NEC3 Term Service Contract two options and core clause not used?


I have been handed a contract to review and utilize for a procurement of assets management maintenance. it seems the creator has used both Option A and E which I understand is not ideal, but they have also suggested that core clauses 2,4, 6 and 7 are “not used”

The rational for A and E options being some work will be planned / predefined maintenance ( A) some may be response to emergency ( E) ie bus hitting a bridge

I see no reason / rational for excluding core clauses though?

Should I rip it up and start again?

I can understand why they would want to use Options A and E for this so provided they have very good Option Z clauses to explain how this will work from a payment point of view then that’s not such an issue.

What is of much greater concern is the omission of entire sections of the core clauses, this is a fundamental mistake that makes the contract not fit for purpose. You can’t say “not used” for core clauses, they are automatically used. The only thing I can think of that you nay be looking at is the Contract Data part one where the heading given to a particular section of core clauses is stated i.e. 1 General, 2 Not used, 3 Time, 4 Not used, 5 Payment, 6 Not used, 7 Not used, 8 Risks and insurance etc? If this is the case it’s not necessary but fine from a contractual point of view, they’re merely clarifying that there is no data to insert in the Contract Data under these headings which is correct.