JCT Design and Build Contract 2024
JCT Design and Build Contract 2024 (DB 2024), Joint Contracts Tribunal
This content was produced with the help of AI and may contain mistakes or be out of date. Check clause numbers, dates and statutory details against the primary source before relying on them. Disclaimer
Why This Matters for Part 3
JCT DB 2024 is one of the most heavily tested procurement forms at Part 3 because it shifts design liability from the employer's consultants to the contractor and reshapes the architect's role. Examiners probe the relationship between Employer's Requirements and Contractor's Proposals, the design liability standard at clause 2.17, the Employer's Agent role (and how it differs from a JCT SBC Contract Administrator), the mechanics and ab initio principle of novation, and the payment notice chain that mirrors HGCRA 1996. Oral examiners frequently test whether the candidate can identify residual liability of the novated architect.
The JCT Design and Build Contract 2024 is the standard form for single-point design and build procurement. The employer issues Employer's Requirements (ER) and the contractor responds with Contractor's Proposals (CP) and a Contract Sum Analysis. Once executed, the contractor takes single-point responsibility for both design and construction. The 2024 edition realigns payment provisions with the amended HGCRA 1996, updates references to the Building Safety Act 2022 and CDM 2015, and refines the design submission procedure. There is no Contract Administrator in DB 2024: instead the Employer's Agent acts as the employer's representative, with no quasi-judicial certification duty. Architects are typically novated to the contractor at Stage 3 or 4 using the CIC Novation Agreement 2018.
Employer's Requirements and Contractor's Proposals
The Documentary Hierarchy
JCT DB 2024 Recitals; Articles; clause 1.3
The contract is built from the Recitals, the Articles, the Conditions, the Employer's Requirements (ER), the Contractor's Proposals (CP), and the Contract Sum Analysis (CSA). Where the ER and CP conflict, the Contractor's Proposals generally prevail because the contractor has reviewed the ER and offered a price for delivering them. This is a fundamental reversal of the traditional position and a frequent source of disputes if the ER are not drafted with care.
If asked who bears the risk of an ambiguity in the Employer's Requirements, the answer is the employer. The contractor has priced the CP, which take precedence on discrepancy. Robust ER drafting is the employer's first line of defence.
Design Responsibility Shift
JCT DB 2024 Article 1; Recitals
Article 1 obliges the contractor to complete the design and construct the Works in accordance with the Contract Documents. Unlike JCT SBC, the contractor assumes responsibility for the design from the point of contract execution. Any design work the employer's consultants have completed before contract becomes the contractor's responsibility once incorporated into the Employer's Requirements or the Contractor's Proposals, subject to the novation arrangements.
Contract Sum Analysis
JCT DB 2024 clause 4.5; CSA Annex
The Contract Sum Analysis breaks down the Contract Sum across elements of the Works. It is the basis for valuing interim payments and any variations (called Changes in DB 2024). The CSA is not a bill of quantities; it is provided by the contractor and reflects how they have priced their proposals. The Employer's Agent uses the CSA when assessing applications for interim payment.
Design Liability and the Contractor's Designer
Contractor's Design Documents
JCT DB 2024 clause 2.7 to 2.10; clause 2.17
The contractor must prepare and submit Contractor's Design Documents in accordance with the Design Submission Procedure at Schedule 1. The Employer's Agent reviews and returns documents as Status A (proceed), Status B (proceed subject to comments), or Status C (do not proceed, revise and resubmit). Review by the Employer's Agent does not relieve the contractor of design responsibility. The contractor remains liable for the design even if the Employer's Agent has marked the document Status A.
Design Liability Standard
JCT DB 2024 clause 2.17.1
Clause 2.17.1 sets the contractor's design liability at the level of a professional designer holding themselves out as competent in the same field: reasonable skill and care, the standard set by section 13 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982. Crucially, this is NOT a fitness for purpose obligation. The 2024 edition preserves the equivalence to professional consultancy liability. This alignment is essential for the contractor's PII to respond and for novated architects to maintain insurance.
Examiners often present a scenario where a client insists on fitness for purpose for a D&B contractor. Explain: the standard JCT DB 2024 clause 2.17.1 imposes reasonable skill and care. Amending to fitness for purpose typically voids the contractor's PII, which then unravels the novated designer's cover too.
Cap on Design Liability for Loss of Use
JCT DB 2024 clause 2.17.3
Where stated in the Contract Particulars, the contractor's liability for loss of use, loss of profit, and other consequential losses arising from a design defect is capped at a financial limit. The cap protects the contractor and its insurer but is often resisted by employers. Architects advising on DB procurement should flag whether a cap is being agreed and whether the employer is taking professional advice on its commercial implications.
The Employer's Agent
Role and Authority
JCT DB 2024 Article 3; clause 1.1 (definitions)
Article 3 names the Employer's Agent. The Employer's Agent acts on behalf of the employer in administering the contract, issuing instructions, receiving notices, and assessing applications. The Employer's Agent is the employer's representative, not an independent certifier. This distinction matters because the Employer's Agent has no quasi-judicial duty to act impartially between the parties.
Common oral exam question: 'How does the Employer's Agent under JCT DB differ from the Contract Administrator under JCT SBC?' Answer: the CA owes a duty of impartiality when certifying or deciding claims. The Employer's Agent does not. This is the single most important contrast between the two forms.
Instructions and Changes
JCT DB 2024 clause 3.5 to 3.9; clause 5.1
The Employer's Agent may issue instructions, including instructions for a Change (the DB equivalent of a Variation). Instructions must be in writing or confirmed in writing within a short period. A Change is a change to the Employer's Requirements and is valued under the Valuation Rules at clause 5.4 to 5.7. The contractor may object to a Change if it would be impossible or unreasonable, but the threshold is high.
No Certification Duty
JCT DB 2024 clause 4.7 to 4.10
Unlike a Contract Administrator under SBC, the Employer's Agent does not issue interim certificates. Instead, the contractor makes Interim Applications, the Employer's Agent (or the employer) issues a Payment Notice, and the employer pays. The Employer's Agent's role in the payment chain is to assess the application and notify the sum the employer considers due, not to certify it as an independent third party.
Novation and Pre-Novation Liability
Why Novation Happens
CIC Novation Agreement 2018; JCT DB 2024 (no internal novation clause)
Where the employer commissions design work before procuring the contractor (typical for two-stage tenders), the consultant team is usually novated to the contractor on appointment, commonly at the end of RIBA Stage 3 or during Stage 4. The Construction Industry Council 2018 Novation Agreement is the most widely used form. Post-novation, the consultant's contractual relationship is with the contractor, not the employer, and the consultant's design is brought within the contractor's single-point liability.
Ab Initio Novation
CIC Novation Agreement 2018, clause 2; case law (Blyth & Blyth v Carillion 2001)
The CIC 2018 form is an ab initio (from the beginning) novation: the contractor is treated as if it had been the consultant's client from the outset of the appointment. The consultant therefore owes the contractor the same duties of care it previously owed the employer for work already performed. The contractor may bring claims for pre-novation breaches. Blyth & Blyth v Carillion confirmed that in a switch novation (the older form) the contractor cannot claim for losses suffered by the employer pre-novation; ab initio novation closes that gap.
Know the distinction between ab initio and switch novation. The CIC 2018 form is ab initio. If the employer uses an older or bespoke switch form, the contractor's post-novation rights for pre-novation work are narrower and the architect's residual exposure to the employer survives.
Residual Liability to the Employer
Collateral Warranty or Third Party Rights Schedule; CIC Novation Agreement 2018 schedule
After novation the employer loses its direct contractual link to the architect. To preserve a route of action for breaches that affect the employer (such as defects in pre-novation design), the employer usually requires a collateral warranty or third party rights from the architect. The CIC 2018 form ordinarily includes a duty of care deed or warranty in the schedule. Architects must check what residual liability they are accepting and confirm their PII responds to claims from both the contractor and the employer.
Switch of Reporting Lines
RIBA PSC 2020 clause 7; CIC Novation Agreement 2018
Once novation completes, the architect's instructions, fee invoices, and design submissions are channelled through the contractor, not the employer. The architect must not continue to take direction from the employer in the same way. A common pitfall: the employer's project manager continues to instruct the architect informally after novation, creating duplicate and conflicting instruction lines. The architect must close this out at the novation date and confirm the new lines of authority in writing.
Payment and Notices
Interim Payment Mechanism
JCT DB 2024 clause 4.7 to 4.9
The contractor submits an Interim Application by the Interim Valuation Date stated in the Contract Particulars (typically monthly). The application states the sum the contractor considers due. The due date is 7 days after the Interim Valuation Date. The employer must serve a Payment Notice within 5 days of the due date stating the sum the employer considers due and the basis of calculation. The Final Date for Payment is 14 days after the due date.
Payment Notice and Pay Less Notice
JCT DB 2024 clause 4.9.3 to 4.9.5; HGCRA 1996 s.110A and s.111
If the employer fails to issue a Payment Notice, the contractor's Interim Application becomes the default Payment Notice and that sum is the notified sum. If the employer wishes to pay less than the notified sum, it must serve a Pay Less Notice not later than 5 days before the Final Date for Payment, specifying the sum considered due and the basis. Without a valid Pay Less Notice, the notified sum must be paid in full. This regime mirrors the requirements of HGCRA 1996 sections 110A and 111.
Memorise the timetable: due date is 7 days after the Interim Valuation Date; Payment Notice is within 5 days of due date; Pay Less Notice is at least 5 days before Final Date for Payment; Final Date for Payment is 14 days after due date. Examiners test the numbers, not just the principle.
Loss and Expense Application
JCT DB 2024 clause 4.20 to 4.21
The contractor must apply for direct loss and expense as soon as the likely effect of a Relevant Matter on regular progress becomes apparent. Relevant Matters at clause 4.21 broadly mirror those in JCT SBC: Changes, Employer's Instructions causing delay, deferment of possession, suspension for non-payment, and impediments by the employer. The application must include an initial assessment and updated assessments at monthly intervals. The Employer's Agent assesses and notifies the ascertained amount within prescribed periods.
Contractor's Right of Suspension
JCT DB 2024 clause 4.11; HGCRA 1996 s.112
If the employer fails to pay the notified sum by the Final Date for Payment, the contractor may, after giving at least 7 days' written notice, suspend performance of any or all of its obligations until payment is received. The suspension does not constitute a breach. The contractor is also entitled to a reasonable amount of costs and expenses arising from the suspension. This right derives from section 112 of HGCRA 1996 and cannot be contracted out of.
Practical Completion and Defects
Statement of Practical Completion
JCT DB 2024 clause 2.27
When the Employer's Agent considers Practical Completion has been achieved, it issues a written Statement of Practical Completion. There is no statutory definition of Practical Completion; the established case law position (Mears v Costplan Services 2019 in the Court of Appeal) is that PC requires the Works to be substantially complete and capable of being used for their intended purpose, even with minor outstanding items. Issue of the Statement triggers release of half the retention, the start of the Rectification Period, the end of the contractor's insurance obligation for the Works, and the cessation of liquidated damages.
Mears v Costplan Services Ltd 2019 EWCA Civ 502 is the current Court of Appeal authority on what PC means. Know the case and that the test is whether the Works are capable of being used for their intended purpose. Trivial defects do not prevent PC.
Rectification Period and Schedule of Defects
JCT DB 2024 clause 2.36
The Rectification Period runs from the Statement of Practical Completion for the period stated in the Contract Particulars (commonly 12 months on DB projects). During the period, the contractor must make good defects that appear and are notified by the Employer's Agent. At the end of the period the Employer's Agent issues a Schedule of Defects listing remaining defects. Once all listed defects are remedied, the Employer's Agent issues a Notice of Completion of Making Good, releasing the second half of retention.
Final Statement
JCT DB 2024 clause 2.38; clause 4.12
After making good defects and resolution of the final account, the contractor submits a Final Statement (or the employer issues an Employer's Final Statement if the contractor fails to do so). The Final Statement, once it becomes conclusive, is binding evidence of the sum due and that all matters that should have been raised before the Final Statement have been raised. Conclusivity is subject to a 28-day challenge window during which adjudication, arbitration, or litigation may be commenced.
Post-novation pressure to revise a fire engineer's design without additional fee
Scenario
You are the architect on an £8m mixed-use development (ground floor retail, 24 apartments above) procured under JCT DB 2024. Your practice was appointed by the employer at Stage 2 and novated to the contractor at the end of Stage 3 using the CIC Novation Agreement 2018. At Stage 4, building control raises a concern about the compartmentation strategy designed by the fire engineer (a sub-consultant in the design team). The contractor pressures you to coordinate a revised compartmentation layout and update your drawings 'as part of your existing scope'. The contractor refuses to pay additional fees, citing single-point responsibility and your novated appointment.
Analysis
The novated appointment, executed on the CIC 2018 ab initio form, makes the contractor your client from inception. Your scope is defined by the Schedule of Services in the original RIBA PSC 2020 appointment, now novated. Coordinating a fire strategy revision necessitated by a third party (building control) and another consultant is a change in scope, not a defect in your own design. Under RIBA PSC 2020 clause 2.3 this is properly an Additional Service requiring written agreement and an additional fee before you proceed. The contractor's reliance on JCT DB 2024 single-point design responsibility (Article 1, clause 2.17.1) is correct as against the employer, but does not alter the scope you owe the contractor under your novated PSC. The contractor cannot unilaterally widen your scope. If the fire engineer's design is defective, the contractor's recourse is against the fire engineer, not against you, unless you negligently coordinated. Maintain a contemporaneous record. Issue a written response confirming scope, offering an Additional Services fee proposal, and reserving your position on PII. Inform your PII insurer.
Outcome
You issue a written scope letter and a fee proposal for the coordination Additional Service. The contractor initially resists but agrees after seven days when its programme pressure mounts. You proceed only after receiving written acceptance. The fire engineer is separately instructed by the contractor to redesign. Your contemporaneous record protects you against any later allegation that the revision was caused by your pre-novation work.