Expert advice in minutes not days. Register it's free and ask your first question now.
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.

4,310 questions

4,511 answers

592 comments

34,767 users

Register its Free

Download here

NEC ECC: Temporary Traffic Management - Security of Works Areas

+1 vote
60 views
We have a Compensation Event which has resulted in a delay to planned Completion.  The Contractor has included in his quotation for temporary pedestrian barriers which are used to secure works areas from unauthorised entry and delineate the safe pedestrian routes.  Could it be argued that these should be included in the Charges applied to the people item 11 for "provision and use of equipment ..... for security" as this is effectively what they were used for?

Or if the above argument is incorrect, can the PM insist that the physical segregation, as originally included in the Works Information between pedestrians and works areas, is via HERAS panels which are about a tenth of the price of the plastic barrier being used by the Contractor?
asked Dec 4 in NEC3 Title by LA1 (260 points)  
   

1 Answer

+1 vote
You can certainly insist that it is by HERAS panels, providing it is legal to do so as in it satisfies legal requirements for safety.

In response to your first question, this is why I am pleased that they have got rid of the percentage for People overheads in the 4th edition due to this sort of debate !  

The arguments for including it in the percentage are that it is security equipment.

The argument against are that :
- it is equipment with a small 'e' whereas it satisfies the definition of Equipment (big 'E') in the contract i.e. "items provided by the Contractor and used by him to Provide the Works  and which the Works Information does not require him to include in the works." Consequently, it should be paid for as Equipment (big 'E').
- it is partly used for safety, not just security.

Consequently, the answer is probably not, but might be.
answered Dec 4 by Jon Broome (25,100 points)