NEC ECC: Supervisor to confirm what's in the Works Information ONLY

Following on from previous answer,

Would I be correct in saying that the Supervisor should only check for the standard of work INCLUDED in the Works Information? i.e. if the Supervisor was personally aware of specific testing requirement relevant to the Works (e.g. a British Standard) , he/she should not ask for this to be carried out UNLESS they have been specifically included in the Works Information.

It is ultimately up to the Client’s to manage the risk/cost of fully (100%) complying with industry standards - or not.

That said, beware of poorly drafted Works Information with catch-all statements such as ‘All work to be carried out in accordance with relevant regulations and standards’. This neither lists the testing requirements or brings any ‘specific’ standard into the Contract by reference - and can be interpreted in significantly (£££) different ways.


I guess the Supervisor could ask, but not instruct, and up to you whether you follow their advice or not. It is up to the Contractor to make sure they are compliant with the Works Information, and as long as you think you don’t need to do that test to comply then you could ignore.

That said - I would listen to the Supervisor and see why he thinks it should be done. You could raise an early warning to say you are not planning on doing it, but if they wanted to instruct it (and pay for it as a compensation event) you are at least giving them the opportunity - or even the chance for the PM to instruct if they believe it IS a requirement to meet the Works Information (which would not be a compensation event.

My advise is talk/listen/consider/action accordingly in that order.

To labour the life out of this point once and for all, if the Works Information includes a statement to say that "all works should be in accordance with relevant standards (i.e. no specific standards listed and no specific testing requirements listed) and the Supervisor brings a testing schedule to site on day-one outlining hundreds of obscure tests from relevant standards - what happens next?

OK, my advise would be:

  1. try not to sign up to this clause in the first place. Challenge (constructively) the wording during tender stage and try and ascertain a level playing filed that you and the other tenderers can price cost/risk against.
  2. if this does happen, call an early warning meeting (as it is now sensibly called under NEC4) to say that the extent of tests could have time/cost implications, and that you consider some of them not to be a requirementand potentially a compensation event. Supervisor can be in that meeting - and then hopefully you can all get to an agreement as to the right level.
  3. Try and focus on the relationship with the Supervisor and try and get to a level of agreement that way (breakfast every Friday I used to find works well - which should not fall foul of NEC4 new Corrupt Acts!)
  4. If all that fails, notify a compensation event that the tests are excessive, and if/when rejected chance your luck with an adjudicator that they agree they were excessive.
    These are obviously numbered in order of preference…