask them they will speak to the agent who would be pretty daft not to listen.

[openshac]

I was due for renewal and 2 days for the renewal date Lorien told me they wanted me to sign a different set of terms and conditions (They said that they changed their term in May when they moved to a new portal system). I said OK, I'll get them reviewed.

QDOS came back with a FAIL and over half a suggested ammendments. I took this back to Lorien who simply sent me a pre-written PDF explaining why they reject virtually all of the QDOS recommendations. They've obviously had this happen a few times.

Has anyone recently had this problem and successfully got Lorien to accept the QDOS changes?