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.

4,951 questions

5,279 answers


Register its Free

Download here

NEC ECC: Employer Notified Termination Under Reason 90.3 R3

0 votes
We have a scenario whereby works had to be scheduled to suit other developments ongoing in the area and as such the Works Information included a statement that the Contractor must allow for a demobilisation, period of non-working and remobilisation within the Price List (ECSC is our Form).  The length of time of this non-working was not identified.  The Contractor then asked for a change to the Works Information to remove a significant element of the works (block paving) that he had mis-priced and could not deliver for the costs, which the Employer accepted and did indeed remove from their scope of works under a CE notification Cl60.1(1).  

The other development has now reached a stage where the Employer has asked the Contractor to remobilise to come and complete the remaining work within their Works Information.  The Contractor has advised he has no resources to undertake this work as they are otherwise committed for the next 13 weeks.  This timescale is too long for the Employer as the works (ducting etc) are required to enable the paving element of the project to be completed.  The Employer therefore suggested that termination under Reason 3 would be notified to which the Contractor has responded to advise that a CE under Cl60.1(2) is appropriate since the Employer has prevented access to the site.  This has not been notified and no Early Warning has been notified regarding this matter either.  

Is the next step arbitration?
asked Sep 12, 2018 in Termination by LA1 (690 points)  

1 Answer

+1 vote
No. It's an early warning followed by an early warning meeting.

If that doesn't result in a positive way forward, I suggest you try to reach agreement on the best contractual solution with going straight to a dispute.

If you do end going down the dispute path, you have to go to adjudication first.
answered Sep 12, 2018 by Jon Broome (52,270 points)