NEC ECC: How many events (60.1(1) to (21)) can you put in a notification ?

How many events out of 21 can you refer to a notification? For example, if we believe that a change qualifies as an event under Clause 60.1(12) and at the same also an event which is an employers risks under Clause 60.1(14) .Can we notify it within a notification? Is this a valid process under NEC3 or NCE4 contract ? Can the Employer reject the notification because we have not followed the process correctly?

You could in theory notify under more than one clause, but if you are using a cloud based system it normally only allows you to choose one reason. In that case I would pick the most obvious one (or sometimes the one most palatable to the Employer, as they may have a particular risk pot to use for certain reasons e.g. lack of access). In the text of the notification you can then also list the other reasons it could have been notified under. This should make it clear it definitely is a CE one way or another.

It just stops them rejecting for one reason, and you then notifying again for another reason. If it is a CE, it doesn’t matter what number it is notified under as the cost.time effect will be assessed the same way.

Isn’t 13.7 relevant here? Surely the contract requires a separate notification for each specific ce of the 21 that may applies. A single notification that refers to multiple of the ce’s could lead to confusion - some might be legitimate whilst others not. Wouldn’t separate notifications for each ce that applied be a better idea? I’m not attempting to suggest that the same event can be paid out for as a ce just because it meets the threshold of a number of the 21 ce’s.

No I do not think 13.7 is relevant here as the question is talking about a single CE being notified, and the fact it could be a CE for more than one of the reasons under 60.1. NEC is about creating clarity and there is no benefit to notifying separately why the same compensation event is one on two separate pieces of paper for different reasons.

13.7 would be relevant in terms of notifying different compensation events so they can be responded to individually.

It is important a degree of common sense is applied to 13.7 generally. It is there for very good reason to make sure multiple different communications are not raised on the same piece of paper, and in particular for people to understand that global minutes of meetings covering lots of aspects is NOT a means of contractual communication. Any instructions or notifications raised in minutes of meetings still has to be notified separately.

I’d still consider that a scatter gun approach often ensues. Along the lines of, ’ …well its a CE, and if it isn’t for this cl. its another or another!’

It doesn’t need to be a scatter gun approach. Most CE’s will be for one reason only. If there is the occasional one that fits more than one reason then I am saying you can highlight that point. It stops the need for it to be rejected, and then notified for a second reason which is then subsequently accepted.

If someone listed seven reasons and clearly none of them are valid, the response would still be “No - it is not a compensation event”.