A contract for each employee that cpntractor's company is supplying ?

[clanB]

Result !

Thanks to everyone for your advice, taking that advice on board I have re-engaged with the client and achieved the desired result (i.e., of 1 contract)

[SueEllen]

As d000hg said there are loads of practical i.e. security, health and safety, reasons why the people you are supplying to the client site need to be named.

I have not made myself clear here perhaps, I am not putting anyone on a client side. These individuals will work either remotely or at an office (that my company will be paying for). There is no prospect of these people ever going on the client side. I on the other hand have been attending the client site onece or twiece a month for yonks and as previously stated this has not led to me being named in the contract.
[/quote]
No you haven't if you had the answers would have probably been -

There is absolutely no need to have the remote workers named in the contract if they are not having any contact with the client either electronically, on the phone or actually physically on the client site.

What I don't follow here is large organisations have many suppliers coming on their site or otherwise and the numbers nor names of these suppliers' people are too numerous and variable to be knowns in any contract.

If brand x consultancy is sending workers to be physically on the client site to do work or even attend a meeting, before these people turn up the client is informed of their names. When the client is informed depends on what the workers are doing on the client's site and the client's security policy.

The only companies who tend not to have to name people before they go to the building are the mail service, couriers and deliveries but in the buildings I've worked in they aren't allowed to go past reception or the delivery area at the back.

I contract with Talk Talk for broadband, I don't expect to know the names of all their operatives.

No but it's now custom for every person in the organisation you are dealing with to give you a name (even if it's false) when you are dealing with them.

I get my boiler serviced every year and I get the name of the person who is going to service it (and a leaflet with their photo plus all the colleagues in the firm) before they turn up.

I can ask a sollicitor but in my experience they won't have a scooby doo on contractor or I.T business practice. I shall have to try QDOS or someone I guess

Solicitors specialise in different things. There are a few solicitors who specialise in IT business and consulting. Unfortunately the majority of them are out of the price range of small IT businesses.

[lje]

I have a direct contract with the client and I use the PCG contract. I have a master agreement and a schedule for each agreed piece of work (which often seems to be around 6 months worth). In neither of those contracts is my name mentioned. The schedule defines the daily rate but it does not define how many people will be provided or how often they will work or anything of that sort. As there is no MOO it wouldn't make sense to put these things in. I don't think I would need to change this approach for multiple people. If there are multiple rates then I would create a new schedule for each rate with an appropriate description of the work which will be done. But multiple people on one rate would be covered by a single schedule.

[clanB]

As d000hg said there are loads of practical i.e. security, health and safety, reasons why the people you are supplying to the client site need to be named.[/QUOTE]

I have not made myself clear here perhaps, I am not putting anyone on a client side. These individuals will work either remotely or at an office (that my company will be paying for). There is no prospect of these people ever going on the client side. I on the other hand have been attending the client site onece or twiece a month for yonks and as previously stated this has not led to me being named in the contract.

What I don't follow here is large organisations have many suppliers coming on their site or otherwise and the numbers nor names of these suppliers' people are too numerous and variable to be knowns in any contract. I contract with Talk Talk for broadband, I don't expect to know the names of all their operatives.

I can ask a sollicitor but in my experience they won't have a scooby doo on contractor or I.T business practice. I shall have to try QDOS or someone I guess

[clanB]

As the contract is lucrative wouldn't it be a good idea to run it by a solicitor rather than just ask unnamed people on a forum?

As d000hg said there are loads of practical i.e. security, health and safety, reasons why the people you are supplying to the client site need to be named.

Thanks for taking the time to reply.

Indeed, however I'd rather look an idiot here with "unnamed people" than with a sollicitor or worse still the client. I don't know whereabouts you are or what other contractors you work alongside if any but I don't have many people to call on in such sensitive matters and a conscensus of opinion on a forum such as this helps the likes of me alot in these circumstances.

[SueEllen]

I hope someone can help me, as though I am old-ish to contracting I am brand new to the situation of my company supplying more than 1 one person, i.e myself, in providing services to a client.

I am thinking if there is a contract for each person, and that person is in any way named on the contract, that looks like at best an agency arrangement (whcih I'm not) and at worst like a disgusied client of the end client. Contracts I have entered into in the past have never named me as an individual, only the company.

Can anyone tell me if this is a normal thing, as it sounds a bad thing to do ? On the other hand the client obviously needs to be able internally at least to marry up invoice costs etc with no. of people being supplied now its more than one, so I see their point of view on that. Surely a better way to show contractually though ?

As the contract is lucrative wouldn't it be a good idea to run it by a solicitor rather than just ask unnamed people on a forum?

As d000hg said there are loads of practical i.e. security, health and safety, reasons why the people you are supplying to the client site need to be named.

[d000hg]

I've had contracts which mention my name, not on the contract itself but a separate document.

It's reasonable IMO to provide names because IT is not a field you can send a different person in each day/week and expect them to be effective, you should be providing a consistent level of service.

You can name the initial/planned people as long as you are not bound to those names... apart from anything else the client needs to know who you are sending to sort out access to building/login/etc.

[clanB]

I hope someone can help me, as though I am old-ish to contracting I am brand new to the situation of my company supplying more than 1 one person, i.e myself, in providing services to a client.

I am thinking if there is a contract for each person, and that person is in any way named on the contract, that looks like at best an agency arrangement (whcih I'm not) and at worst like a disgusied client of the end client. Contracts I have entered into in the past have never named me as an individual, only the company.

Can anyone tell me if this is a normal thing, as it sounds a bad thing to do ? On the other hand the client obviously needs to be able internally at least to marry up invoice costs etc with no. of people being supplied now its more than one, so I see their point of view on that. Surely a better way to show contractually though ?