Send us Fan Mail

Getting an NEC4 activity schedule wrong rarely fails quietly. It shows up as cash flow pain, awkward assessments, and disputes about what “complete” really means. We dig into why the activity schedule is a pricing tool rather than Scope, why NEC expects the contractor to prepare it, and how that single document can either stabilise a project or create friction for months.

We compare NEC option A and option C in plain language. Under option A, the activity schedule directly drives interim payments through completed activities, so granularity and alignment with the accepted programme matter far more than many teams realise. Under option C, the activity schedule sets the target, while interim payment runs on Defined Cost plus Fee in an open book model. That difference can lull teams into letting compensation events drift, even though liabilities, revised targets and delivery reality still need to be kept up to date.

We also tackle the practical contract administration: what “correcting” and “revising” mean under clause 55, why poor cash flow is not a stand-alone reason to revise, and how compensation events should change the Prices using Defined Cost plus Fee. Finally, we share two workable approaches for showing compensation event adjustments in the activity schedule, including how to handle omissions, large changes, and the temptation to front-load.

If you work with NEC contracts, NEC4 option A, NEC4 option C, activity schedules, compensation events, project manager assessments, or defined cost records, this is a sharp refresher with immediate on-the-job relevance. Subscribe, share this with your commercial and planning teams, leave a review, and tell us: where have you seen activity schedules cause the biggest disputes?

View the webinar: https://www.gatherinsights.com/en/webinars
Join the LinkedIn Group: https://www.linkedin.com/groups/2893228/