Strange RoS clause?

[thunderlizard]

That seems like a sensible clause. Nice to see that they've thought about the practicalities of substituting, rather than just sticking in the tax-dodging window-dressing bare minimum.

[Crossroads]

It's a sensible clause IF 2 weeks is a realistic handover period - and that will depend upon the services being provided. Try and make the timeperiod relevant to the project & services.

[QwertyBerty]

10 days seems unreasonable. Is a supplier really going to send in a substitute and forgo 2 weeks income? Seems more of a ploy on the agency's part to deter substitutions. HMRC may also see this as a hindrance to a genuine right to substitute...?

QB.

[helen7]

actually it sounds quite useful. It shows that you could make a loss on the contract - hence not an employee.

I would leave it in.

[Moscow Mule]

"Where substitute Consultants are provided by the Supplier, the Supplier shall provide wherever possible an overlap of up to ten working days for such substitute Consultants. The Supplier shall not charge for the initial ten days worked by the substitute Consultants. "

Not seen this before. Will this weaken the RoS element of the contract?

QB.

Seems rather onerous. Get it changed to something like "sufficient handover to substitute staff will be provided FOC"

[QwertyBerty]

"Where substitute Consultants are provided by the Supplier, the Supplier shall provide wherever possible an overlap of up to ten working days for such substitute Consultants. The Supplier shall not charge for the initial ten days worked by the substitute Consultants. "

Not seen this before. Will this weaken the RoS element of the contract?

QB.