Is it possible to certify the project as complete under 30.2, without physically having a copy of the Building Control occupancy certificate.
I am the PM on an NEC 3 option A contract, and the the Contractor appears to be dragging thier heals, and have stated to me that I cannot sign completion as they have not got Building Control sign off. Bit odd they are not snapping my hand off for me to sign Completion. Can I sign completion, knowing that the Employer needs to take control within two weeks (35.1) and if the contractor does not provide the occupancy certificate within two weeks, I then ask the Supervisor to notify this a Defect?
It appears the Contractor is in the driving seat (no delay damages to be applied)
This seems to be an old post but the answer is, the definition of Completion is under clause 11.2(2), if the PM believes that under that definition the works are complete, the PM should certify Completion within one week of when Completion was achieved.
The other alternative is that the Employer can take over and start using the works at any time (clause 35.2), if this happens the PM should again certify take over within one week of it happening - clause 35.3.
Take over by the Employer before both Completion and the Completion Date is a compensation event under clause 60.1(15), before Completion but after the Completion Date it is not.
If the Works Information requires the Building Control Occupancy Certificate to be provided by the Contractor and they are not providing it, then yes that would be a Defect and should be notified.
When the PM certifies Completion the defect correction period for Defects existing at Completion will begin, if the Defect is not corrected by the end of the defect correction period the PM makes an assessment of having the Defect corrected by other people and the Contractor pays this amount to the Employer - see clause 45.1.
This shows that the Contractor is not in the driving seat despite there being no delay damages, mutual trust and co-operation is required and one Party should not be attempting to use the contract to disadvantage the other - see clause 10.1.