Principles for working together, framework agreement, etc.

Personally I feel that it would be a mistake for CoTech itself to sell work. One of the main purposes (as I perceive it) is to spread risk which is not done well if our umbrella group takes on risk.

I'm also very keen to minimise bureaucracy and it seems that deciding which companies to include or apportion work to on a tender will require some sort of central committee or other life-sucking structure.

Agree about the cartel/anti-competitive practices thing. I've updated the document to say "Co-operation over competition - CoTech members should (where tendering processes allow) investigate the possibility of submitting joint/consortium tenders rather than pitching against each other. "

I think the document puts in writing how members would act 'in good faith' - i.e. co-operatively. A good attempt at staving off potential problems.

From what I understand I think CoTech probably shouldn't go for selling work itself - it's more of an association.

I was a bit unclear about the 2nd section - Non-exploitation - Are the 3 options listed in order of, say, preference? Eg. If 1st cannot be achieved then go to the 2nd etc? (Referring to: "... Where a surplus is generated it should be controlled and spent
- by the workers that generated it
- by mutual agreement of the CoTech members
- collectively through the CoTech CoBudget")

Slow on the uptake on this, but the doc you've created @harryrobbins is a really great start. I agree, in principle, with everything you've written but would love the chance to delve deeper into it through face-to-face discussion as I find that easier than asynchronously.
You have also, in the past, raised the question of day rates - is this something that would be included here? Pondering this question at the moment as we are trying to team up on a couple of projects but this is a sticking point and could make cooperation between certain coops difficult.