About to sign? Flag every payment risk, liability trap, and unfair clause before you put pen to paper — in 7 minutes, not 7 hours.
LazyQS reads the full subcontract, identifies the terms that will cost you money at delivery, and gives you clause-level recommendations to push back on before signing.
No credit card required. First review is free.
The main contractor wants a signed subcontract back by end of week. It is 47 pages. Some of it is standard JCT. Some of it is not.
A proper legal review costs £1,200 and takes 3 days. Your MD wants to start on site next week. The pressure to sign now is real.
Clause 4.8 in the standard form is fine. The bespoke amendment in Schedule 8 that overwrites it is not. It is easy to miss.
45-day assessment periods. Retention with no release trigger. Set-off rights that override your statutory payment entitlement. Signed into for three years.
An uncapped LAD provision. A fitness-for-purpose warranty. Design liability you did not price. These are not theoretical risks. They are the ones that put firms under.
Upload. Review. Negotiate. In that order.
PDF, DOCX — however the main contractor sent it. Upload the main conditions, any schedules, and bespoke amendments. LazyQS reads all of them together.
LazyQS analyses payment terms, liability provisions, LAD clauses, design responsibility, insurance requirements, and termination rights. It cross-references bespoke amendments against the standard form to identify where risk has been shifted.
A structured list of risks with page and clause references, risk ratings, and recommended contract amendments. Takes 7 minutes. Export as PDF or Excel to share with your solicitor or MD.
The same things a construction solicitor would charge you £1,200 to review — in 7 minutes.
Assessment period start dates that defeat the Housing Grants Act. Pay-when-paid provisions. Retention clauses with no release obligation. Set-off rights without proper notice requirements.
Missing LAD caps, no maximum aggregate liability figure, sectional completion obligations that create multiple LAD triggers — and the programme dates that make them impossible to avoid.
Fitness-for-purpose obligations hidden in performance specification requirements. Novation clauses. Employer's design that becomes your liability at practical completion.
Professional indemnity obligations for work that does not require a PI policy. Third-party liability limits that exceed market norms. Requirements to maintain insurance for 12 years post-completion.
Main-contractor termination rights with no equivalent right for you. Notice periods that are impossible to comply with. Consequences of termination that go beyond loss of profit.
Entire main-contract risk incorporated by reference. Extension of time provisions that match the main contract obligation but give you no corresponding entitlement. Float owned by the main contractor.
The form of contract dictates where the risk sits. Understanding the differences before you sign means you know what you are actually agreeing to.
Payment
Interim valuations at agreed intervals. Application for payment triggers the Housing Grants Act notice chain.
Risk allocation
Standard form is relatively balanced. Risk is shifted by bespoke amendments — often buried in schedules that override the printed conditions.
Common pitfalls
Uncapped LADs in Schedule 2. Design liability buried in the employer’s requirements. Retention with no release trigger.
What LazyQS flags
Every bespoke amendment against the standard JCT clause. Fitness-for-purpose language. LAD caps. Assessment period arithmetic.
Payment
Option-dependent. Option A is lump sum; Option C is target cost. Assessment dates are fixed in contract data — missing them forfeits entitlement.
Risk allocation
Risk allocated through compensation events. Standard allocation is broadly fair. Z clauses and unusual option combinations can fundamentally alter recovery.
Common pitfalls
Missing the 8-week CE notification window. Z clauses that remove defined cost recovery or transfer float. Programme obligations that create LAD triggers.
What LazyQS flags
Z clause deviations from standard NEC risk allocation. CE notification obligations and windows. Programme requirements and non-compliance consequences.
Payment
Entirely contract-specific. Payment provisions can be structured to minimise your practical entitlement through notice requirements and assessment timing.
Risk allocation
Drafted in the main contractor’s interest. Back-to-back risk transfer from the main contract is the default position. No standard form baseline.
Common pitfalls
Entire main-contract risk incorporated by reference. Unlimited set-off rights. Termination at will with minimal notice. No loss of profit recovery.
What LazyQS flags
Every material deviation from market-standard risk allocation. Clauses incorporating unknown main-contract terms. Termination rights and pay-when-paid clauses.
The risks that cost UK subcontractors money when missed at signing. Every example below was flagged by LazyQS.
JCT Subcontract
HIGH RISK£1.2M fit-out package
Risk identified
Clause 4.8 bespoke amendment removed the liquidated damages cap that appears in the standard JCT conditions, leaving LAD exposure uncapped
Potential exposure
£180,000+ in uncapped LADs on a 12-week programme with sectional completion obligations
Flagged as HIGH RISK with recommended amendment to reinstate cap at 5% of subcontract value
Bespoke subcontract
HIGH RISK£560K groundworks package
Risk identified
Clause 14.3 incorporated the entire main contract by reference, including design liability obligations the subcontractor had not priced
Potential exposure
Unlimited design liability for temporary works not reflected in the subcontract price
Flagged as HIGH RISK with recommended qualification to exclude design liability from the subcontract scope
JCT with bespoke amendments
HIGH RISK£890K steelwork
Risk identified
Payment assessment period set at 45 days from the assessment date, defeating the 30-day maximum under the Housing Grants Act
Potential exposure
Systematic payment delays of 15 days per valuation over 18 months — £40,000+ cash flow impact
Flagged as HIGH RISK with recommended amendment to reduce assessment period to 28 days
About construction contract review software
LazyQS reviews JCT subcontracts, NEC subcontracts, bespoke main-contractor subcontracts, letters of intent, and construction services agreements. If it is a construction contract under the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, we can review it.
Most construction contract reviews complete in around 7 minutes. You will receive an email when the review is ready. Larger or more complex contracts with many bespoke amendments can take a little longer.
LazyQS flags pay-when-paid provisions, assessment period manipulation, missing payment notice obligations, retention clauses with no clear release mechanism, set-off rights that bypass the Housing Grants Act, and any term that defeats your statutory right to payment.
Yes. For each risk flagged, LazyQS suggests a recommended amendment or qualification. This gives you a starting point for negotiation with the main contractor, without needing to pay a solicitor for a first pass.
No. LazyQS is a commercial risk review tool that helps QSs and subcontractors identify and understand contract risks quickly. For contracts with significant financial exposure or complex bespoke conditions, we recommend using LazyQS output as a brief for a construction solicitor — it will save them time and save you money.
Upload your subcontract now and get a full risk analysis in 7 minutes. First review is free.
Upload your contract for free review