'Ownership' of client systems

[zcacogp]

Chaps,

A slightly odd question this one ... bear with me.

I am a contract consultant, giving specialist advice in a particular area of business. I am currently on a long-ish term contract with a government client, who are implementing a new system to do the sort of stuff that I consult on. I am here to advise on the implementation of the system - that's to say, advise on the business aspects of this system, not the technical aspects.

New system goes live sometime early September.

I have found out today that once it is live, I am highly likely to be the 'business owner' of it. This means that if a change is to be made to the system, I am the person who has the final say on whether it should happen, the desirability of it and whether it should go ahead. (Note - this is different to the 'Technical Owner', who is the guy who will be kicked if it falls over.)

Total cost of project to the client is around £10 million (NOT just my fees, I hasten to add!)

Now, I am slightly uneasy about this. The functioning of the role is not the problem - I would fully expect to be the principal point of advice for whether or not to accept changes. However, there is a difference between giving advice to someone who is fulfilling the role, and actually fulfilling the role itself. My concerns are therefore around professional distance and the fact that they are asking an external consultant to do a job which (in my book) really ought to be done by a member of their own staff. Part of the problem is that they don't have a member of staff to do this, but I would expect them to find someone to stand in, pretend, be the 'name in the frame' etc etc etc. (They should be recruiting for a suitable person, but progress on this is slow.)

I also expect there to be an IR35 issue at stake here (I will start to look more and more like an employee - something I actively avoid doing).

Does anyone have any helpful observations? (If nothing else, some recommendations on where to get good professional liability insurance!)

Thanks ...


Oli.

[NoelWatson]

Oli,

I use these

http://www.contractoruk.com/insurance/index.html

http://www.caunceohara.co.uk/

[plasticpig]

I would be worried in that situation as well. Indemnity insurance is a must. I obviously dont know the ins and outs of your situation but my initial reaction is that you are being set up to take the fall if the shit hits the fan. In the autopsy afterwards all fingers can point to the external consultant who can be kicked out with relative ease and the guilty can breathe a sigh of relief.

[zcacogp]

plasticpig said:

I would be worried in that situation as well. Indemnity insurance is a must. I obviously dont know the ins and outs of your situation but my initial reaction is that you are being set up to take the fall if the shit hits the fan. In the autopsy afterwards all fingers can point to the external consultant who can be kicked out with relative ease and the guilty can breathe a sigh of relief.

That is a valid point, and a good one.

As it is, although I am not saying this won't happen, it is unlikely - I think that they are not doing it maliciously, more that they really don't have anyone else to do the job and are turning to an expert in the particular subject area (which is what I have been employed for.) It's the emphasis and boundaries that I am more concerned about.

Having said that, thanks for your concern. And thanks for the comments about indemnity insurance. I think that's a MUST.


Oli.