JCT Minor Works vs Intermediate: Which Contract and When

If you've been in construction long enough, you've seen it happen. A project that should have been run under an Intermediate Building Contract gets shoehorned into Minor Works because someone — usually the client's agent — wanted to keep things "simple." Six months later, everyone's arguing about sectional completion, named subcontractors, and interim payment provisions that the Minor Works form was never designed to handle.

I've been on both sides of this. As a QS, as a contractor, and as someone who's spent too many hours in adjudication because the wrong contract was picked at the start.

The Basic Distinction

The JCT suite gives you a range of contracts scaled to project complexity. For the kind of work most small-to-medium contractors deal with — commercial fit-outs, refurbishments, office alterations — the choice usually comes down to two:

JCT Minor Works Building Contract (MW) is designed for straightforward projects of simple content. The 2024 edition follows the same principles as earlier versions: it's short, it's relatively simple, and it assumes the work is uncomplicated.

JCT Intermediate Building Contract (IC) sits between Minor Works and the full Standard Building Contract. It's for projects that need more detailed provisions but don't warrant the full SBC machinery. It handles named subcontractors, has more sophisticated variation and extension of time provisions, and deals better with complex interim payment arrangements.

When Minor Works Works

Minor Works is appropriate when:

The work is genuinely simple in scope and content. A single-trade refurbishment, a straightforward office fit-out with no complex M&E, basic alteration works. The kind of project where there aren't many subcontract packages and the programme is measured in weeks rather than months.

There's no requirement for named or nominated subcontractors. MW doesn't have proper provisions for this. If the client or architect wants to name specific subcontractors, you're already pushing beyond what the form is designed for.

Sectional completion isn't needed. MW provides for a single completion date. If the client needs the ground floor finished before the first floor, or wants to take possession of different areas at different times, MW can't handle that without significant amendment.

The value is proportionate. There's no hard rule, but MW is generally considered suitable for projects up to around £500k-£750k. Beyond that, the lack of detailed provisions starts to become a problem.

The payment provisions are straightforward. MW uses a simple interim payment mechanism with architect's certificates at intervals stated in the contract. If you need more detailed valuation provisions — particularly around variations, dayworks, or fluctuations — MW is too thin.

When You Need Intermediate

Move to IC when:

The project involves multiple trades and subcontract packages. A 15-week fit-out with strip-out, partitioning, M&E, ceilings, flooring, decoration, and joinery is not "simple content" even if the total value is modest. The coordination required, the interface management, the sequencing — all of this warrants a more robust contract.

Named subcontractors are involved. IC has specific provisions (Schedule 2) for named subcontractors. If the client's design team has specified particular specialist firms, IC handles this properly. Trying to bolt naming provisions onto MW through amendments usually creates more problems than it solves.

Sectional completion is required. IC provides for sectional completion through its supplement. If the client needs to occupy or use parts of the works before the whole project is finished, this is essential.

The programme is complex. Any project where the critical path isn't obvious, where there are significant interdependencies between trades, or where phasing is required should be on IC as a minimum.

The value exceeds £500k. This isn't a hard rule, but once you're above half a million, the commercial exposure for both parties justifies the more detailed provisions IC provides. Particularly around interim valuations, variations, loss and expense, and extension of time.

The Grey Area

The reality is that most of the projects I deal with — commercial fit-outs in the £500k to £5m range — sit squarely in IC territory. But I regularly see MW being used on projects worth £1m or more, usually because:

Someone thinks "simpler contract" means "less hassle." It doesn't. A simpler contract means fewer provisions to deal with the problems that inevitably arise. When those problems hit, you end up relying on implied terms, case law, and whatever you can negotiate on the fly. That's more hassle, not less.

The client's agent hasn't done fit-out work before. Architects who primarily work on new-build housing sometimes default to MW because it's what they know. They don't appreciate that a multi-trade commercial fit-out has different requirements.

Nobody thought about it early enough. The contract form gets decided at tender stage as an afterthought, rather than being considered as part of the procurement strategy.

Practical Implications

Here are the areas where the choice most often bites:

Extensions of time. MW has a very simple EOT provision — the architect gives a reasonable extension. IC has a more detailed procedure with specified relevant events, contractor notification requirements, and clearer timelines. If you're running a complex programme with multiple potential delay events, MW's provisions are inadequate.

Variations. MW's variation provisions are basic. The architect issues instructions, the contractor carries them out, and the value is agreed or determined. IC provides more detailed valuation rules, references to the contract bills or specification, and clearer mechanisms for dealing with the cost consequences of variations that affect other work.

Payment. Under MW, the architect certifies interim payments. Under IC, the contractor submits an interim application and the architect certifies against it. This might sound like a minor difference, but the IC approach gives the contractor much more control over the payment process and provides clearer grounds for dispute if certificates are issued late or undervalue the work.

Liquidated damages. Both forms provide for liquidated damages, but IC's provisions around sectional completion and partial possession give much more flexibility.

My Recommendation

For the kind of work most of our clients do — commercial fit-out and refurbishment in the £500k to £5m range — IC should be the default. It's not significantly more complex to administer than MW, but it gives you proper provisions for the situations that actually arise on these projects.

Save MW for genuinely simple works: single-trade jobs, small alterations, projects where the whole scope can be described in a few pages and the programme is eight weeks or less.

And if someone suggests using MW on a multi-million pound project because it's "simpler" — push back. The simplicity you gain at contract stage, you'll pay for three times over during the project and in the final account.

Getting It Right From The Start

This is exactly the kind of decision that sets the tone for an entire project. Get the contract right and you've got a framework for dealing with everything that comes up. Get it wrong and you're building problems into the job from day one.

At Construction AI, our financial module is built around the practical realities of contract administration — not the theory. Whether you're running a project on MW or IC, having a system that tracks payment applications, variations, and correspondence against the contract provisions makes the whole process more manageable. Combined with the project management tools for drawings, RFIs, and correspondence, everything stays connected.