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

5,746 questions

6,164 answers


Register its Free

Download here

NEC ECC: Change of scope

0 votes
If the Contractor communicates a change to the scope with the client and carries out the work at a lot of extra cost and later when putting in a claim for the extra time and cost, the PM states that no early warning was received, the contractor then says it were diacuased and agreed by the PM. can this be considered an inducement  and therefore an act of corruption because it has been an advantage to the Client?
asked Apr 13, 2018 in General by Zed (460 points)  
edited Apr 13, 2018 by Zed
From my understanding, the fact that an early warning has not been submitted does not invalidate the compensation event, however it does allow for the client to assess the compensation event with hindsight. (clauses 63.5).

1 Answer

0 votes
Best answer
Alex, not quite with hindsight but on the basis that the EWN had been given (63.5). In other words, if it would have been possible to do something differently and reduced the impact of the CE if it had been known about earlier then only the value of the mitigated CE will be valued.

Zed - I am not seeing the inducement it is what the contract says and how it operates. The CE still needs to be valued but, under 63.5, on the basis that an EWN was given and therefore any mitigation measures that would have been available but for the failure to give the EWN will be taken into account.
answered Apr 13, 2018 by Rob Horne Panel Member (20,080 points)  
selected May 10, 2018 by Glenn Hide