Construction disputes start
in the contract.

Back-to-back provisions attempt to impose the same risk profile on the subcontractor as the contractor faces in the head contract. In practice, this often means a subcontractor accepts LD exposure, latent condition risk, and retention terms from a head contract they haven't read. The key issue is whether the back-to-back is truly mirrored (same protection and same risk) or whether it only flows down obligations without flowing down the corresponding protections.

Each Australian state and territory has a Security of Payment Act (or equivalent) that gives contractors and subcontractors a statutory right to recover progress payments via a fast-track adjudication process. The act prescribes timeframes for payment claims (usually monthly), payment schedules (typically 10-15 business days to respond), and adjudication applications. Missing any of these timeframes can forfeit your rights. Head contracts sometimes attempt to contractually modify these timeframes - with varying success.

Yes. You configure a construction playbook with rules for each of these risk areas - LD rate thresholds, EOT notification timeframes, variation approval requirements, insurance levels, and back-to-back flow-down provisions. Kontractually then checks every contract you review against those rules and flags deviations. You don't need to manually hunt through each clause every time.

Yes, but the risks differ. Head contractors need to check their obligations to the principal: LD exposure, completion date, latent conditions, and insurance requirements. Subcontractors need to check back-to-back flow-down, payment claim timeframes, variation approval processes, and whether they're accepting head contract risk they don't understand. Kontractually supports separate playbooks for head contracts and subcontracts.