If the Contractor communicates a change to the scope with the client and carries out the work at a lot of extra cost and later when putting in a claim for the extra time and cost, the PM states that no early warning was received, the contractor then says it were diacuased and agreed by the PM. can this be considered an inducement and therefore an act of corruption because it has been an advantage to the Client?
From my understanding, the fact that an early warning has not been submitted does not invalidate the compensation event, however it does allow for the client to assess the compensation event with hindsight. (clauses 63.5).
Alex, not quite with hindsight but on the basis that the EWN had been given (63.5). In other words, if it would have been possible to do something differently and reduced the impact of the CE if it had been known about earlier then only the value of the mitigated CE will be valued.
Zed - I am not seeing the inducement it is what the contract says and how it operates. The CE still needs to be valued but, under 63.5, on the basis that an EWN was given and therefore any mitigation measures that would have been available but for the failure to give the EWN will be taken into account.