The best MTAC partners never stop earning their place

Long-term Maintenance, Turnaround and Construction (MTAC) contracts occupy a unique position in our industry. Unlike a major capital project, they become woven into the day-to-day operation of an asset. Over time, contractors build deep operational knowledge, understand maintenance history, develop trusted relationships with site teams and learn the countless nuances that never appear in an operating manual.

That experience is hugely valuable, which is why operators are understandably cautious about changing contractor. Replacing an incumbent introduces risk and demands careful planning to ensure operational continuity.

But there's another question that deserves equal attention.

The issue isn't whether an operator should replace its incumbent. It's whether the contract itself is still improving.

Some of the strongest MTAC partnerships have lasted decades because the contractor has continued to evolve alongside the asset. Others have gradually become comfortable, with processes growing more complex, planning becoming routine and opportunities for improvement slipping by because "that's how we've always done it".

Longevity should never be confused with progress.

I've often said that the hardest MTAC contract to win isn't the one you're bidding for, it's the one you've already got.

Winning work demands fresh thinking and energy. Retaining it demands something even harder, the discipline to challenge your own ways of working long after mobilisation is complete. The day an incumbent believes operational familiarity alone is enough is the day they become vulnerable, not because another contractor is necessarily better, but because they've stopped asking how they can become better themselves.

At Kent, we've experienced both sides of that equation. We've successfully transitioned complex maintenance programmes from long-established incumbents, and we've also built long-term partnerships that continue to grow stronger year after year. Both experiences have reinforced the same lesson. Clients don't value longevity for its own sake. They value partners who continue to make their operations safer, more efficient and more predictable.

That doesn't happen through annual continuous improvement workshops. It happens when improvement is built into the operating model.

On one long-term maintenance programme in the Middle East, we rethought the way campaign work was planned, grouping activities around logistics, offshore readiness and campaign priorities rather than treating each task in isolation. The result wasn't one dramatic innovation. It was a series of incremental improvements that reduced unnecessary mobilisation, improved workforce utilisation and created a more predictable delivery rhythm for the client. This takes trust from both Client and Contractor to evolve the contract service offering to take advantage of efficiencies and improved ways of doing things.

That's how mature MTAC contracts create value.

The biggest gains rarely come from breakthrough technology. They come from eliminating friction, improving planning, deploying multi-skilled teams more effectively, reducing waiting time and continuously refining the way work is executed. Long-term contracts also create the time and certainty needed to develop local talent, grow capable local businesses and build stronger relationships with the communities that support operations. Individually, these improvements may seem modest. Over the life of a long-term contract, they can fundamentally improve productivity, reliability and operating cost. They also create a more resilient workforce, stronger supply chains and lasting value beyond the asset itself.

Technology plays an important role, but only when it enables better decisions. Better visibility of work order maturity, integrated planning and real-time performance data allow delivery teams to identify problems earlier, optimise resources more effectively and make better operational decisions before work reaches the offshore environment.

Of course, there are times when bringing in a new contractor is the right decision. Fresh thinking can unlock new value, but only if transition is managed with the same discipline as execution. On a recent brownfield programme in the Middle East, we transitioned from a long-standing incumbent without disrupting production or compromising operational continuity. Success wasn't measured by the speed of mobilisation, but by the fact that the client experienced continuity while the delivery organisation changed behind the scenes.

Ultimately, this isn't really a debate about incumbents and challengers.

It's about expectations.

Operators should expect more than safe delivery and operational stability. They should expect their MTAC partner to question established practices, introduce new ideas and deliver measurable improvements throughout the life of the contract. Equally, contractors should expect to keep earning their place. Past performance builds trust, but it should never breed complacency.

The most successful MTAC partnerships combine the operational knowledge that comes from years of experience with the curiosity and ambition normally associated with winning new work. They don't wait for the next tender to start thinking differently because continuous improvement isn't something they do when they're under pressure. It's simply how they operate.

In the end, clients don't remember who held the contract the longest.

They remember who made their asset perform better.