NEC3 Option A - Delay

1

We the Subcontractor had encountered a Contractor risk which caused a Delay to our programme which is Accepted. We raised a Compensation event within the time scales allowed as this impacted a Completion Date

4 months have passed, and we await response to that NCE which the Contractor has requested time to review. Around 2 months after raising the NCE above, we the Subcontractor have caused a delay to the Contractor which impacts the Completion date above.

The Contractor is now claiming that because our delay is the prominent delay, I.e stops us completing the Sectional Completion Date, we are not entitled to cost or time and liable to LD’s

My question is, should delays be assessed in the sequence they occur, ignoring any knowledge of delays we the Subcontractor we’re not aware at the time of raising the NCE (Dividing Date). I understand that the Accepted Programme should be used at the point of the Dividing Date, and at that time, this was not an issue or known to be an issue.

It appears the Contractor has intentionally prolonged their response to pass the responsibility for the delay.to the Subcontractor. .

2

Each CE should be considered separately to others. Getting them intertwined only serves to confuse and complicate things. This is one of the issues the NEC in general tries to address by making sure that changes are dealt with quickly and not left to the end of a project when people have been and gone, memories are hazy and records in short supply. Not to mention the various programmes that have been produced in the meantime.

Anyway, as an aside, did you notify them formally that they were late in their response to your NCEs or did you agree to their requests for more time to consider it?

4 months is far too long for something which sounds like it’s a pre-defined Contractor risk…

1 Like
3

Thank you for your reply, much appreciated.

Unfortunately a Z-Clause has removed that process and extension has not been granted, we have not been that ‘contractual’

1 Like