If a Contractor states an assumption detailing the duration to be allowed for resources for the works involved in a compensation event, is this an “effect of a compensation event that is too uncertain to be forecast reasonably” under clause 61.6?
Can the Contractor then revise the CE, through correct procedure 60.1(17), if the subcontractor completes the works involved in a lesser timeframe or alternatively the subcontractor revise the CE if the works involved take longer?
I would say no, otherwise all CE’s could follow this approach and be corrected by the PM to suit them. Cl.63.1 is clear that “work not yet done” should be a forecast of Defined Cost plus the fee. Cl.63.6 requires the quotation of a CE to include Contractors risk provisions. Pricing a CE is really very similar to pricing a tender submission. The Contractor should be using their experience to try and accurately forecast staff hours and then add a risk allowance in there to cover this scenario.
It is only the PM that can correct the assumptions under Cl.60.1.(17). In my experience PM assumptions are used for events where neither party can accurately forecast the correct metrics e.g. a large concrete unknown structure is encountered on an excavation. The PM would issue an instruction to remove it (Cl.60.1.(12) with a set of assumptions listed in the instruction. On completion of the excavation the PM notifies a correction under Cl.60.1.(17), The Contractor can’t state the “assumptions”.
Thanks for the reply. Yes I agree in the current situation, stating a duration is not the intended purpose for assumptions and the PM changing such an assumption defeats the forecast requirements involved a CE.