The short version: whether you're an operator, a main contractor, or a subcontractor, if the protections you're relying on haven't actually been incorporated properly into the contract below yours, you're the one left exposed when things go wrong, not whoever actually failed to deliver.
Picture this: somewhere down the chain, a subcontractor fails to deliver, badly. The client comes after the main contractor, because the main contractor remains strictly liable to the client for work it didn't perform itself. The main contractor then comes after its subcontractor, who comes after whoever it relied on beneath it. Wherever you sit in that chain, if someone below you fails to deliver, you're the one left holding the exposure until you can push it back down.
Here's the practical problem: large projects can involve dozens of subcontractors and suppliers, and clients simply don’t have the resources or appetite to manage that many direct relationships. Subcontracting solves this by letting a main contractor delegate performance of its obligations to a third party, while the client still deals with just one contractually responsible party for the whole project.
The stakes: multiple contracts, one gap
This is critical on large capital projects, which are rarely delivered under a single contract. Operators typically split the scope into multiple EPC packages, each with its own head contract, and often procure long lead items directly before assigning them to the relevant contractor once appointed. Every package, and every assigned order, needs its own back-to-back and flow-down analysis, or liability and warranty positions can fall straight into the gap between contracts.
Back-to-back vs flow-down: two different things
"Back-to-back” and “flow-down” get used interchangeably, but they're not the same thing. Back-to-back is the goal: structuring the subcontract so the subcontractor's obligations mirror the main contract for the corresponding scope. Flow-down is one tool for getting there: a clause binding the subcontractor to the relevant main contract terms, by cross-reference or by restating them directly.
In practice, back-to-back sits on a spectrum: a full replica contract at one end, a standard subcontract form with only the essentials flowed down at the other. Full replication gives more certainty but takes longer to negotiate; targeted flow-down is quicker, but only works if you've correctly identified in advance which terms will matter when something goes wrong, whether that's termination, insolvency, a major delay claim, or a safety incident. A flow-down clause is only as strong as the disaster it was actually drafted to survive.
Either way, the two contracts stay legally separate. There's no privity between client and subcontractor. The client generally can't enforce the head contract against the subcontractor directly (absent collateral warranties).
Why no one in the chain can fully offload risk
Even with a well-drafted back-to-back subcontract, certain risks and duties usually can’t be fully offloaded, such as:
- No direct claim route - the client sues the main contractor, not the subcontractor, leaving the main contractor to chase the subcontractor separately, potentially under different terms.
- Non-delegable safety duties – certain safety, oversight and management obligations may stay with the party responsible, regardless of what the contract says. Depending on the regulatory regime, some of these duties simply cannot be delegated or contracted away.
- Insolvency risk – a well-drafted recovery right is only as good as the subcontractor’s ability to pay; if it collapses, the main contractor becomes an unsecured creditor while its obligations to the client remain in full.
- Delay and reputational exposure – the main contractor can face project-wide delay claims and reputational fallout even when a subcontractor caused the problem.
On the client side of major offshore construction projects, this tension plays out a little differently. Some EPCIC style forms skip full back-to-back drafting altogether, mandating only a handful of flow-down protections and otherwise simply requiring subcontracts on terms “similar to” the main contract. The rest of the operator’s protection comes from making the main contractor unconditionally liable for subcontractor performance, regardless of what the subcontract actually says.
That’s often a sensible allocation, but it creates a blind spot. Operators typically only see the subcontract after signature, by which point any misalignment is already locked in. An operator can assume its required protections have been flowed down as instructed, only to discover, when it matters, that they were never properly incorporated at all. The operator is just as stuck as anyone else in the chain when that happens.
That blind spot isn't just theoretical. Andy was involved in a termination where the operator took the remaining work in-house, assuming the full suite of subcontracts. The light-touch flow-down approach had worked well enough day-to-day, but it made the takeover far harder than it needed to be: terms didn't match the head contract, assignment provisions had never been tested, and straightforward issues took months to untangle. The lesson: work out, at the drafting stage, what you'll actually need in a worst-case scenario. A provision that looks fine on paper can get very expensive if no one has stress-tested it.
These principles carry particular weight for operators and service companies given the scale and safety-critical nature of offshore work, but they aren't limited to oil and gas. The same discipline applies anywhere subcontracting is involved: construction, IT outsourcing, facilities management, defence, shipbuilding. Whether it's a subcontract that doesn't mirror the head contract, or assignment provisions that have never been tested, everyone in the chain is exposed if it hasn't been stress-tested in advance.
Building flow-down into your contracting strategy
Flow-down should be core to your contracting strategy from day one, not an afterthought bolted on once the ink is dry. For operators and clients, that starts with being crystal clear, before bids are even invited, on exactly what needs to pass down the chain, and building that into standard-form templates rather than ad hoc negotiation. For contractors and service companies, the equivalent discipline is a flow-down matrix: a standing assessment of which terms need to pass down for each piece of work, and whether the subcontract genuinely achieves that.
That exercise takes time, and it's rarely welcome during a busy tender process. But getting it wrong almost always costs more than getting it right at drafting stage, and most people only find out which one happened when a termination, insolvency or major claim forces everyone to read the small print.
Have you faced flow-down challenges, from the operator, main contractor, or service company side? We’d love to hear about it.
Contributors
Solicitor
Partner
