NEC ECC: Removing clauses from Specification for Highway Works (MCDHW 1)

We overbanded day joints as per Specification for Highway works clause 711. The client has recorded this as a defect as they say it was not a requirement as it was " Not used" in “Volume 2 , Works Information, 3 Series & Appendices, Appendix 0/3: LIST OF NUMBERED CLAUSES AND APPENDICES REFFERED TO IN THE SPECIFICATION AND INCUDED IN THE CONTRACT”.

Does this mean it removes the Highway Specification clause or should the clause have been removed in" 3 Series & Appendices, Appendix 0/1: LIST OF NUMBERED CLAUSES AND APPENDICES

1 Like

This question seems to relate more to the Specification for Highways Works than it does to the NEC3. However, as a SHW user, and while it is difficult to comment fully without seeing your Works Information, I would answer as follows;

The Client appears to have attempted to compile Appendix 0/3 by marking those Appendices that they have not used as “Not Used”. This is a generally accepted method of completing Appendix 0/3 although the notes regarding the Compiler adding “Not Used” were removed in 2014.

Where a particular Specification “Series” is not required in the Works the Appendices would have been marked as “Not Used” to confirm their status and clarify that they are not missing or included in another document. If a Vehicle Restraint System renewal scheme does not involve, say, new bridge bearings, Appendix 22/1 would be marked “Not Used,” refer to Clause 10 of the Standard Preamble

Appendix 0/1 is used to add entirely new Contract specific clauses, revise existing SHW clauses or cancel a clause where it conflicts with something the Client has added elsewhere. Clauses which are not used, say bridge bearings in my example, would not be marked as cancelled in Appendix 0/1 but you would ignore them given that there are no bearings to install, refer to Clause 9 of the Standard Preamble.

Of course, should the Client amend the Works Information at any time then it would become a positive or negative Compensation Event under 60.1(1).

I would say that having ‘Not used’ in Appendix 0/3 is an indication that overbanding is not required.

Appendix 0/1 is actually entitled “Contract specific additional, substitute and cancelled clauses, tables and figures included in the contract”. To list here all the clauses that do not apply to a particular contract would be a very time-consuming task and I’ve never seen it done.

Appendix 7/11 states what BBA/HAPAS Classification is required for each location, so the omission of that Appendix would certainly suggest to me that overbanding isn’t required anywhere.