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.

5,868 questions

6,316 answers

1,504 comments

Register its Free

Download here

NEC3 ECS: Option A – Z clause - what is the effect of deleting core clause 11.2(5) and adding in "A Defect is a part of the subcontract works which is not in accordance with the Subcontractor’s obligations under this contract.?

0 votes
127 views
If Option Z is used in the NEC3 EC Subcontract: Option A, what is the significance of the following amendment and how does the change impact the contractor and sub-contractor?

“The additional conditions of subcontract are:
Z1 Identified and defined terms [core clause 11]
Z1.1 Delete core clause 11.2(5) and substitute:
11.2(5) A Defect is a part of the subcontract works which is not in accordance with the Subcontractor’s obligations under this contract.”

Thanks
asked Jan 17 in Z clauses by mile end (120 points)  

1 Answer

0 votes
Looks like an attempt to turn an NEC contract into a JCT contract !!

Whereas JCT, certainly the D&B form, has Employer's Requirements, Contractor's Proposals, Contract Particulars, Schedules etc, the scope of what is required under an NEC contract should be defined within the Works Information (NEC3 ECS).

The associated documents under an NEC contract, such as Site Information and Contract Data Parts 1 and 2, facilitate the administration of the contract procedures and should not actually define the scope of works (notwithstanding Site Information and clause 60.1 (12)).

Consequently it is unlikely that it will make any difference, unless there are particular requirements stated in a document other than the Works Information, which may give rise to a Defect.
answered Jan 21 by Andrew W-I Panel Member (27,560 points)