Working under an NEC4 Option E contract; we have had a situation where a small part of the site has been taken over by a third party for works, and subsequently handed back. During this time, access to that part of the site was restricted but works have continued in the main site area; the only impact was to the size of plant able to be used and some early material deliveries. We have accepted a CE for the restricted working under 60.1(2). The Contractor has submitted a quotation for the entire duration of the restricted access, although works continued largely uninterrupted. Am I right in saying under 63.5 we would only pay for the time impact of the event itself, e.g. an allowance for the slower working due to plant and material restrictions, not the full duration the restriction was in place?
Not sure why you are referring to payment of an “allowance for the slower working” since this is a cost reimbursable contract. What I mean is that you (the Client) will pay the total Defined Cost plus the Fee, the records of which you will review in the end anyway (if not earlier).
In my view, the only practical purpose of the quotation is the time impact (delay to the Completion Date) which does not seem to be in dispute. What am I missing?
Hi Peter, apologies for the confusion, the costs aren’t in dispute as you say, because its Option E. What I am confused about is the entitlement to extension of time for the event, if works were able to continue albeit slower due to the reduced plant allowance. Would I be right in saying that they are only entitled to the time difference between the dividing date duration of the works, and the duration of the works following the event, rather than automatically the full duration of the restriction? Their impact programme does not take into account works completed during the event.
Yes, I believe that sounds reasonable.