Planning advice for contractors

Delay damages are the part of the JCT to NEC transition contractors think they already understand. The rate is in the contract data and it starts when you are late. What changes is not the arithmetic but the procedure: JCT surrounds the deduction with three notices a contractor can attack, and NEC removes all of them. Plus the conclusion most find backwards, that taking option X7 out of the contract raises exposure rather than lowering it.

Every contractor arriving on NEC has heard that NEC is strict about notices and JCT is relaxed. It is half wrong, in the half that costs money. JCT keeps two notices because it keeps two lists: the extension of time notice carries no sanction, while the loss and expense notice has been held by a court to be a condition of being paid at all. NEC runs one notification and one deadline, and it bars time and money together.

Cash is the part of the JCT to NEC transition nobody rehearses. Both forms pay on a fixed cycle under the same Act, so the shape looks familiar. Then the detail bites: the contractor's application stops being optional, the pay less window shortens by two days, and clause 50.5 withholds a quarter of the price for work done to date until a compliant programme is submitted. The payment cycle, set side by side.

Vocabulary transfers faster than machinery. A JCT team learns to say compensation event within a fortnight, then prices its first one like an extension of time application with the money to follow. There is no money to follow. The mechanism comparison in full: what triggers each, who assesses it, against what standard, and why the notice reflex has now flipped on both contracts.

A compensation event quotation has two limbs, time and money, and the money is the one contractors price worst. This is the guide to the change to the Prices: how it is built from Defined Cost and the Fee under clause 63.1, why your tendered rates usually do not apply, where your overhead and profit actually sit, why the forecast you agree is final, and the handful of points where valid entitlement quietly leaks away in the pricing.

In June 2026 the High Court refused to enforce a £1.65m NEC adjudication award in Premier Modular v Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust. The legal headline is natural justice. The lesson for contractors is a project controls one. The whole dispute turned on which programme was the Accepted Programme, and the date the claim relied on was never in it. Under NEC, a compensation event is only as good as the Accepted Programme it stands on, and acceptance is a status you earn,

Most NEC4 time impact assessments fail at the project manager's desk, not in the planning team. The analysis is usually sound. The structure is what fails. This article explains the five elements every accepted assessment contains: the dividing date with justification, the accepted programme with version, the compensation event fragnet built in isolation, the impacted programme with the calculation, and the narrative that walks the project manager through the cause and effect

Most contractors come to NEC with JCT instincts: claim extensions retrospectively, reconstruct delay at the end, argue from the completion date. NEC works the opposite way. Time entitlement is built prospectively, one compensation event at a time, against planned completion at the dividing date. Get that wrong, and you are fighting uphill for every week. Get it right, and the contract does the heavy lifting. This is the complete contractor guide to NEC delay analysis and exte

On NEC Options C and D, real cost can still become vulnerable when the accepted programme and the cost record stop telling the same story. This article looks at the hidden commercial fracture between planning and QS records, and why that is where Defined Cost recovery often starts to fail.

Where multiple compensation events arise under NEC4, separate assessment is usually the safer route. This guide explains the accepted programme, the dividing date, and why one blended impact programme can weaken traceability.

Clause 64 is not a procedural fallback. It is the contract's switching mechanism for commercial control of valuation. When the contractor submits compliant quotations on time with current programme information, the contractor controls valuation. When the contractor fails to meet any of the four conditions, the contract switches that control to the project manager, with consequences that typically reduce entitlement by thirty to sixty percent.

The NEC4 compensation event time bar is the most asymmetric provision in the entire contract. Almost every other NEC provision creates a spectrum of outcomes through judgement, extension mechanisms, or proportionate consequences. The eight-week time bar creates a cliff: notifications inside the period preserve entitlement, notifications outside it forfeit it entirely. The contractor who understands this asymmetry organises their administration around it.

An accepted programme is not a procedural document. It is the shared reference frame against which every compensation event is assessed, every delay analysed, every progress conversation grounded. When it is missing, the reference frame itself becomes contested, and that contest favours the project manager. This is what the absence of an accepted programme actually means commercially, why it shifts control, and how contractors recover the position before the damage compounds.

Most contractors ask how to get NEC4 compensation event quotations agreed. The question is the wrong one. The strongest contractors ask what makes a quotation acceptable to a project manager who wants to accept it and what makes a quotation rejectable by a project manager looking for reasons to reject. The first optimises for completeness. The second optimises for acceptability. The two are not the same.

Every subcontractor delay on an NEC4 project is two delays at once. The subcontract event runs on its own clock with its own notification requirements, evidence, and commercial outcomes. The head contract event runs on a parallel clock with its own clause 61.3 window, its own assessment, and its own clause 64 vulnerability. Most contractors run one of these processes diligently and the other partially or not at all.

Every contractor running an NEC4 contract loses some compensation event entitlement that the contract would otherwise have delivered. The amount lost is not random. It is the predictable consequence of seven specific failure modes that recur across contractor types, contract sizes and sectors. Each is preventable through operational discipline.

Give the same compensation event to two competent planners. Same accepted programme, same dividing date, same facts. One comes back with three weeks of delay to planned Completion. The other comes back with nine days. Both can defend their model. Neither has made an arithmetic error. The difference is five judgement calls that sit inside every NEC4 delay assessment, that the contract deliberately leaves open, and that most contractors make silently.