NEC3 ECSC and ECSS: Does a communication have to be separate under the Short Contract or Short Subcontract?

Most are well aware of the obligation under Clause 13.7 of the NEC3 ECC form that a notification that the subcontract requires is to be communicated separate from other communications. This matter has been discussed at length in various scenarios including, inter alia, whether meeting minutes are considered to be a valid notification; the general consensus being that they are not as such should be communicated separately.

However, under the NEC3 ECSC (short form) Clause 13.7 does not exist and therefore the requirement to communicate notifications separately does not. The consequence of this could be that a notification that is included in another communication (compliant with Clause 13.1 and Clause 13.2) where other unrelated matters are addressed could be considered a valid notification, whereas such would not be considered a valid notification under the NEC3 ECC.

My question is; has the above ever been challenged when working under the NEC3 ECSC/ECSS forms? I cannot find any cases on this specific matter save for under NEC3 ECC.

In the absence of a formal decision, or anecdotal evidence, I welcome your interpretation(s) on this specific matter.

Obviously, it is always good practice to communicate separately to avoid confusion regardless of the contractual obligation.

1 Like

To my knowledge, this has never been tested, but as there is not the specific provision that any type of communication has to be communicated separately, it would be highly unlikely that a court would find that it does !

It is, however, as you say good practice to do so.