Expert advice in minutes not days. Register it's free and ask your first question now.
  • Register
ReachBack is a free web based knowledge capture and sharing service, a help desk and library of 1000+ high-quality questions and answers, delivered and curated by a panel of industry experts.

3,970 questions

4,110 answers


33,459 users

Register its Free

Download here

NEC3 ECC: If a subcontractor goes bust does that mean a CE is valid under option A 60.1 (19): delay due to event of low likelihood? Or does 26.1 overrule such a reason by the contractor being fully responsible for subcontractors?

+1 vote
asked Mar 14, 2016 in NEC3 Time by anonymous  

1 Answer

+1 vote
It would not certainly not automatically be a reason to claim a CE under (19). It could be that the Contractor had not done their homework on them with credit checks and things like that, and therefore why should an Employer have to take on the liability of the Contractors poor choice of subcontractor?

Having said that there is nothing to stop the Contractor from notifying it as a CE and seeing if they get any sympathy from the Employer. There could be circumstances where they are more sympathetic – e.g. if the Employer “nominated” the subcontractor, or if the subcontractor was the only one the Contractor could really have gone to.

Hope this makes sense. To summarize – default position would be “no not a CE”, unless there are circumstances that make this more of the Employers liability by limiting the Contractors choice of supply chain.
answered Mar 14, 2016 by Glenn Hide (24,730 points)