From Notification to Quotation: Making NEC4 Compensation Events Work

We unpack how to notify NEC4 compensation events properly, when the PM or contractor must act, and how to use project manager assumptions to price uncertainty without padding. Clear steps, examples, and pitfalls help you move from awareness to implementation without losing entitlement.

• defining compensation events and where to find them in NEC4
• why time and cost are assessed together prospectively
• who notifies what: PM‑notified vs contractor‑notified events
• the eight‑week time bar and the 61.4 decision gate
• early warnings versus compensation event notifications
• instructing quotations, proposed instructions, and alt quotes
• project manager assumptions: obligation, range setting, corrections
• using Defined Cost plus Fee versus Prices by agreement
• practical checklist before instructing quotations
• what good looks like in notices, records, and timings
• common pitfalls and how to avoid them
• Q&A on X2, deemed acceptance, access, and adjudication

Join us next time, first Monday in November at 4:30 pm, when we explore how compensation events affect time under clause 63.5

View the webinar: https://www.gatherinsights.com/en/webinars
Join the LinkedIn Group: https://www.linkedin.com/groups/2893228/

Transcript

Welcome, Series Context, Speakers

Glenn Hide 0:00

Excellent. Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to our second webinar in this what we hope will be a longstanding series of webinars. This is episode two. So episode one, we talked about early mornings and the early warning register. Episode two, we're going to be focusing on compensation events. But we're just taking the initial phase, which is notifying the compensation events and instructing quotations. So that's going to be our subject matter. So I'm Glenn Hind. I run GMH planning. We're a specialist consultancy that focuses on NEC forms of contracts. I'll let David and Ben introduce themselves as we move over. So this is our second webinar, as we said. So David, over to you and a little bit about Seeker.

CECA’s Role and Training Ecosystem

What Is A Compensation Event Under NEC4

Where CEs Live: Clauses and Options

Ben Walker 0:43

Hi there, Glenn. Thanks for for that. I'm David Allen. I'm the Executive Director for Seeker Southern. And I thank you all for joining us today. This is, as Ben uh Glenn said, the second of the NEC contract webinar series that we are we've been looking to run. And um I'd like to sort of uh thank both Glenn and Ben for helping us get to this point because I think the uh the benefits are clear to everyone where we're disseminating the details that are coming out of our training sessions into a bit more detail and allowing people to engage around uh the subject matter. Um before I go on and hand on to Glenn and Ben for them to deliver this event, I'd just like to say a few more things about Seeker, um, which ultimately is called the Civil Engineering Contractors Association, SECA. Just to let you know, we're not we're a not-for-profit member-led trade association, and we represent and promote civil engineering contracting organisations that deliver and maintain 70 to 80 percent of the mainland UK's infrastructure. We deliver against our five core pillars that you can see on the screen, and across six English trade regions and two devolved nations, that are obviously Scotland and Wales. We engage with government clients and those that influence our industry at all levels. And if you want to hear more about us or know a bit more, find out a bit more about us, please visit our website at seeker.co.uk. But just moving on a bit, under our Skills and Training Corps pillar, we deliver an extensive range of training and activity that is intended to increase the awareness of not only those involved, but also to support the sustainability of the organizations that they work for. GMH planning deliver online NEC training for us already, and we collectively produce the NEC bulletins that goes hand in hand with that training. And to reinforce that further, we've now obviously developed the webinar series, which we think should add those additional benefits. So moving on from that, I'd like to pass on to Glenn, who will take this forward. And sorry, I think it's Ben on this occasion that will be taking that forward, and he will be giving you an update on notifying compensation events and instructing quotations. Thank you. Thank you, David. Um, I think someone described us as the Anton Deck of Construction last time in the comments, which was a bit scary. But there we go. So I don't know which one I am, but anyway, I'm Ben Walker, um, a director here at Gather. Uh so we my passion um is all about keeping good records. And uh if we if we keep good records, we don't argue the facts and uh and hopefully our contracts run smoother and healthier. Uh so that's my my current uh passion. Uh prior to that, um I I founded the CMAR system and I still work as uh as um uh with it with NEC contracts themselves and on various projects. So that's me. Uh thank you very much, David. Uh let's go to episode two. So today we are looking at notifying compensation events and instructing quotations. Um, I updated the quote on the on the right-hand side here. Um, we had the late Dr. Martin Barnes quote from him from a conference uh a while ago now. Um so I thought maybe we could do this as a bit of a theme. And I like the kind of origin of words, uh etymology, and and uh compensation. Um I was uh fascinated to learn today, this morning, that comp means together and penser means to weigh and to pay. And together, uh the the Latin sort of translates to to weigh together, to balance the scales. And I thought that was I couldn't help myself, then I had to look up what claim meant. Um, and it comes from clamair, which means to cry out, to shout, and to call aloud. So maybe that sets the tone a little bit as to where compensation events perhaps differ from traditional forms of contract. So uh in a moment we're gonna have a look at what a compensation event is, and there's quite a few of them in the list, and it's important to know where that list is. Uh, it does appear in a few different places, so we'll be clear about where they are. We're then going to look at who should notify which type. There are some rules around this. So, uh, project managers, there's those that you should notify, uh, and then by difference, uh, the others um sort of contract to sort of take a closer look at that and what happens if we don't stick to the timings and those rules uh for the exploitations and instructions of quotations. Uh next, then it's going to pick up on uh two slides. Uh the first slide uh on what is a project manager's assumption um and and why they state it and when should we use them. And then we've got a little worked example which I'll take you through. Uh we'll look then at a collection of sort of other things around um instructing quotations, uh, some of the things that we ought to think about as we um put that submission, as as we put that instruction in. So things like uh what's the between the proposed instruction, um, how do we instruct quotations for those and what's the timing around those. Also, um ponder whether or not an early warning should have been given. There's a there's a starting point of a sanction in there. Uh, and then of course, alternative quotations. Um, if we've been having an early warning meeting, and perhaps there's other things we might discuss, other ways in which we might deal with the event. What good looks like, uh, a bit of a summary there on uh essentially talking together is good. Uh, but we'll look at um uh other other things we we mustn't forget. Uh common problems and solutions. So these two parts uh you'll be familiar with on the last one. Hopefully, we'll bring a bit of practical uh insight and some anecdotes, and we'll have you um warm ourselves up for a summary and questions talk to the end. Plenty of time for questions. Uh we've got the team here monitoring them, so um bring them in. Uh, I was quite impressed last time. Actually, we got people's picture and a LinkedIn picture, and I think we'll have a bit more of that. So, yeah, as many as you can. Right. Uh here we go.

Process Map: Notify, Assess, Implement

Glenn Hide 6:50

Glenn, over to you. What's the compensation event? Good question. What is a compensation event? Well, in simple terms, it's an event which, if it occurs through no fault of the contractor, entitles the contractor to change the prices, the completion date, and the key dates. Now, it's not quite as simple as to say, well, if it's not the contractor's fault, doesn't mean it's definitely a compensation event. But certainly anything that's been identified as not the contractor's risk will then be recoverable. So some things that aren't the contractor's fault, it might still be their risk. But if it's identified within the contract as not being the contractor's risk, then um it is claimable. And that claim will be looking for time and money. So we're going to be reflecting on that. So these are set pre-contract. So what is a compensation event will be set, and then these can be changed through clause 12.3. So only by agreement can changes to the contract be agreed. So they are set at tender stage. Where will we find them? Well, they are lifted throughout the contract. The most obvious place is clause 60.1. So there's 21 reasons in the standard NEC4 ECC contract in clause 60.1. There's also some other places, clients' liabilities in 80.1. There's a couple of extra ones in the auction-specific B and D when it comes to assessing bill of quantity rates. And there's a couple splattered throughout the secondary auctions. So changes in the law, for example, X2, if there is a change in the law, that will be a compensation event through X2. So that's where they are. Um 636 states that the rights of the client of the contractor to changes, the prices, the completion date, the key dates are their only rights under compensation dates. So once we've agreed the value, the impact of a compensation event, that's it. They can't then claim any other rights anywhere else throughout the contract. And then the final note there, two major changes with NEC compared to many other standard forms. So the first one is the impact on prices, the completion date, the key dates are assessed together prospectively where possible and without revisiting. So a fundamental aspect is we've got to consider time as well as cost. There's no such thing as an extension of time claim or prolongation claim. I suspect many of you have heard of these with other forms of contracts. There is no such thing. So we need to be considering time with each and every compensate event. We'll be picking up on that theme as we go through today's session. And the other point there is the assessments based on the impact upon defined cost and the resulting fee, which preserves the tender position. So by that, we mean we don't use activity schedule rates and bill of quantity rates unless by agreement. There is a clause that says by agreement the parties can use rates that are preset. Otherwise, if one party doesn't agree, then we're going to build it up using defined cost plus fee, which basically means the contractor can then price what they know about that event at that point in time at open market rates. They're not stuck with the original rates and they put uh within the contract. Now, one caveat to these sessions is always this is based on standard contract wording. So any Z clause amendments could change these rules, but based on standard contract wording, these are fundamental points we're going to be covering. Anything to add there, Ben?

Ben Walker 10:11

No, I think that's pretty thorough. I guess we could um I was talking whether to put contract data in that that second bit. Um, of course, that one of the uh compensation events at the bottom of the list there under clause 60.1 actually takes you to contract data. So if you wanted to add further objective um compensation events, uh inundation of site due to flood water above a certain level AOD or something like that, um wind above certain uh knots uh for a certain period, that all those things could be added into the contract very easily by making objective statements, something that can be objectively uh identified in the relevant part of contract data part one, and that will bring them in as compensation then. So, equally very important that you have your contract data to hand. We always say this um when you're working through your contract so that you can see whether or not any of those things have indeed been put in. Um, yeah, I I guess one small observation, Glenn. We that's only just occurred to me, but in an EC3, we used to call the early warning register the risk register. And I used to sometimes see some confusion pre-contract with people being very, very nervous about how they might prime that, thinking that, oh, if this risk is mentioned in contract data part two, it must be the contractors. And of course, we've now renamed that in an EC4 to the early warning register. In neither case does that have anything to do with allocation of risk. If we're allocating an event to either the contractor's risk or the or the client's risk, we're really doing that through either the clause 80 liabilities or um the the compensation events, wherever they may be, as Glenn's just shown you.

Glenn Hide 11:49

Well, Ben, as long as they came to episode one, they'd know that anyway.

Who Notifies What: PM vs Contractor

The Eight‑Week Time Bar Explained

Ben Walker 11:52

They would. Okay, and episode one's still available. Um so a quick slide just on process. Uh so uh those those last two points actually, um, one and two there, um particularly two, assessment based on impact-defying costs. We're gonna be unpicking that one in December's uh webinar. So um we'll be looking at the latter stages of this flow uh over the next couple of sessions. November, we'll look at time. Uh December, we're gonna look at uh price change. Um, and it really all starts with that awareness bit. So being aware what's in your contract, which risk uh is compensable, which event matter is compensable, and by difference what isn't, um, and being aware of where they are. Once you've identified it, there used to be a little bit of conversation about whether we had to go through the best practice of actually saying which type it is in your communication. I think absolutely we should, um, because we're being clear then, particularly around the time bars, we're getting clarity around whether or not a time bar does exist. More about those in a moment. So the the first sort of step once we become aware is this notification phase, and that's the really the topic which we're looking at today, um, and and the notification that leads uh to instructing a quotation. And we're gonna look at both parts of notification, so whether that's uh an event notified by the project manager and all other events by the contractor, or what happens if the contractor notifies one that the project manager should have but didn't. So that's really what we're gonna be looking at today. Um, the next step though, just to orientate ourselves, is to assess the events. Now, uh the kind of default is that we would be assessing them uh in a quotation and the contractor would submit a quotation. Um, but there is this backstop of uh assessments being made under clause 64 by the project manager, in which case they notify, they don't submit for a reply, they they notify their assessment. Um, and we'll uh be looking at uh the nature of those two things in another webinar later. Um, but it's the triggering of that initial quotation that we're interested in. 63 doesn't matter whether you're quoting under 62 as a contractor or whether you're making your own assessment under 64 as a as a project manager, both those clauses talk about the procedures and timings, the rules for how we assess, how we actually approach time and price, is dealt with in clause 63, and they're the same rules, particularly under NEC4. There used to be some slight complications in NEC3, but in NEC4, they're the same rules that you follow. Then we come to um a state, if you like, part of the process um called implementation, which isn't perhaps the the most intuitive um uh word that we could have chosen. Um it's got absolutely nothing to do with physical progress of the works. So make a make a mental note here. Implementation means commercial finality, and it occurs when we've accepted that quotation or implemented that event by giving our own assessment, by notifying our own assessment. So awareness of it, then we go on to notify assessment either in a quotation or by notifying our own assessment as PM under certain conditions. Uh, and finally we arrive at this implementation, which is kind of sacred to NEC. Um, this kind of commercial finality. Uh, only an adjudicator would could could undo that um once an event's been implemented. And we'll pick up on this just briefly when we look at uh contractor assumptions, sorry, project manager assumptions uh in in a few slides time. I think the last thing from me, Glenn, to say on this is uh notification, quotations, submitting quotations, notifying assessments, uh they're all formal communications under the contract, and as such, need to follow the rules under clause 13. So uh the first one of which has to be in a form that can be read, copied, and recorded. So um absolutely that. And be aware also of 13.7. So uh we've got to keep certain notifications separate as well. Anything else, Glenn?

PM Decision Gate and Deemed Acceptance

Glenn Hide 15:58

No, no, I think that's uh nicely very nice, simple process map, isn't it? Um that we just need to work through. Yeah. Good. So the next point is who should notify what type of compensation. So there's 21 reasons just listed in 60.1, and then we've got a few others dotted, as we've said, in the secondary options um and uh elsewhere in the client's liability section, but a majority of them uh will come from uh clause 60.1. And again, most of you will be using a cloud-based system of some kind, and when you notify any decent cloud-based system or you have them all listed in, and you're just gonna be ticking which one uh makes it one. But roughly a third of them, if we just take the list in 60.1, roughly a third the project manager is obliged to notify, and roughly two-thirds the contractor is obliged to notify. Okay, now these are examples, not all of them, um, but ones the project manager should notify. Um, under 61.1 is an instruction change in the scope, an instruction to stop or not start work, an instruction for dealing with an object of value, project manager or supervisor changes a decision, project manager certifies takeover, or the project manager notifies a correction to an assumption. So there are examples of ones the project manager is obliged to uh notify, um, and the ones the contractor is obliged to notify is basically um all of the others. So lack of access to site, Client doesn't provide something by date shown in the accepted program, physical conditions that wasn't foreseeable, and whether measurements exceeding the one in 10 year values. So these are just examples of ones that the contractor is obliged to notify. Now, later on, we will talk about as part of the notification process, we'll talk about the time bar. So the significance of whether it's one the project manager should notify or the contractor should notify um comes down to the time bar in clause 61.3, where if the contractor doesn't notify one they're obliged to notify, then they can't be time barred. Um and uh they will miss the chance to claim any time or money. We've had a very interesting point of debate. Only this morning, myself and Ben were discussing this, and some of you might have seen if you're in our NEC people LinkedIn group, and if you're not, you should be. I recommend you join. I posted a survey in there only this morning, and the question was 61.3 makes it relatively clear that uh the contractor can notify um any compensation events, but 61.1 says the project manager notifies these ones. So the question was, can the project manager notify any? So we put this into the LinkedIn group. I checked just before we came on here. We've already had a hundred sad people, sorry, a hundred people respond to the survey that's gone in today, and the room split. 66% are saying, yes, the project manager can notify any competit any compensation event, but 34% are saying, actually, no, I don't think they can. And Ben fell on the side of this morning, well, surely they can. And I was more on the side of, well, can they? Um, so we're kind of split in, is that clear? Now that we can clear up in future revisions of the contract, because I think they should be able to notify. There's a little question mark. Can the project manager notify any compensation event? So lack of access, would they notify? Because generally it's for the contractor to say if it caused them a problem. And if they don't notify within eight weeks, then the client can only assume it didn't cause them a problem.

Pre‑Quote Checklist and Alternatives

Project Manager Assumptions: Why and How

Ben Walker 19:29

Yeah, my gut feeling, Glenn, is common sense as why it doesn't preclude them from, so why not? But if the project manager was uh disinclined to give an assumption uh to work off and it was an access issue, and uh they notified it um to get the ball rolling on the quotation, then the contractor could argue, well, actually, um I've got eight weeks to let you know, in which case we could have banked a bit of uh um, although it's becoming aware of the vents. So we've got to think about the dividing gate. It's too geeky to go into now. Let's not derail this. But uh and it wasn't la it wasn't just this morning, Glaire. We've been thinking about this over the weekend. I remember having almost an hour on it on Thursday night. Yeah, it's having too much fun again on uh on ADC courses, but but it is something that could could well be tidied up, and we we can ask ourselves that question. But yeah, important uh for today to understand that the significance of getting this wrong really is that you might fall foul of a time bar as a contractor for not notifying something that you should. Uh, and um, you know, as a project manager as well, um, in fact, I'll make this point in a little bit in a few slides' time. Uh, I'd be very keen to actually be forthcoming with those events so that I can get them um sorted out and uh and get clarity either way, um, because the time bar doesn't apply, and we'll we'll Glenn will take you through that in a moment. Okay, um, just picking up on the time bar a little bit now, um, this slide perhaps uh try to make it as clear as possible on the two kind of the two scenarios. So an event that uh the project manager um is to notify, broadly mapping to the ones behind it there. Um, and then on the right hand side of the screen, um events a contractor uh would would notify by difference. So um you can see that uh uh you know, for example, a change to scope, an instruction to stop uh would be an event that the project manager should notify. Um, and that's what uh clause 61.1 says. And you can see there that the project manager has duly notified the events and instructed a quotation. There's another little thing we haven't debated yet, Glenn, around the fact that they include their instruction for the quotation in the notification, and yet 13.7 doesn't give that as an exception. So, you know, perhaps another geeky thing to discuss there. Uh, and then once those arrive, they they've been received. The the contractor has three weeks then to submit a quote. So you can see the overall timing for that would be three weeks because all of those initial correspondences are coincidental, and that starts the clock ticking on the quotation submission. In the other scenario, we've got this eight-week long period, which we talked about last time, I think. Um no doubt we'll talk about again. I think the authors had hoped we'd get that down to sort of two weeks or a week, but on legal advice, if you're going to take away somebody's entitlement, uh, it needs to be a robust timescale, uh, which my understanding is to why NEC adopted eight weeks. Um, but be careful the Z clauses that quite often gets changed. So we've got um uh 61.3, and that's where that time bar of eight weeks is mentioned. Um, but there's another little twist to the tail. Uh we've got this notification of the CE, and then we have a one-week reply period where the project manager has to take a decision under 61.4. And the purpose of this decision is to um, my understanding is to avoid the contractor spending a lot of time and money putting a quotation together if the project manager fundamentally disagrees with the event in principle. So that adds uh another week to the process, um, which was one of the reasons we're having that debate about well, does it make sense if the project manager knows it's happened, even if it is a physical condition or a weather event, does it make sense for them to just go ahead and start the process? But sticking with what the contract says for a minute, they've got up to eight weeks to notify it, and then the contractor having notified it, there's one week period where the contract where the project manager takes that decision under 61.4, yes or no, and then uh off we go to instruction. If it's yes and if it's no, uh then there's not a CE. And the project manager confirms that the prices and the completion date will not be changed. So, yeah, for three weeks versus four weeks plus that uh asterisk there, depending on how long the contract takes from awareness. Anything to add, Glenn?

Glenn Hide 23:52

No, uh well, other than your um little cloud at the top there. Umings there that they're they're not targets to take. They you should try and do them well within the timescale rather than think I've got three weeks, I'm gonna take three weeks because I can.

Ben Walker 24:09

Absolutely. And uh talks are out, right? Which we'll come on to in a minute. Yeah. Yeah.

Worked Example: Void and Volume Range

Glenn Hide 24:16

Okay. So project manager's decision. Um, where the contractor's notified a compensation event, then there's that extra step in Ben's little flow chart that he showed you there. So they would have to decide, they'd have to respond and decide obviously if they agree it is a compensation event. If they agree it is one, then they'll say yes, it is one, and they'll then instruct the contractor to provide a quotation. And then under clause 61.2, that will be an instruction to proceed with the works in the meantime. Again, we'll emphasize that point shortly. If they say no, it's not a compensation event, then they'll clarify that if it's due to something that the contractor's fault hasn't happened or not expected to happen, no effect on defined cost completion or key dates, or it's simply not a compensation event state in the contract, then they would say no, it isn't one. Um, and conclude there'll be no change to the prices there. I'm not the biggest fan on the third bullet point, if I'm honest, because some clients, project managers might think that it won't impact the defined cost. Well, they might not know. And the Kachata might say, well, actually, it will. So we've got this extra loop then that yes, it will, and we've got to go back through the loop again. So I think only when the project manager is absolutely adamant, there's no way that can lead to a defined cost or a program impact, then okay, I can understand why that's there. Um, but otherwise it's a simple yes and instruct the quote or or no, and it kind of draws, uh draws the line um in the sand, so to speak, there. So why is the extra step there? Well, to establish the project manager agrees in principle, avoids unnecessary cost preparation of the quote and some events may not impact time or or money. So the whole point there is until the project manager said it is one, the contractor's kind of wasting their time producing a quotation because if the project manager says it's not, well, then the whole quotation process is a waste of time. And I guess there the other thing the contract would have to do is beef up their argument to prove, no, no, it definitely is one, which in which case make sure you do that first time out. I'm always saying to contractors, when you notify a compensation event, project managers are creatures of habit. And once they've said no, they think they mean no. So try and make sure of the first attempt you get across why it definitely is a compensation event. Just give the evidence that proves it definitely is one and they can't say no. In terms of the project manager, they should not take longer than necessary. They should not demand estimates to cost and time. So this is the notification. Even contractors can do this uh wrongly, where they feel they've got to put cost information in the notification. No, all that goes in the notification is what the things we're talking about and why it is a compensation event. Some project managers say, Well, I need to know the cost before I can make a decision. No. The decision whether it's a compensation event is a pure test. Only if it is one will then the contractor put forward um the cost um in terms of that. Um the only other thing to say, if the project manager doesn't respond at all within the week, then the contractor can notify a separate reminder to say they've not responded. And if they didn't respond for another two weeks, then it could lead to a deemed acceptance that it is a compensation event. That just stops the project manager just not responding, and the contractor's nowhere got nowhere to go. Anything to add then on that?

Early Warnings vs Compensation Events

Proposed Instructions and Alt Quotations

What Good Looks Like: Practical Admin

Ben Walker 27:39

Uh yeah, I mean, certainly it's uh it's not a reason to say, oh, my client can't afford this, so it's not a conversation event. We don't want it. Um, that's not in the list. Um, and uh yeah, that no effect on defined cost completion of key dates. So share your view on that, Glenn. I think as well, um cooperating, talking to each other, you might come to the conclusion verbally that actually this change for the scope doesn't have any time or um price implication. Therefore, we'll just let it lie. I I don't think I would. I think as a project manager, I would probably still be notifying it along with the instruction and and therefore not leaving it to the contractor to do so because I would want a zero, a quotation to come back saying it's zero, because it's not one of the ones that could be time by. You don't want to change personnel in the contractor's team or change the personnel in the client's team, and then you find that um at the end of the project you're you're doing the as-built drawings and suddenly you know 30 odd instructions become clear that you didn't have compensation then, so nobody knows why. Um, so you know, I would be putting them to bed and administering them at zero value if that's what they are. Yeah. Um, good stuff. Uh so a little bit of a checklist, uh, not a big slide, this one, just a little checklist. Um, I mean, when we're putting quotations together, there's there's a few things that can the project manager um should be thinking about in advance of giving that instruction. One is have we discussed the approach? There might be alternative ways of doing this. Uh, and we we can't send the contractor off on a wild goose chase, neither do we want to leave it purely to them to decide whether or not um, well, this might be useful, this might not be useful, because we don't want to waste anyone's time. So, ideally, we'll have had that conversation. What about more resource, less delay, more delay, uh, less resource? Um, what's most appropriate for the project? And if we're gonna go down the route of having alternative quotations, then okay, fine. And of course, the cost of those quotations we picked up in that CE. Uh, so you know, we should be doing this sparingly. Um, but where appropriate, we should be exploring alternatives. Uh, would an assumption be appropriate? We're gonna come to that in a minute, so I'm not gonna unpick that one now, uh, but we really should be forward thinking about isn't so is an assumption appropriate. As a project manager. It's not like people have to appeal to your better nature to give one. It's not like you're being uh gracious by granting them. You're obliged to give one if the uh event is too uncertain to assess reasonably. So there is some judgment to take there, and again, better to have that judgment following a conversation or during a conversation. Um, wasn't early warning given if applicable? One thing to mention, of course, is that um if we haven't said it already, that early warning notification does not stop the clock. So when we're looking at those times before the eight-week, the the one week to notify, early warnings don't count for any of that, they're a completely different process, 45 clauses apart from conversational ends. So um, you know, giving an early warning won't stop the clock on the eight-week time bar. Uh but we also have to ask ourselves the question could we have had one? And the test is that an experienced contractor should have given. So a little bit more about that one as well in a moment. Um, this is for a proposed instruction. Uh, sometimes people are might might not be clear about the um the status of a drawing that they're sending over. So the project manager is a bit ambiguous. Hopefully, we get that clarity. I instruct a change to scope. This is you know the revised drawing, um, but sometimes it's not that clear. And so teasing out, well, what do you want me to do with this? Is this for information? Are we looking at it? If it's a proposed instruction, if it's a quote, if it's an instruction to submit a quotation for a proposed instruction, that should reference clause 65 appropriately. So this is where we would explore the commercial effects of something in advance of actually making a commitment to do it. So that you know, we need to be clear which way around we are. Um, would we be open to basing the assessment on prices? So the contract requires the agreement of the project manager and the contractor to base the assessment on the prices, to use the prices in the bill or the activity schedule as a basis for assessment. Uh, the default position is not to do that. And again, that will be the subject of December's webinar in a bit of depth. But you know, why would we spend pounds doing a quotation in defined cost to save a few pennies? If it's an area of soft landscaping and we've basically forgot one and we want something that's similar to that one, then a quick conversation might seriously smooth and accelerate the quotation process into a far simpler place. Uh, and finally, it's three weeks long enough. So um, we're going to automatically give the contractor and get three weeks to submit that quotation. Um, you know, there's no point in uh in getting something back that's rushed or poor quality if there's genuine um benefit to extending that time period. So having that conversation as well. I think in summary, all this stuff needs a bit of a conversation. And you know, I wouldn't go shopping for the ingredients for tonight's tea without a bit of a conversation because I'll, you know, I probably won't get it right. The idea that you could uh put an entire uh notification and quotation together um in a quite complex environment without having a chat about it is uh is a bit alien to me. So there we go. Anything else, Glenn?

Glenn Hide 33:15

I just think it's a great list. It's just a simple list of just going through those elements. If people did that little checklist, you know, before they moved on to the next stage, that I think it would help a lot of people.

Ben Walker 33:26

Good stuff.

Common Pitfalls and Fixes

Q&A: Adjudication, X2, Durations, Access

Glenn Hide 33:28

So part of that is the assumptions that can be stated by the project manager. So when the effects are too uncertain to reasonably forecast, then the project manager can give an assumption after discussing with the contractor that they can then give the assumption on which they should base the quotation. Now, this in our experience is underutilized. We did a survey last year as part of our NEC people conference, and uh we announced the results at the uh the conference, and you can catch the video if you haven't seen it. London videos are available um online. And one of the questions we asked was, how often do you regularly get project managers giving assumptions? And I think the answer was 19%, which means 81% project managers don't give assumptions. But equally, if you asked a survey of a lot of project managers clients side, um, do you think a chapters overcook quotations, their answer will be yes, they're far too expensive. But you're not willing to give project manager assumptions. So of course they're going to be expensive because they've got one chance to price the risk. As a project manager to give more assumptions, then you would get a more sensible, um, sensible quotation potentially from the uh from the contractor. So things to note here requirement of the project manager is not a may, it's uh is a is um rather than a must. So it is an obligation on them to do it where they think it is too uncertain and consider giving an appropriate range rather than a discredit the value, avoids further administration. So the way I'd say there is a project manager at some should probably go on it's gonna be at least this or at least this bad. For example, I had one recently where the planning consent, we don't know if it's gonna take six weeks or ten weeks to come through. Well, it's gonna be one of those. So assume at the moment it's gonna take six weeks to come through, because it's gonna be at least that. Base the conversation on that, and if it's worse than six weeks, the extra over, um we can then evaluate. So it's so much easier to add a bit rather than, oh, can we have a bit back? Um so that tends to be um what the project manager assumption um would be. This is an area where I've actually suggested to NEC what I think is an improvement, and I don't know what um viewers think today, but I've suggested that the contractor within a week can propose an assumption to a project manager, and within a further week, the project manager either accepts or doesn't accept the proposed assumption because they're just not forthcoming currently, and NEC are currently considering that, and I'm pretty confident um we will get that in. In the meantime, we can kind of do that by agreement so the contractor can suggest them and then try and get the project manager in writing to agree them. Otherwise, if they don't get them back in writing, then they just price the risk, which is where they currently are as it stands. Because implementation does mean finality, the only bit of an implemented compensation that can be revisited would be a project manager assumption. Note, not a contractor assumption. So if a contractors put their own assumption into a CE quotation, the trouble is there's nowhere that says by accepting a quote, that becomes a PM assumption, and there's nowhere that says you can revisit the contractor's assumption. So it's a really fundamental point here that contractors need to know. Whilst they're trying to be constructive and helpful, they can't just put their own assumptions into ring fence the quote, it needs to come from the project manager. Do you think that clause will work, Ben? Just adding in proposed contractors' assumptions?

Closing Notes and Next Session Preview

Ben Walker 36:52

I don't like it, Glenn. Um I I think for all the reasons you flag, we should be paying more attention to it. And I think the what is clear. And I think it's the discipline around how it's executed that perhaps could be better. So I think maybe uh we take take the same intent, but put it into things like these communication systems to prompt it a bit earlier on, and also give project managers that knowledge that it isn't a uh a may, you know, you've you've appealed to my better nature. I've I'm in a good mood. Here you go, here's an assumption. You know, this is all about making the level of risk in a forecast, in a prospective assessment, um palatable and proportionate to the known costs and the certainties around that. I fear a little bit that we could put a timing in that would I'm not completely against it, but I think putting another layer of processes in, compensations are already probably too complicated, and and actually I'd look for ways we could make them simpler. But I think having that discipline of doing it, and and actually um the short forms, the short forms, right? They they do allow contractors to put um you know assumptions in. I think the reason that we perhaps got the balance about right here, although it could be adhered to more, is that um we we the idea here isn't to remove risk altogether. And I think if I was a contractor putting quotations in, I would be inclined human nature to try and caveat as much of it as possible because that's you know that's human nature. So I think I think we don't want to move to cost reimbursable with all the extra admin of all those corrections. So I feel like it's about right. I think people might, and hopefully awareness like today will will increase people's awareness of them because I agree with you that they're not used enough and appropriately. Um yeah, and that point about commercial finality. So let's just stress that again. So exactly what Glenn just said, once it's done, it's done, only an adjudicator can undo it. And so respectful of that concept is NEC that we actually have an entirely different compensation meant to correct the difference. And as Glenn said, that that um giving a range rather than a discrete value again keeps the admin down and keeps it more akin to a risk, a sensible risk rather than a discrete value that we change. So we've got a little um uh and a big takeaway just in case we haven't said it enough. Contractors do not put assumptions or qualifications or caveats in your quotations, it's a very dangerous thing, it won't work. Um, and if we all act as stated in the contract, it's not a question of project managers not cooperating, it's it's they're not able to um probably could explore this in a post actually, Glenn. The idea that nonetheless, if the project manager, it's perhaps one for Rob Horn. Um, if the project manager is aware it's wrong, then perhaps they shouldn't be accepting it because they've got a duty to get to the right answer as well. But anyway, that's perhaps perhaps an interesting topic for next time. Um so assumptions stated by the project manager. Here's a little uh example. Um, try to come up with a picture. So the contractor notifies a compensation. They found a void um under the site somewhere that shouldn't be there. Uh, and you know, we're not not necessarily even saying um what the scope says here, it might be that the scope doesn't need to change to correct this issue. Um, and it may well be there's been an early warning meeting. Um just because a compensation has happened has been notified, there may still be some residual risk or unknown, so an early warning may still be appropriate. Anyway, here we go. Project managers uh uh the project manager um uh believes this is a is a compensation event um and instructs quotations. So uh slide needs changing slightly. It's project manager's decision is that this is a compensation event and instructs quotations under 61.4. So the contractor's notified it uh as a as a um physical condition that would be not reasonable to a price for the project manager's given that decision under 61.4 and agreed and said I instruct quotations. But the project manager here, maybe they've had a conversation with the contractor and they've seen the benefit here of stating an assumption because without an assumption, a contractor would probably be fair to come back and say, Well, it's a nice it's a million quid because how how long how long is a piece of string? We neither of us know how big this void is. So the project manager stated an assumption. Assume 80 to 120 meters cube uh will need to be pumped into the void. The contractor can then base their quotation on that assumption. It is no good for the contractor to make that assumption, it won't work, it has to be from the project manager under the under the main ECC4. Quotation is then accepted, that implements the compensation. It's not revisited, and that's one of the clauses in 66, it's not revisited if records show that uh it's being based upon too later be wrong, but it's just it is what it is. But we do find that if we are outside of that range, outside of that assumption, there is another compensation, and hopefully this is faster administer. Um, it's number 17 in the list under clause 60.1, and it's to compensate for the difference. Now, the reason I put 55 meters cubed there, hopefully I'm anticipating all of the questions that came in, um, is that not all compensation events can reduce the prices. Not all compensation events can reduce the prices. Uh, and if we have a look at clause uh is it 63.4? Yes, 63.4, we can we see that uh correction of an assumption, the same as changing to the changes to the scope, are both compensation event types that can bring about a reduction as well as an increase. So that's an important point. Not all compensation events can reduce the prices. Um, and of course, no compensation event brings uh the completion date earlier either. So um the fact that uh 55 is outside of that range, the correction would would be um perhaps a reduction in the prices. Um we don't bring up, we we don't say, oh, well, we didn't need all the time. Well the date stays where it is. Anything to add there, Glaire?

Glenn Hide 42:59

The only thing I say is the range is interesting because I'm not quite so sure of the benefit of a range for an assumption. Because if you've got a range, what's the contractor going to do? They're gonna allow for the the worst case. So they'll they'll assume it's gonna be 120 Q.

Ben Walker 43:12

So Yeah, I I think that's right. I think that's right. But I think the reason that um it's a good good topic, good, good debate, good challenge, but I think I think it's to avoid giving a discrete value. So I know people I and I and it's not that different from up to or exceeds, um, it's just obviously that range is open-ended, yeah, either side of it. But I think we're probably whether it's up to or exceeding or a or range, the point is is to bring the level of uncertainty down to a palatable and proportionate level so that the contractor can price it. But yeah, fair challenge.

Glenn Hide 43:47

Anything else? No, I think uh nope, I think that's it on that slide. God, time's marching on, isn't it? It's time flies when we're having fun here.

Ben Walker 43:55

Um together, yeah.

Glenn Hide 43:57

Yeah, we'll wrap it up. Well, yeah, let's well, I'll I'll pick a couple of these. So uh just a couple of extra clauses um just to sort of pick up on, sweeping up. 62.1 is another way of asking for quotation. So a proposed quotation, uh, Ben will talk through. Um, but 62.1 does allow for instruction for alternative quotes after discussing with the contractor first. So if it's conceivable, there might be two or three ways of dealing something, maybe different construction technique, maybe different materials. Then the contractor can provide two or three possibly quotations for the different methods. And obviously, those ones the contractor cannot proceed within the meantime. So only umes issued under 61.2 will they be proceeding. The idea is the alternative quotes go in, and then the project manager can make a decision as to which one they want to instruct. The other one we mentioned, 61.5 there, is that remember, if the contractor doesn't notify an early warning, for which they could have done, then the project manager can state that when they instruct the quotation. And what that means is if they believe the contractor could have given an early warning earlier and it's now meant they've not had the chance to mitigate for that particular element, then it could impact how a compensation event is assessed. They can't say, no, it's not a compensation event because you didn't notify an early warning, but they can state that they're going to take that into account, and then 63.7 will then allow them to assess it in that way. So we've got to make sure we do put the early warning in. Um, and then they can't say that we didn't tell them. And again, just to reiterate Ben's point earlier, notifying an early warning is nothing to do with notifying a compensation then, and it won't save you for a time bar. So you can't say, oh, well, we did put the early warning in and then we didn't notify for 10 weeks, but we put the early warning in, it's irrelevant. So they're distinctly different processes, as Ben said, 45 clauses apart. I never knew that, Ben. I uh the you're the only sad one is actually counted the gap between them, but it's an interesting point. I get the point. It is chosen distinctly far apart they are.

Ben Walker 46:03

I'm not a QS, but I can do that, math. So instructing a quotation for proposed instruction. Um, so this is really if we've got something, I always think of it as we've got luxury of time, uh, and we want to explore something in advance. Uh so it there's no default way around here, but you be aware, obviously, if you change the scope with 14.3 as a project manager, the contractor's obligation at 20.1 is to provide the works in accordance with the scope. Um, and then there's a couple more clauses we could quote 27.3 and uh 63.9 about reacting competently and promptly, so we know we have to get on with it and do it. Um, the alternative to that is to slow things down, or um, or if you've got the luxury of not been on the critical path for a particular issue, then why not explore the commercials in advance? And it might be that uh we're in a heavily regulated industry where any change goes through so much design due diligence that actually it doesn't hurt to do the commercials in advance anyway, and that will be clause 65.1. And there's a new compensation about NEC4. I say new, it's eight years in now, isn't it? NEC4, and people are still using NEC3. Um, so there's a there's a new one for if we don't use that quotation, it's cost the contractor some time and money to put it together, then we that's also a compensation that we we can um notify that uh that that quotation cost us some money to create, and uh if it's not being used, we need to be compensated for putting it together. And the last one's very straightforward, we said it before, um, and I think it's one of the questions actually. Uh typically three weeks um uh is is enough. Um, I remember from the from from the uh looking at the CMAR data on a regular basis that people were reasonably okay. Um it wasn't so much, I think, the time frame that was lacking, it was more that perhaps people needed to talk to each other a bit more. And as soon as people move into collaborative quotation workshops uh and treat the formal correspondence as that, as formality, you find that people were submitting and accepting on the same day. So, but you can extend that um through agreement. Um we'll zip through this just to give ourselves as much time as possible for questions. So um, what good looks like we've good reference material, perhaps we covered all of this already. Notified informed can be read, copied, and recorded. Keep your notifications separate to other correspondents. Don't put your early warning in the notification of the CE on the same thing. Don't rely on minutes. Um separate to early warning. Uh the verb is notified. So try and be disciplined with this. We're not alerting or raising or informing or suggesting. Um, we are notified. Uh be clear as to what type of event you are notifying and be ready to evidence it. I always wondered whether it was strictly necessary to quote the clause. Always knew it was best practice, always felt best practice. I think in this it does matter. It matters which compensation event we're uh we're notifying has happened because of that time bar and getting the clarity around one or two other things. Um remember the uh to do it if you're contractor within eight weeks, uh otherwise you can be time barred. Um, unless the project manager should have been, should have notified the event but did not. And of course, that rule is 61.1 to go and have a look at whether they should have notified it or not. Um otherwise, 61.3 is where the time bar is. Uh, discuss those timings, discuss those alternative approaches and make sure we're having regular conversations about assumptions. Um, the trouble is as well, is if we miss something like an assumption and have to reset the clock, and we go around the houses again, another two-week reply, another three-week submission, another two-week reply. The memory fades, the program becomes aged, and we've lost the opportunity to keep the momentum, and we end up doing yesterday's work tomorrow, which is a big distraction. And beware of the Z clauses, um, there are uh can be painful. Um, there's uh good examples and bad examples of Z clauses. Um, we haven't got time to look at those probably another whole session, Glenn. Great. We'll do them another day. Common problems.

Glenn Hide 50:02

The first one I can take, that's one of my big bugbears. So I see this a lot in training where the the contractor notifies a compensation event for a scope change, they've not been instructed. And it's almost sometimes the PM says, oh, just notify as a CEO, I'll agree and we're up and running. Well, no, because you've not had an instruction to change the scope. Just because you you can't notify a compensation event for something you've not been instructed. I'm always intrigued which reason you're giving, because if you do tick 60.1 brackets one, you've not had an instruction to change the scope. So, no, I would notify an early warning there to say you need to give us an instruction, otherwise uh we can't proceed. Overliance on systems is another common problem. So be aware of the contractual obligations because not all the cloud-based systems necessarily do things quite correctly. For example, some systems allow um the client to extend their own timescales without permission, and they can't do that without permission, yet some of them um uh do allow that. Project manager delaying decision on the notified uh compensation event. They think they've got to get the price before they can make a decision. Remind them that the principle is is it a CE? That's all that they are actually doing. Time bar, even off after um after an early warning. So mistakenly think in the early warning, stops the eight-week time bar. We've already said it isn't. So once an early warning is an issue, at that point you've got to notify the compensation event, and that's where the clock starts ticking. Late or missing notifications. Um, so the issue is problems identified, but not formally notified. So you need to notify them. Otherwise, again, the time bar could be missed. So we've got to get them in. Umtifying CEs without a compensation. So alternative approaches and assumptions unexplored. Discuss the approach to quotation, the appetite for risk. So, above all, talk to each other. So where there isn't assumptions, talk to each other and get the project manager's understanding. If you were to give us some assumptions, then it would help us produce the quotation in a timely manner and hopefully at a lower price that's going to be more attractive as well. Because otherwise, we're forced to price for risk.

Ben Walker 52:12

Absolutely. Nothing to add. Yeah. Um, so much of that is is sorted by picking up the phone, or if you're in a co-located office, go and have a chat. Um, do you want to line the first question up, Will? Um, we are on a 50-second time delay, I think, between saying something and it appearing live uh on uh out there on the internet. So um we'll we'll line a question up now. By the time we've done the summary, uh the first one should um should uh should come to us. Uh so I'll just do oh it's it's come quicker than that. So Glenn, we'll jump straight on to questions. I think we've done the summary. So in a conversation event, is it necessary for the dispute for the dispute adjudication board to technically demonstrate the period in dispute, or is it sufficient for it to choose between the options given by the parties? Um demonstrate period in dispute. Uh well, dispute itself requires a formal notification, doesn't it, Glenn? This is not my area of expertise, I'm afraid.

Glenn Hide 53:15

Yeah, I'm just trying to understand the question. It might be one we need to take offline. Um, is it necessary? Because obviously we're hoping it wouldn't go that far for dispute aboard, but to technically demonstrate the period in dispute, or is it sufficient for it to choose between the options given by the parties? Um, well, in any decision, they've got to make their own decision. They'll listen to the contractor's case, they'll listen to the client's case, and they will have to make a decision in accordance with the contract who they think is right. So it won't be a splint it down the middle, it will be uh either the contractor's right or the client's right, or occasionally there can be a halfway house. They'll be making decisions in accordance with the contract because that's what if it goes to an adjudicator, that's what they'll be having to do um as well.

Ben Walker 54:01

So that might be one of these offline as a more specific, but yeah, it does say just having a quick look, W3.2 uh brackets three, that the potential disputes are notified and referred um to the DAB between two to four weeks after notification of the issue to the other party. So um, yeah, maybe those timings again, all of these are formal communications, right? So they must follow uh 13.1 and in and be in that form that can be read, copied, and recorded. Uh okay. Uh does the contractor need to notify a CE under X2? Um, it would, in my mind, be one of the ones that would thaw into uh that for the contractor to notify yet, because X2 is a change in the law. It says a change in the law of the country in which the site is located is a compensation event if it occurs after the contract date. Um, if the effect of a compensation event, which is a change to the law, is to reduce the total defined cost, the prices are reduced. So uh remember 63.4, where it gives those two events that do allow the prices to reduce, isn't an exhaustive list. There are, there may well be other places, and this is one of them. Um, but so back to the question, it's not one that I would read as being uh correct me if I'm wrong, Glenn, but it doesn't feel like it's one that the project manager has triggered or the supervisor has triggered by giving an instruction. So uh I would suggest it's uh a bit more circumstantial and would be caught under 61.3, and probably safest to assume that the eight-week time bar would apply, even if you've got X2 in your contract. And of course, it's only there if X2 is taken. Would you agree, Glenn?

Glenn Hide 55:38

Uh yes, and I think that was the real question. What they could have said was, Am I time barred if I don't notify this one? I think that was the real question, uh subliminal question there. So yes, it would be one that's captured um as a uh as a time bar. Um do you find a chapter considers three weeks is enough? Well, it depends. Um can I remind QS's it's not compulsory to take three weeks for every quote equally? So some quotes will be quicker. Um so do them as quick as you can. You want to get through that process as quick as you can. So is three weeks enough? Not for some events, in which case you need to ask for an extension and give plenty of time. Don't ask for a two-week extension the day before the quotes due. If you know you're going to need longer, ask for plenty of time. So, some it will be plenty, others, it won't be enough. But remember, you quoted the whole job in four weeks. So it shouldn't necessarily be that difficult to assess a relatively small CE within three weeks. I know there's a separate tender team and all that, but remember that.

Ben Walker 56:38

I wonder whether there's the problem is actually around the other way, and particularly on option A and B, where the contractor gets paid the price for completed things and activities under A. And to get that price change, we have to go through the compensation and process. Um, yeah. So for me, one of the biggest ways you can demonstrate cooperation and that you can be trusted is to acknowledge that I know you're on option A, I've told you to extend the trainage run, I'm gonna do everything I can as soon as your quotation comes in. In fact, let me work with you on it so it's not a surprise to me that we'll get that accepted swiftly, uh, hopefully in time for the next payment application. That sort of conversation builds trust. Um, so typically I think it seems to work. Thank you, Mike. What happens if the project manager gives an instruction that would have the effect of reducing the prices but doesn't request a quotation? So um they give an instruction that um might well uh reduce the prices, so they could do a clause 14.3 omission of some of the scope, um, but they don't instruct a quotation. Um that's an interesting one. Uh I think that um they should notify a compensation event, um, and they know they're doing it, so they would instruct a quotation at that time. You remind me of a Z clause. I can't think of a reason why you wouldn't. Um there's there'd be no time bar, I don't think, on the project manager giving that instruction. It's just that they would be in breach in general, uh, so it just gets messy. Um, but you do make me think of a of a Z clause to 61.3, which removes all of the words from unless and the rest of those words. So basically says the time bar always applies and the and the contractor and they delete 61.1 so the contractor has to notify all of the events. Um and you wonder whether they shoot, you know, whether the clients sort of shoot themselves in the foot a little bit because how how does the project manager push a reduction in that case? But slightly different answer to the question you asked Glenn, do you want to actually have a good answer in the question?

Glenn Hide 58:34

Because well, I mean, I again the use of a good cloud-based system would kind of force them that this almost can't happen. So if they're instructing, then it should be almost follow-on that there is a quotation provided. Uh you'd have to think, well, why why wouldn't they? Um, why wouldn't they do it? Because this is the chance to reduce the prices. So what would tend to happen, I think, is if they don't ask for a quote, a few weeks has gone by and they said, hang on, what happened to that saving? Why haven't I got it? We haven't asked for a quotation yet. I doubt the contractor's going to rush to say, you need to ask us for a quotation for a saving.

Ben Walker 59:05

Um no, but I think the the point's really interesting, actually. Now I'm thinking a bit deeper on the question, because there's the opposite is true, isn't it? If you if you if you believe you're entitled to something and don't notify it, then the eight-week time bar occurs. Here we've got a situation where the project manager has done something which reduces the prices but doesn't ask for that, and then the contractor could be left in limbo indefinitely before eventually finding out that oh, the project manager's remembered, and suddenly my financial forecast is out the window. So it's an interesting question, actually.

Glenn Hide 59:36

Um the contractor, well, if they've given an instruction, but they have this is when the contractor will then just they'd be forced now to notify the conversation event under 61.3 to get the process. They'll be then for yeah, yeah.

Ben Walker 59:49

But but but that yes, I think I think that's fair. But it does it if they don't, then there is that potential of the project manager coming back at some point. Uh it's half past, we've got one more. Two more. Okay. We might overrun a little bit, but uh we we it doesn't matter. This is good. Lucy, uh, thank you for your question. The contractor does not submit the rounds for a section of work within the period stated in the contract, but does not submit them prior to the access date. Uh, however, the project manager does not provide access to an area by the date shown on the accepted programme. Can the project manager um I think give that decision no to a notified compensation event uh for Glenn? What do you think?

Glenn Hide 1:00:32

Well, I there's always a timing issue, isn't there? So when you've got two issues, there's always a timing issue as to, well, okay, which one came first? Now it does look as though um the RAM submission uh hasn't happened first. So the argument here will be, well, we can't give you access, but you haven't um submitted the the RAMs on time. And if the contract then requires a certain time to get the project manager to respond, then I think the contract was in a very weak uh position. If this was, I don't know, they didn't have the right materials, um, then they can argue, well, we could have expressed them in, but we didn't bother because you're not giving us access to, I think they would have a case there, but here where it is an obligation, if it is an obligation in the scope for them to have these these RAMs signed off, then potentially it does look as though that is the as the first event. So the lack of access is irrelevant because they haven't got um uh the rams um to to work to. So they could hide beyond that um in this case, I would say.

Ben Walker 1:01:33

So you could say it would be under 61.4. Um the first the first reason is that it would be a fault of the contractor that we we didn't satisfy the scope conditions for having access. Yeah.

Glenn Hide 1:01:45

Um purely hypermethical, Lucy, you'll never be late with your RAMs, obviously.

Ben Walker 1:01:51

And final question. Can compensation events be uh revisited if project manager uses 60.18 to change a previous decision?

Glenn Hide 1:02:02

Uh interesting one, isn't it? Interesting one, that one. And uh I I've been meaning to put this into LinkedIn as to say, well, has anyone ever seen this being used? Um the interesting thing is they can only increase, they can't decrease. So when they are changing a decision, there's a clause that picks up the fact that um it can only be an increase to determine prices, um, never a decrease. So they can't use it to say, actually, on reflection, I think we paid you too much money, we're gonna lower uh the quotation value. They can't use it for that. What it's really there for is if the contract is adamant it's been assessed wrong and the project manager says, Well, actually, you've got a point, not as much as you want, but there's a I didn't allow for any temporary work, so okay, you've got a point there. At least it allows the project manager to change their decision without saying, sorry, we've got to go to adjudication because that's what the contract says. So that for me is what 60.18 is there to pick up. So it's not to the the whole point about implemented CEs is they're definitive, they're full and final. Um, so they're not there to lower the prices for one.

Ben Walker 1:03:11

Certainly, there's only the one state of the contract that can do that. And and and uh you're right, that's not one. Um okay, thank you very much for the questions. Um, there were some more. I think at some point we'll pull them all and we'll do a QA paper, maybe quarterly, and uh and we'll do that. Um I'm being nudged to remind uh everybody that the uh next uh can I put the slides on? Well, the the next um event is very small. Let me make it bigger. There we go. The next event is again the first Monday of uh November at 4.30 pm, and we're gonna look at this next sort of stage in the process. Not sure whether to do time or price next, but I think we've gone with time. Uh so we'll look at how to approach um the effects of compensation events on time and that completion date, and uh and we'll do that and explore clause 63.5 in a bit of depth. Uh, we've overran my whole five minutes, terrible programme management there. Um, but uh there we go. Uh just leads me to say um if I put the speakers back, uh thank you very much uh to to uh you all for attending. Thank you for all the questions. Uh so in the in the university challenge stuff, it's bye from me. And it's goodbye from him. And it'll be goodbye from me. And I'll just say to everyone watching, you've asked some general questions and you've got some general responses. Obviously, the devil is in the detail. So some of the questions that were picked out and answered by the team were based on the information they had before them. Obviously, if don't hang your hat on that until you've taken further advice if there were other things underneath the question. Very true. It's definitely not legal advice, and uh and it and always um we can only obviously look at uh an unamended NEC uh here. But uh we'll we've got quite a few good questions now. So I think maybe Glenn, David, we could do a bit of a QA paper on on everything we've had, perhaps after the third or fourth one, and we'll put that out. Um good stuff.

Glenn Hide 1:05:11

Thank you all. Excellent. Thanks everyone. See you next month.