If a Contractor notifies via cl. 61.3 of his belief that a cl. 60.1(19) event has occurred, is he required to provide evidence with the notification? Ignore for now the other 3 bullets points of cl. 60.1(19).
The event notified has clearly not stopped the Contractor completing the works (1st bullet of 60.1(19)) so the PM assumes their notification is based on their belief that the event has stopped them completing the works by the date shown on the last Accepted Programme (2nd bullet of 60.1(19)). Surely the claim that the event has stopped the Contractor completing the works by the date shown on the Accepted Programme (AP) can only be demonstrated via submission of a revised programme showing the impact of the event upon the AP.
Under clause 60.1 (19), the matter is not just about assessing a programme delay but that the occurrence of a ‘prevention event’ (see clause 19) stops the works being completed, either at all or by the date on the Accepted Programme.
I would expect the Contractor to demonstrate that this is the case as ‘stop’ is an important word in this instance and doesn’t just mean inserting an additional time period in the programme.
Peter Higgins wrote a useful article in NEC User Group newsletter 46 which states;
‘The test for completing work on time is fairly strict – it is not sufficient to show that the contractor has been delayed and that it will be expensive or difficult to make up the delay. If additional resources are needed to overcome the delay, they must be mobilised. To meet this test there must be no reasonable way of completing the works on time.’
Consequently, I would suggest that the Project Manager has the right to expect the Contractor to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate a CE under clause 60.1 (19) has occured…