Working in an NEC3 (Option B). Clause 62.2 is amended that CE under clause 60.1(19) is only entitled for time, no changes to the Prices will be allowed.
2 delays occurred at the same time. One is a CE under clause 60.1(1) which caused 100 days delays. Another is a CE under clause 60.1(19) which caused 40 days delays. The EOT entitlement has no dispute.
The question is that during assessing the first CE under clause 60.1(1), whether 60 days or 100 days prolongation cost shall be calculated.
In addition, if the sequential order of the 2 delays (i.e. the order of happening time) will affect the result of the above question.
I always state that there is no such thing as “concurrency” within NEC contracts. It is a very lose term that is banded about far too often, particularly when one party is trying to use it to muddy the waters to suit their particular argument.
In the situation you describe, one of those events will have happened first or been known about first. Therefore you assess the impact of the first event on planned Completion, and then assess the extra over impact of the second event to assess entitlement.
If there was an instruction to install additional works that issued on day 1, that is a compensation event and should be assessed as a forecast from the point of which the instruction was given. If on day 10 it now becomes apparent that there is a new CE under 60.1(19), that is not a “concurrent delay” that should now be assessed together. You assess the impact of the 60.1(1) to ascertain cost/time entitlement, and then after that you assess any additional impact that the 60.1(19) event had but on this second occasion only in terms of time because of your Z clause amendment.