An EWN is raised in March stating Others are delaying starting their element of works.
6 months pass with periodic programme submissions being accepted and rejected.
An NCE is then raised in October (some 7 months after EWN was raised) stating Others are not working within the times stated on the Accepted Programme. Noted as per the guidance notes (item 61.3), this claim of heading (60.1 5) is for the Contractor to notify the CE, not the PM.
In assessing entitlement to an NCE, the PM looks at the last Accepted Programme (at the time the NCE was notified) to view when Others were meant to commence their work. It is clear that Others are two weeks later in commencing their works when comparing the planned date on the last Accepted Programme against the actual date. This 2 week delay is considered to be the NCE entitlement.
The Contractor however, at quotation stage, is attempting to measure the date Others were meant to commence their works from the March Accepted Programme (when the EWN was raised) versus actual commencement. This results in a 7 month delay to this activity commencing.
The PM view is that the Contractor is impacting the incorrect programme, and that he should have raised an NCE back in March and in fact, should have raised an NCE every month thereafter when the date for Others commencing kept slipping period on period. All as per the NEC3 approach to dealing with events as they occur and notifying within 8 weeks of becoming aware.
The question is, based on the above detail, should the quantum of the NCE (measuring how late Others were in commencing their works) be based on the Accepted Programme at the time of the EWN or based on the Accepted Programme at the time the NCE was notified?