Corporate law Brisbane

What are Teaming Agreements?

HomePrivate: BlogCommercial lawCorporate lawWhat are Teaming Agreements?

by

reviewed by

Malcolm Burrows

Reading Time:

3–4 minutes

A teaming agreement (Teaming Agreement) is a contract between two or more parties (Team Members) that is used to regulate the rights and obligations where one of them pursues a tender or contract with a with a third party (Prime Contract).  Once the Prime Contract is entered into between the third party and Team Member # 1, a sub-contract is executed between Team Member # 1 and the other Team Member(s) to enable Team Member # 1 to discharge its obligations under the Prime Contract. 

The benefits of Teaming Agreements are that they allow parties to pool resources for a limited purpose (Permitted Purpose), without necessarily requiring the establishment of a joint venture entity – however, the Team Members could do this if they wanted to.

Common clauses in Teaming Agreements

A Teaming Agreement is flexible depending on the resources of the Team Members and the contract they hope to pursue, however, common clauses include:

  • confidentiality – neither Team Member may disclose the confidential information of the other;
  • dispute resolution – which jurisdiction’s laws govern the agreement and are there are any mandatory pre-filing dispute resolution practices, such as mediation or arbitration;
  • intellectual property – who owns the intellectual property created during the term of the Agreement, and is any intellectual property assigned or licenced from one Team Member to the other;
  • liability – neither Team Member is liable to the other in respect of any loss or damage suffered or incurred in respect of goods or services supplied pursuant to this Agreement, except to the extent that the loss or damage is caused by resources contributed by one Team Member infringing any intellectual property rights;
  • leadership – who controls the contracting process and how is communication to be regulated;
  • management – a group of representatives from each Team Member (Teaming Committee) usually meets regularly to manage the pursuit of the contractor;
  • non-circumvention – neither Party should submit or participate in independent proposals to the third party and both parties should act in good faith when discharging their obligations under the Agreement;
  • parties – the relationship between the parties is that of prime contractor and subcontractor, not that of principal and agent;
  • resource contributions – what property, human resources and financial resources are the Team Members required to provide in order to tender for the Prime Contract, and does the other Team Member have a licence to use these resources; and
  • termination – what events trigger a right to termination and how much notice (if any) is required.

Common issues with Teaming Agreements

One limitation with Teaming Agreements is that they need to be renegotiated for every new Prime Contract.  There is also the risk that one Team Member will go around or circumvent the other Team Member in order to contract directly with the third party, or that one Team Member will solicit clients or employees from the other.  This is why clear non-circumvention clauses are important elements of Teaming Agreements.

Links and further references

Cases

BNWP Enterprises Pty Ltd v Unisys Australia Ltd [1997] FCA 1– in this case the parties’ tender on the Prime Contract was successful but they were unable to conclude negotiations on a Sub-contract.  The Federal Court held that the Teaming Agreement was a contract for a joint bid, therefore the Prime Contract was subject to the parties entering into a binding Sub-contract.

Awards

Lawyer Monthly Legal Awards 2016 - Winner Joint Ventures Law Firm of the Year

Further information about Teaming Agreements and Joint Ventures

If you need assistance preparing a Teaming Agreement or a Joint Venture, please telephone me for an obligation free and confidential discussion.


Related insights about Teaming Agreements and Joint Ventures

  • WIJOAV v Goldstone – shareholder oppression in a private equity context

    WIJOAV v Goldstone – shareholder oppression in a private equity context

    The recent case of WIJOAV Services Pty Ltd v Goldstone Private Equity Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 622 (WIJOAV v Goldstone) involved a claim of shareholder oppression under section 232 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act).  The case established that a shareholder in a private equity fund may be oppressed by a co-investor where…

    Read more …

  • Federal Court dismisses continuous disclosure claim

    Federal Court dismisses continuous disclosure claim

    The Federal Court recently dismissed Australia Securities and Investment Commission’s (ASIC) claim in Australian Securities and Investment Commission v Nuix Limited [2026] FCA 490 (ASIC v Nuix) that Nuix Limited breached its obligations under section 674 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act).  Nuix Limited (Nuix) successfully contested ASIC’s allegation that it had breached…

    Read more …

  • Does your start-up meet the ESIC tax-offset criteria?

    Does your start-up meet the ESIC tax-offset criteria?

    Federal government introduced the Tax Laws Amendment (Tax Incentives for Innovation) Act 2016 (Cth) to provide tax incentives for investors in an eligible early stage innovation company (ESIC), including 20% up-front non-refundable tax offset and capital gains tax (CGT) exemption for all types of investors meeting criteria.

    Read more …

  • Valuing ESS Interests

    Valuing ESS Interests

    A company, whether listed or unlisted, can grant its employees an interest in its equity (ESS Interest), including through an employee share scheme (ESS) or employee share option plan (ESOP).  There are restrictions contained in both the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act) and Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (Cth) (ITAA) that determine the price…

    Read more …

  • ESS vs ESOP – what’s the difference?

    ESS vs ESOP – what’s the difference?

    Employee share schemes (ESS) and employee share option plans (ESOP) are commonly used by corporations to incentivise employees and align performance with company growth by providing them with an interest in the company.  While the terms are often used interchangeably, they have distinct legal and structural differences under Australian law.  This article explains the key…

    Read more …

  • Disputed ESOP – Selak v National Tiles Co Pty Ltd

    Disputed ESOP – Selak v National Tiles Co Pty Ltd

    In the case of Selak v National Tiles, the Vic Supreme Court considered whether a company breached an option agreement governed by the terms of an Employee Share Option Plan (ESOP) by requiring an option holder to execute an undisclosed shareholders’ agreement as a condition of exercising vested options.  

    Read more …

  • Can a unit trust be wound up by the oppression remedies

    Can a unit trust be wound up by the oppression remedies

    The Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corps Act) grants the Courts the power to award remedies under section 233, specifically designed to address situations of oppression within corporate entities under section 232.  These remedies, also known as the “Oppression Remedies”, aim to resolve situations where a company’s conduct unfairly prejudices its members or shareholders.  While primarily…

    Read more …

  • Directors’ obligations to comply with Accounting Standards

    Directors’ obligations to comply with Accounting Standards

    Directors are personally liable for ensuring their company operates in accordance with corporate governance and accounting standards.  Obligations contained in part 2M.2 and 2M.3 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act) outline obligations for companies to keep financial records and prepare annual financial and director’s reports.  Sections 180 and 344 of the Corporations Act…

    Read more …

  • Accounting standards matter: the company’s obligation

    Accounting standards matter: the company’s obligation

    Australian accounting standards (Accounting Standards) are often considered solely the domain of auditors and accountants.  However, they are a crucial aspect of corporate law and governance in Australia.  For directors, officers, and their professional advisers, the key issue is not the technical details of the Accounting Standards, but rather their legal enforceability.  A failure to…

    Read more …


Posted

in

,
Send this to a friend