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.

Do you want to update your skills in NEC3, NEC4, JCT, Procurement, CDM or Project management?

Sign up for one of our free online courses.

4,748 questions

5,043 answers

906 comments

Register its Free

Download here

NEC ECS (2005) - Clause 25.2: does this clause under 'other things' include for the provision of labour to correct defects?

+1 vote
53 views
We are currently engaged on an NEC3 ECC (2005) - Option E contract, with our main Subcontractor being engaged on an NEC3 ECS (2005) Option E contract.

The Subcontractor is due to correct a number of Defects (prior to completion), and have advised us that they cannot provide the required level of labour to carry out the works. They have now issued us with a request to provide labour to support them during the Defects corrections, which we will have to source from other projects to assist them.

 I am aware that the Subcontractor is entitled to be paid for correcting Defects prior to Completion and will be paid Defined Cost for the labour provided.

However, can the cost of Contractor provided labour be recovered from them under Cl.25.2? (i.e. the Contractor and the Subcontractor provide services and other things stated in the Subcontract Works Information).
asked Oct 10 in Testing and Defects by AndyC316 (130 points)  

1 Answer

+1 vote
You are correct in what you say, but there are other words in the contract, so ...

if the Subcontractor did not correct the Defects, then clause 45.1 would kick in and you could charge them what it would cost you to get someone else in and this would not be a Defined Cost under the subcontract I.e. the Subcontractor would bear all the cost.

Rather than wait for this, I would have a discussion about this and agree a common sense approach which is mutually beneficial.

I think your reference to clause 25.2 is a red-herring.
answered Oct 10 by Jon Broome (49,260 points)