The Works Information (ECC3) refers to a document referenced in an Appendix to an Appendix of the Works information. Is this reference sufficient reason to reasonably reject a Contractors compensation event notification. The Contractor claims this was not included this in his price as the final WI was not complete when the price was submitted.
Reading your statment “The Works Information (ECC3) refers to a document referenced in an Appendix to an Appendix of the Works information” literally, I think it means that the first Appendix mentioned is referenced twice : once directly from the main body of the Works Information and once from another Appendix which is referenced from the main body of the Works Information. Is that correct ?
Assumming it is and assuming it correctly “specifies and describes the works or states any constraints on how the Contractor Provides the Works” then it is part of the Works Information and the Contractor should have included the costs of doing it within their Prices. Hence, on the information supplied, it is not a compensation event.
Your starting point here is 11.2(19) which defines what Works Information amounts to. The first part of the test Jon has quite rightly picked up, that is a p5ractical test of does the document specify or describe the work or provide a constraint. However, there is a second test which must also be applied. To be Works Information, the information must be in the documents which the Contract Data states it is in or within an instruction.
Where does the Contract Data say the Works Information is? Usually it will say something like “Works Information is found in Files A1 to A5”. Is the Appendix to the Appendix in question within that location? If it is then Jon’s answer covers the rest. If it is not physically located in the place the Contract Data states then you have a slightly more difficult position.
A sensible approach would be to start with a document within the information stated to be Works Information. Any specification and description or constraint in that document is clearly Works Information. If that information takes you to another file, for example for more detail, then it is reasonable to say that first step is incorporated into the Works Information by reference. However, where you turn to an appendix for more detail and it refers you on to a, say, a specific design requirement held in yet another location this probably is not incorporated as it is too remote.
This could be dealt with in two ways, the first is for the PM to amend the Works Information to include the requirement more directly. This should result in a CE. Secondly, the PM could resolve an ambiguity as to whether the requirement was truly part of Works Information. This should result in a CE.