Send us Fan Mail

Disallowed cost is one of those NEC4 ECC ideas that sounds simple until it hits your payment certificate. When you are working under cost reimbursable contracts like NEC4 Option C, Option D or Option E, one challenged line item can turn “defined cost” into a cost you carry yourself. We unpack what disallowed cost really means, why it exists, and how it acts as a commercial control to keep cost-based payment honest without turning the contract into a blame game.

We talk through the real mechanics of payment assessment under clause 50: the Contractor’s application, the Project Manager’s duty to assess the amount due, and how disallowed cost fits into the calculation because defined cost is the Schedule of Cost Components less disallowed cost. From there we go deep on the most common trigger we see on projects: costs not justified by accounts and records. Open-book accounting only works when the evidence is clear, consistent, and mapped to the cost components, with enough narrative to explain context, decisions, and timing.

The conversation also covers supply chain and process traps: subcontractor costs that should not have been paid, procurement or acceptance procedures stated in the Scope, missed early warnings, and dispute notifications that can make otherwise valid expenditure unrecoverable. We explore defects after Completion and why the Scope definition of Completion is commercially critical, plus “reasonable wastage” and “reasonable utilisation” when you are deciding whether to keep people and plant on site in the real world.

If you manage NEC4 cost options, this will sharpen how you set expectations pre-contract, run collaborative commercial conversations during delivery, and keep records that stand up to audit. Subscribe, share it with your Project Manager or QS, leave a review, and tell us: which disallowed cost category causes the biggest arguments on your jobs?

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

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/

Send us Fan Mail

Contracts don’t fail because of one big clause; they slip on dozens of small entries that nobody questioned. We unpack how NEC4’s Contract Data Part One and Part Two turn rules into real delivery, decode those italicised terms that drive behaviour, and show why the first page of options quietly sets your risk, cost and programme story. From X1 inflation and X7 delay damages to X15 design liability and Y(UK)2 adjudication, we translate choices into consequences you can plan for.

We walk through the contractor’s first read of Part One, the signals to seek in periods for reply, completion dates and key dates, and the red flags buried in Z clauses. Then we switch to Part Two: setting a defensible fee percentage, defining working areas so people costs are recoverable, naming key persons who actually move the needle, and submitting a credible programme that can be accepted on day one. We talk rates, schedules and the discipline of defined cost, and we clear a common myth: listing early warning topics does not allocate risk, it invites action.

To cut drafting errors and speed mobilisation, we demo NEC Digital. It prevents incompatible option picks, hides irrelevant fields, and embeds plain‑English guidance where you need it. Z clause tools link edits to the exact clauses they change, and a shared workspace cleanly separates the client’s locked Part One from the contractor’s private Part Two until submission. In the Q&A, we cover homeworking as defined cost after the 2023 amendment, access delays under CE2, and how to align internal governance with contract timescales instead of bending the rules.

If you care about fewer disputes, faster acceptances and better value, start with better entries. Listen, subscribe, and share the one Contract Data pitfall you want teams to stop making. Then leave a review so more NEC practitioners can find this conversation.

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

Send us a text

What if the clause you add to gain control actually costs you bidders, time, and money? We dive deep into NEC4’s option Z and show how to make additional conditions work for you rather than against you. Drawing on years of training, live project experience, and industry engagement, we unpack where Z clauses fit in NEC’s modular design and how to decide whether you need them at all. The through-line is discipline: define the mischief, try Scope or Contract Data first, then draft sparingly in plain English if—and only if—the contract truly needs an extra rule.

We tackle the high-friction areas that drive disputes and tender withdrawals. You’ll hear why keeping constraints like working hours in the Scope preserves flexibility for critical one-offs, how halving time bars can create administrative chaos and miss valuable savings, and why pushing pre-contract errors onto contractors rarely delivers “certainty” once pricing and behaviour adjust. We also address governance head-on: if boards slow replies, extend reply periods transparently rather than deleting the project manager’s obligations. And we confront the cultural signal of deleting clause 10.2; removing “mutual trust and cooperation” tells bidders everything they need to know, and none of it helps.

To balance cost certainty with value for money, we bring in Abrahamson’s risk principles—allocate to those with control, insurability, and efficiency incentives—and translate them into practical checks: scope quality, market appetite, team capacity, and insurance availability. Style matters too: use NEC’s defined terms, present tense, and active voice; avoid Latin and copy-paste Frankenstein’s monsters that conflict with core clauses. The payoff for this care is real: clearer bids, faster decisions, fewer disputes, and a healthier supply chain willing to lean in.

If you care about fair risk, cleaner processes, and better prices, this one’s for you. Listen, share with your commercial and legal teams, and tell us where Z clauses have helped—or hurt—on your projects. Subscribe, leave a review, and send your questions for our upcoming session on contract data.

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

Send us a text

A schedule on the wall won’t run your project. A living, accepted NEC4 programme will. We unpack how to turn the programme into a central management tool that reflects reality, accelerates decisions, and shrinks the space where disputes grow. From acceptance rules and deemed acceptance to resource clarity and client interfaces, we walk through the mechanics that make NEC’s prospective approach to change actually work on site.

We dig into the lifecycle from tender to completion, why monthly (or faster) updates matter, and how to structure submissions so acceptance becomes routine rather than a negotiation. You’ll hear a clear breakdown of the consequences of acceptance and non‑acceptance, including when withholding triggers extra duties and how silence can lead to treated acceptance. We also tackle a frequent flashpoint: programmes that show planned completion beyond the completion date. You’ll learn why that can still be acceptable, how to separate acceptable from desirable, and how a realistic plan helps mitigation more than a neat fiction ever could.

On change, we show how to represent compensation events on the programme before implementation without conceding liability, supported by a concise narrative that explains cause and impact. We compare approaches to time risk allowance and make the case for embedding TRA within activity durations while distinguishing it clearly from float to comply with NEC4 and protect assessments. Rounding out the guide, we share pragmatic fixes for common blockers: missing resource statements, out‑of‑date logic, unpaired planned and contract dates, and overcomplicated models that stall acceptance.

If you want fewer surprises, stronger CE assessments, cleaner payments under Options A and C, and faster decisions across the board, this is your playbook for making the NEC4 programme work for you. Subscribe, share with your team, and tell us: what’s the one programme habit you’ll change this week?

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

Send us a text

We break down how to assess compensation events on price under NEC, focusing on the dividing date, defined cost, and the difference between assessment by agreement and assessment by default. Two worked examples show why you must compare cost with and without the change, not tender prices against new costs.

• definition and purpose of compensation events under NEC
• the dividing date and why it stays fixed
• when assessments are retrospective versus prospective
• using clause 63.2 by agreement for small, similar changes
• default clause 63.1: defined cost with and without the change
• worked example: deletion and abortive costs explained
• worked example: design change and preserving tender position
• implementing updates in activity schedules or bills
• common pitfalls and how to avoid them
• handling time and money together with the accepted programme

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

Send us Fan Mail

We unpack how to assess the time element of NEC compensation events, why the dividing date matters, and how to preserve terminal float. We share a three-step method to progress, model impact, and produce clear quotations without relying on end‑of‑project prolongation claims.

• defining compensation events and the rights to change dates and prices
• why quotations must show alterations to the accepted programme
• prospective versus retrospective assessment tied to the dividing date
• preserving terminal float and extending time only one way
• three-step method: progress, reschedule, impact the CE
• showing time risk allowance and principal resources
• using assumptions when uncertainty is too high
• pitfalls: old programmes, hidden float, missing planned key date conditions
• sequencing multiple CEs and aligning on method
• resources to deepen practice and prepare for the prices session

Join us on 1 December at 16:30 for Assessing Compensation Events Part Two: Prices

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

Send a text

We unpack how to notify NEC4 compensation events properly, when the PM or contractor must act, and how to use project manager assumptions to price uncertainty without padding. Clear steps, examples, and pitfalls help you move from awareness to implementation without losing entitlement.

• defining compensation events and where to find them in NEC4
• why time and cost are assessed together prospectively
• who notifies what: PM‑notified vs contractor‑notified events
• the eight‑week time bar and the 61.4 decision gate
• early warnings versus compensation event notifications
• instructing quotations, proposed instructions, and alt quotes
• project manager assumptions: obligation, range setting, corrections
• using Defined Cost plus Fee versus Prices by agreement
• practical checklist before instructing quotations
• what good looks like in notices, records, and timings
• common pitfalls and how to avoid them
• Q&A on X2, deemed acceptance, access, and adjudication

Join us next time, first Monday in November at 4:30 pm, when we explore how compensation events affect time under clause 63.5

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