A Contractor has notified via cl. 61.3 of his belief of a cl. 60.1(19) event occurring. The event has not stopped the works outright so therefore cannot meet the test of the first bullet of 60.1(19). The PM assumes that that the Contractor is claiming that the event has stopped them completing the works b y the date in the Accepted Programme (AP). Ignoring the other 3 tests of the 60.1(19) [bullets 4,5 & 6) is the Contractor required at the stage of notification to demonstrate his claim that the works won’t be complete by the date on the AP? Surely the only way this can be demonstrated is for them to provide a updated AP showing the effects of the event. How can the PM determine the validity of their claim for 60.1(19) without this?
A basic principle of contract law is that the burden of proof falls on the party making the claim, so in ECC compensation event notifications that will usually be the Contractor.
At the time of notification the Contractor does not however have to provide a quotation for cost and time, this only happens if the PM accepts the Contractor’s notification and instructs a quotation.
It would however be reasonable to expect the Contractor to provide justification with the notification explaining what has happened and why. So they don’t have to say how long the delay will be, merely that the event causing the delay will stop them completing the works by the date shown on the Accepted Programme and that the other three tests also apply.
Remember firstly the PM deals with the principle i.e. is it a compensation event or not, then they deal with the quantum i.e. the cost and time flowing from the event. This is deliberately the case to prevent the PM’s opinion from being skewed by a fear of the magnitude of the impact. By accepting the compensation event you are merely accepting that there will be some cost and / or time, it is when the Contractor submits the quotation that you deal with the exact amount of cost and / or time for which the Client is liable.