Expert advice in minutes not days. Register it's free and ask your first question now.
  • Register
ReachBack is our free community help desk for construction professionals. A library of high-quality questions from real users with answers delivered and curated by a panel of industry experts.

4,050 questions

4,195 answers

430 comments

33,585 users

Register its Free

Download here

NEC3 ECC: Option B, Compensation Events resulting in BQ Items becoming redundant

0 votes
115 views
Looking for guidance in the correct method to evaluate a compensation event arising on a project.

Original BofQ identified material to be excavated and deposited into a number of different locations. Each deposition area measured as a separate item within the BQ. No information to check whether this quantity split was correct (other than BQ)

Due to access difficulties, Employer unable to provide access to the intended deposition locations and instead designates all material to go to a new location (further away and much more congested haul) for which no BQ Item exists.

Correct way to evaluate please??

a) Value the operation of taking the material to the new location at defined cost + Fee and create a new BQ Item with all other original items being quantified as zero as the quantity of work undertaken of these items is zero

or

b) Value the cost of the new operation using defined cost + fee and then assess the value of the original operations had they been undertaken at defined cost + Fee to arrive at the change in defined cost arising from the CE. If using this method would you then simply create an additional BQ item as an E.O item and measure the other items as if they had been undertaken or would you just create a whole new single item that equates in value to the original BQ values + the EO cost of the change and then zero the original BQ items.

or

c) as per b) above but create an EO item against each of the original BQ items to assess the increase in defined cost + fee of each changed deposition location

Seems a simple situation, but the mechanics of valuing and then inserting in the BQ seem a bit more complex

Your help would very much be be appreciated
asked Jan 13 in NEC3 and NEC4 Contracts by Jonty Monk  
   

1 Answer

0 votes
The overall intention of assessing a compensation event is that the Contractor is no worse or better position and, in simple terms, should be based on the Defined Cost + Fee of Providing the works had the CE not occurred v the Defined Cost + Fee of Providing the works including the CE

Of the options outlined above, option a) may not take account of the Defined Cost + Fee unless both the Contractor and PM agree that the bill rates are representative of Defined Cost + Fee.

Both of options b) and c) are correct in that they establish the change in Defined Cost + Fee. I believe either options are an acceptable way of introducing the CE in to the BoQ but personally would introduce a new single item as outlined in option b).
answered Mar 12 by dave bates (3,930 points)