The PM has issued a Compensation Event via CEMAR. Usually this is accompanied by two PMI’s; one to provide a quote/cost for the works and second one for carrying out the actual works. In this case, only one PMI has been included with the CE and the PMI wording states that the Contractor is to provide a quote. However, the wording of the CE could be taken as an instruction to carry out the works. It is worded in a way that lends itself to be interpreted as such. In addition, the PM has confirmed verbally that the works must be carried out however, for the avoidance of doubt a further PMI has been requested by the Contractor to make this clear.
My question is, can a CE always be accepted in isolation as an instruction to carry out additional works, or, does it depend on the wording within? Must a CE always be accompanied by a PMI which makes clear that the works being quoted by the Contractor must also be carried out by the Contractor (i.e. it is not a proposed change which would usually deal with a scenario of a possible CE pending confirmation of cost and time impact). Thanks.
I would suggest, being mindful of clause 63.9 that assumes the Contractor to act promptly for the purposes of the CE assessment, that you need to put the instruction (I suppose in accordance with clause 61.1) into effect without delay.
Given that you, as a contractor, have to provide the works in accordance with the Scope (see clause 20.1) and the Scope has changed, there is no reason for any delay. I understand, however, the confusion, since the last sentence of clause 61.1 as it was in the NEC3 has now been omitted.
Last but not least, check for any amendments in your contract and it wouldn’t harm if you raised an early warning to discuss your concerns with the PM.
Thanks Peter. My question was more to do with the requirement of a separate instruction to do the work i.e. is a PMI required or will receipt of acceptance of a Compensation Event be sufficient (bear in mind the cost is (was) yet to be agreed?