Scope Detail and Defect

NEC4 Option C:

An instruction was provided, changing the Scope. The instruction was to change the levels of an embankment originally stated in the drawings.

These levels weren’t achieved (no attempt to raise the embankment to the levels requested in the instruction) and a defect was notified.

The Contractor is now challenging the instruction, stating that there was no detail given as to how the increase in level should have been built up/ achieved.

This seems easy to say in hindsight but am I correct in saying that it’s up to the Contractor to find out/ determine how it’s built up to achieve the Scope?

If further detail is provided, I assume this isn’t a CE as there is no change to Scope, just more detail given?

1 Like

@Barry_Trebes @Neil_Earnshaw any thoughts/suggestions?

Surely this is straightforward but maybe the instruction wasn’t entirely clear? If the instruction clearly states what levels are to be achieved then assuming the method used to achieve the original levels was at the Contractor’s discretion, it would be easy to assume that the method used to achieve the revised levels would be also?

Your final paragraph muddies the water a little though as I’m not sure what you mean by “further detail is provided” at best this could be a clarification but at worst it could be imposing a constraint on the Contractor and something that should in itself have been instructed and therefore trigger a further CE.

As is often the case, a much deeper understanding of the facts and circumstances would be needed to give a more definitive answer.

1 Like