NEC Option C - Due to two main factors (contractor late & so works cannot be completed / Employer unable to gain access to an area for the works) it was mutually agreed to descope an element of works and rescope it into another scheme starting 6 months later (with the same contractor, terms, etc). The PM raised the negative CE which the contractor quoted and this was accepted. Now we have come to re-introduce the exact same scope via CE into the next project - and the contractor has quoted the works at 3x the descope value - this does not seem in the spirit of mutual trust and cooperation! Would it be fair and reasonable for the PM to PMA at the original descope value?
Under the contract, it is not about what is fair, it is about what the contract says, so if the Contractor can justify this because, for instance, the work is on the critical path in the second project whereas as it was not on the first, then that is what it should be assessed at.
However, sitting above the contractual situation is the overall commercial situation: clients tend not to want to work with contractors if they feel ripped off, so it is the Contractor’s interests - as the contract actually requires - for it to present a clear explanation of why the change in Defined Costs are so large in the second project versus the first.
Thanks for the response - these works are not on the Critical Path of the new project and can be carried out separately by a stand-alone subcontractor. I have questioned the contractor about the price increase and they have responded saying they cannot supply any info at the moment, and have asked the subcontractor for the reason.