NEC4 compensation events: when the project manager can make their own assessment (clause 64) and how contractors protect entitlement
- Mar 3
- 20 min read
Updated: 3 days ago
By Roman Bazelchuk | NEC Accredited Project Manager | APMG Project Planning and Control
Founder, NEC Planning Solutions Ltd
There is a moment on every NEC project where commercial control of the contract can shift decisively from one party to the other. It is rarely dramatic. There is no single instruction that announces it has happened. The contractor's commercial team often does not realise it has occurred until weeks later, when they look at the compensation event register and notice that several events show "Project Manager Assessment" in the valuation column.
That moment is the activation of clause 64. The project manager has decided to make their own assessment of one or more compensation events, and the contractor's quotations are no longer the basis on which those events will be valued. The shift is procedural rather than confrontational. It does not require an argument or a dispute. It happens when specific contractual conditions are met, and once it happens, the contractor's recovery prospects on those events change fundamentally.
Most NEC4 commentary treats clause 64 as a procedural fallback: a mechanism the project manager uses when the contractor has failed to comply with the compensation event process, easily avoided through good administration. This framing is technically accurate but commercially misleading. Clause 64 is not a fallback. It is a deliberate design feature of the NEC contract that gives the project manager a route to take control of valuation when the contractor's procedural performance falls below a defined threshold. The contractor who treats clause 64 as a remote possibility is missing the point. Clause 64 is a constant condition: every quotation either keeps the contractor in control of valuation, or moves the contract closer to the project manager taking that control.
This article explains clause 64 as a structural feature of the contract rather than as a procedural irritant. It covers when the project manager can invoke clause 64, what their assessment is required to contain, what the contractor's recovery options are once an assessment has been made, and how the discipline of staying out of clause 64 territory shapes the contractor's commercial position throughout the project.
What clause 64 actually does
Clause 64.1 of NEC4 sets out the four circumstances in which the project manager makes their own assessment of a compensation event. The contractor failed to submit a required quotation and details of the assessment within the time allowed. The project manager decides that the contractor has not assessed the compensation event correctly in a quotation, and the project manager does not instruct the contractor to submit a revised quotation. The contractor failed to submit a revised quotation that the project manager instructed. When the compensation event occurred, the contractor had not submitted the alterations to the accepted programme or other relevant information that the project manager requires.
These four circumstances are not abstract. Each maps to a specific contractor failure mode. The first covers contractors who miss the three-week quotation deadline under clause 62.3. The second covers contractors whose quotations are not properly compliant with the assessment rules. The third covers contractors who do not respond to revision instructions. The fourth covers contractors whose programme administration has fallen behind to the point that the project manager cannot assess the event against a current accepted programme.
When any of these four conditions is met, the project manager assesses the event under clause 64.2, using the same principles the contractor would have used: the dividing date, the accepted programme current at that date, the schedule of cost components, the rules in clauses 63.1 to 63.10. The mechanism is the same. What differs is whose judgement decides the assumptions, the assessment of risk, the interpretation of records, and the calculation of impact.
This is the commercial heart of clause 64. The project manager applies the same contractual rules but using their own judgement about what those rules produce. That judgement almost always produces a lower entitlement than the contractor's quotation would have produced, for reasons that are structural rather than personal. The project manager does not have access to the contractor's full cost records, the contractor's resourcing plans, the contractor's view of risk, or the contractor's assessment of mitigation possibilities. The project manager assesses from a position of incomplete information, with the contract requiring them to make their best assessment from what is available. The assessment that emerges reflects the limits of the project manager's information, not the realities of the contractor's position.
NEC's own guidance is clear on this point. The contract guidance notes for clause 64 acknowledge that the project manager's assessment is an outcome the contract permits but does not prefer. The preferred outcome is a contractor quotation accepted by the project manager. Clause 64 exists as a backstop to prevent the contract from stalling when the contractor does not engage with the process. It is not designed to be the standard route to valuation, and contractors who allow it to become standard on their projects are operating outside the contract's intended dynamic.
The structural insight: clause 64 is the contract's switching mechanism
Most discussions of clause 64 treat the four trigger conditions as procedural failures that can be avoided through good administration. This is true but incomplete. The four conditions, taken together, function as a switching mechanism that determines who controls the commercial valuation of the project.
When the contractor submits compliant quotations on time, fully assessed, with current programme information, the contractor controls valuation. The project manager either accepts the quotations or instructs revisions. Either way, the contractor's analysis is the basis of the eventual agreed value. The project manager has the right to challenge specific elements but not to substitute their own valuation wholesale.
When the contractor fails to meet any of the four conditions, the contract switches the valuation control to the project manager. This is not a dispute resolution mechanism. The contract does not invite the parties to debate who is right. The contract gives the project manager the power to assess and the contractor the power to challenge that assessment through formal channels. But by default, the project manager's assessment becomes the contractual valuation.
This is a deliberate design choice. The NEC framework is built around the contractor controlling the cost and time information for the project, with the project manager monitoring that information against the contract. The contractor has the records, the resources, the cost data, and the operational knowledge that gives them the natural information advantage. The contract rewards contractors who use that advantage to produce timely, compliant quotations, by giving them control of valuation. The contract penalises contractors who do not engage by transferring valuation control to the project manager, who must do their best with less information.
Once this is understood, clause 64 becomes more than a procedural irritant. It becomes the central commercial discipline of NEC contract administration. Every quotation either reinforces the contractor's control of valuation or contributes to the conditions that switch control to the project manager. The contractor whose quotations are consistently compliant maintains valuation control across the project. The contractor whose quotations are sometimes late, sometimes not properly assessed, sometimes lacking programme information, finds that valuation control switches gradually rather than suddenly. By month six, the project manager is making more assessments than the contractor is submitting compliant quotations. By month twelve, the project manager has assessed half the compensation event register on terms unfavourable to the contractor. The shift looks like a series of individual procedural failures but functions as a single structural transition.
This article will use the term "switching mechanism" throughout to refer to this dynamic. The four trigger conditions in clause 64.1 are the switches. Each triggered switch transfers commercial control on that specific event. The contractor who treats each switch as a one-off procedural failure is not seeing the structural pattern. The contractor who treats each switch as a contribution to a larger transition understands what clause 64 is actually doing.
The four trigger conditions in detail
Trigger 1: Quotation not submitted on time.
Clause 62.3 requires the contractor to submit a quotation within three weeks of the project manager's instruction to provide one. If the contractor does not submit, clause 64.1 first bullet authorises the project manager to make their own assessment.
The trigger is procedural and the deadline is precise. Three weeks is twenty-one calendar days from the instruction, not from when the contractor began work on the quotation. The clock runs whether or not the contractor has all the information needed to complete the quotation, and whether or not the project manager has provided clarifications to questions raised by the contractor.
The contractor who is working in good faith but has not received needed clarifications has options. Under clause 62.5, the contractor can request an extension of the period for submitting the quotation. The extension must be agreed before the original deadline expires, not after. A request for extension submitted on day twenty-two is too late. An agreed extension changes the deadline but does not eliminate it.
The contractor who needs more time to complete the quotation properly has a third option that is rarely used: submit an interim quotation with explicit assumptions and a notification that a revised quotation will follow when specified information becomes available. This protects the contractor against trigger 1 by ensuring a quotation has been submitted, while flagging that further work is required. The project manager may not love this approach, but it is procedurally sound and it keeps valuation control with the contractor.
Trigger 2: Quotation not correctly assessed.
Clause 64.1 second bullet authorises the project manager to make their own assessment if the project manager decides the contractor has not assessed the compensation event correctly in a submitted quotation, and the project manager does not instruct a revised quotation.
The wording matters. The trigger is not "the project manager disagrees with the assessment." The trigger is "the contractor has not assessed correctly," meaning the assessment fails to comply with the contractual rules in clauses 63.1 to 63.10. A quotation that uses the wrong dividing date is not correctly assessed. A quotation that uses an out-of-date accepted programme is not correctly assessed. A quotation that fails to include the required information about the impact on the programme is not correctly assessed. A quotation where the cost element does not match the time element is not correctly assessed.
This trigger is the most subjective of the four and produces the most disputes. The project manager's view of "not correctly assessed" is binding on whether they invoke clause 64, but the contractor can challenge that view through formal mechanisms. The article on how to structure a time impact assessment under NEC4 covers the structural elements that protect against this trigger by making the assessment verifiable to the project manager's standard.
Trigger 3: Revised quotation not submitted.
Clause 64.1 third bullet authorises the project manager's own assessment if the contractor failed to submit a revised quotation that the project manager instructed. The mechanism here mirrors trigger 1: the project manager instructs a revised quotation under clause 62.4, the contractor has three weeks to submit it, and failure to submit triggers clause 64.
The same options apply. Extension can be agreed in advance under clause 62.5. Interim revised quotations with explicit assumptions can keep valuation control with the contractor while further work continues. The trigger is procedural and avoidable, but only if the contractor recognises that revision instructions have the same time-bar consequences as original quotation instructions.
Trigger 4: Programme information not provided.
Clause 64.1 fourth bullet authorises the project manager's own assessment if the contractor has not submitted the alterations to the accepted programme or other relevant information that the project manager requires when the compensation event occurred.
This trigger is structurally different from the first three. It does not relate to a specific instruction or deadline within the compensation event process. It relates to the broader programme administration regime under clauses 31 and 32. If the accepted programme is out of date, if the contractor has not been submitting compliant revisions, if the project manager has been left without a current programme position from which to assess events, this trigger activates whenever a compensation event arises.
This is the trigger that most exposes the structural nature of clause 64. A contractor whose programme is current and whose revision discipline is consistent never sees this trigger activate. A contractor whose programme is months out of date sees it activate on every compensation event that occurs. The article on NEC clause 32 programme revision covers the revision discipline that prevents this trigger.
What the project manager's assessment looks like
When the project manager assesses under clause 64.2, the assessment must follow the same rules that would have applied to a contractor quotation. The dividing date is the same. The accepted programme used is the one current at that date. The cost element uses the schedule of cost components or the short schedule of cost components depending on the option. The principles in clauses 63.1 to 63.10 apply.
What differs is the project manager's information position. They do not have the contractor's cost records. They do not have the contractor's programme model with all logic links and resource loadings. They do not have the contractor's view of mitigation possibilities. They are required to make their best assessment from what is reasonably available to them.
This produces a structural bias in the assessment. The project manager tends to assess conservatively because conservative assessment is procedurally safer. They include only costs they can verify from contemporaneous records, which tends to exclude costs the contractor incurred but did not document in a way the project manager can see. They tend to assume optimistic mitigation because they cannot verify the contractor's view of why mitigation was limited. They tend to use programme assumptions that favour shorter delays because they cannot verify the contractor's view of why delays would propagate longer.
None of these tendencies is malicious. They are the natural result of the project manager assessing from a position of incomplete information. The contractor who treats them as malicious misunderstands the dynamic. The project manager is doing their job within the constraints the contract gives them. The contractor's recovery prospects are limited by those constraints, not by the project manager's intentions.
The practical consequence is that a project manager assessment typically produces an entitlement that is somewhere between forty and seventy percent of what a properly prepared contractor quotation would have produced. The exact figure varies by event and by the quality of the project manager's information, but the structural bias toward lower entitlement is consistent. Contractors who allow clause 64 to be invoked routinely on their projects can expect to recover roughly half of what they would otherwise have recovered, across the events that go through that route.
The Costain v Bechtel question: what duty does the project manager owe?
The question of how the project manager should approach a clause 64 assessment connects to a broader question about the project manager's role under NEC contracts. The project manager is appointed and paid by the employer. The project manager is also required by the contract to act in specific ways: to administer the contract as written, to apply the rules in clauses 63 and 64 honestly, and (under NEC4 clause 10.2) to act in a spirit of mutual trust and co-operation.
The tension between the project manager's commercial relationship with the employer and their contractual role administering the contract impartially is real. Costain Ltd v Bechtel Ltd [2005] EWHC 1018 (TCC) addressed this tension directly in an NEC1 context. Costain alleged that Bechtel, as project manager on a major rail infrastructure project, had been instructed by the employer to take a deliberately conservative approach to compensation event assessment to control project costs. Costain sought interim relief on the basis that the project manager owed a duty of impartiality.
The court did not grant the interim relief on practical grounds. But Mr Justice Jackson (as he then was) accepted that there was a serious issue to be tried as to whether the project manager owed a duty of impartiality when administering the certification and assessment functions. His judgment did not finally determine the question of impartiality, but it left no doubt that NEC project managers cannot simply act on the employer's instructions without regard to the contract's requirements.
The case has been cited and discussed extensively in subsequent NEC commentary. The practical position that has emerged is approximately this: the project manager owes the employer the duty arising from their appointment, but when administering specific contractual functions (assessing compensation events, certifying payments, accepting programmes) the project manager must apply the contract's rules honestly and not allow the employer's commercial interests to determine the assessment.
For contractors, this matters in two ways. First, it means the project manager's assessment under clause 64 should reflect the contract's rules applied honestly, not the employer's preferred valuation. A clause 64 assessment that systematically undervalues compensation events on the basis of the employer's commercial preferences is challengeable on grounds beyond the simple correctness of the assessment.
Second, it means contractors should not assume bad faith in clause 64 assessments without evidence. Most assessments are produced by project managers acting in good faith but with incomplete information, not by project managers serving the employer's interests at the contractor's expense. The contractor's response should be evidence-led rather than confrontational. The article on NEC delay analysis and extension of time covers the evidence-led approach to challenging assessments.
The Costain principle does not give contractors a general right to reject clause 64 assessments on the grounds that they prefer their own valuation. It gives them a foundation for challenging assessments that have not been produced honestly within the contract's rules. The distinction matters in dispute and adjudication contexts.
How to prevent clause 64 activation
The contractor's best position is one where clause 64 never activates. The conditions for this are administrative rather than commercial.
Run a CE clock that tracks every relevant date. The clock tracks the date the compensation event was notified, the date the project manager instructed a quotation, the quotation due date (three weeks from instruction), the project manager's reply due date, any extensions agreed, the date a revised quotation was instructed if applicable, and the revised quotation due date. The clock is reviewed weekly. If a date is approaching with no quotation prepared, the clock surfaces the issue while there is still time to act.
Use a standard quotation pack structure for every compensation event. The pack contains a cover page identifying the event and the decision requested, a numbered list of assumptions linked to evidence, a cost build-up using the schedule of cost components, a time impact assessment with the structural elements covered in the time impact assessment article, and an evidence index referencing instructions, drawings, RFIs, and site records. Standardisation reduces the project manager's review burden and reduces the procedural grounds for "not correctly assessed."
Maintain programme currency through clause 32 revisions. A current accepted programme is the foundation that prevents trigger 4 from activating. Programmes submitted on the contract data interval (typically four-weekly), each properly compliant with clauses 31.2 and 32.1, each formally submitted under clause 13, with deemed acceptance triggered if the project manager fails to respond. The article on clause 32 programme revision covers the revision discipline.
Use extensions properly under clause 62.5. When more time is genuinely needed for a quotation, request the extension before the deadline expires. State the specific reason and the specific additional time required. Do not let extensions become a way of indefinitely postponing the quotation, but do not refuse to use them when they are appropriate.
Submit interim quotations with explicit assumptions when complete information is not available. This is the most underused tool in the contractor's clause 64 prevention kit. Rather than missing the deadline because of incomplete information, submit a quotation that states clearly what information was unavailable, what assumptions were made in its absence, and what revised quotation will follow once the information becomes available. This keeps valuation control with the contractor while flagging the limitations honestly.
These five disciplines, applied consistently, produce a contractor administrative regime where clause 64 rarely activates. The project manager has compliant quotations to either accept or revise. The accepted programme is current. The compensation event register fills with agreed valuations rather than project manager assessments. Commercial control of the contract stays with the contractor.
How to respond when clause 64 has been invoked
When the project manager notifies that they will assess a compensation event under clause 64, the contractor's response in the first forty-eight hours determines whether the clause 64 assessment is the final word or the beginning of a longer process.
Respond the same day with a request for the specific trigger relied upon. The project manager must identify which of the four trigger conditions applies. A non-specific "the contractor has failed to comply" response is procedurally weak. Pressing for the specific trigger forces the project manager to commit to a position the contractor can challenge.
Issue an assessment support pack regardless of whether one was invited. The pack contains the same elements a quotation would have contained: cost build-up, time impact assessment, assumptions, evidence index. The project manager is not contractually obliged to use the support pack, but in practice the project manager will use what is easiest to use. A well-prepared support pack lands on the project manager's desk before they have completed their own assessment, and it shapes that assessment by giving them better information than they would otherwise have had.
Maintain a complete contemporaneous record. Every communication about the event, every cost record, every programme update, every email exchange is filed in a single chronological folder. This record is the foundation for any subsequent challenge to the project manager's assessment. The article on NEC clause 31 programme acceptance covers the broader documentation discipline.
Engage with the assessment substantively when it arrives. When the project manager's assessment is issued, read it carefully. Identify the specific points of disagreement. Note where the assessment uses assumptions that differ from the contractor's view, where records were not used, where mitigation was assumed that was not actually possible, where rates differ from the contractor's. Each point of disagreement is a candidate for formal challenge.
Use the contract's challenge mechanisms. If the contractor disagrees with the assessment, the contract provides routes to challenge it. The contractor can refer the matter to senior representatives under W1, request adjudication, or pursue the dispute through the formal procedures. Each route has different timescales and different evidential requirements. The contractor's preparation in the first forty-eight hours determines how strong each subsequent route can be.
The clause 64 assessment is not the end of the contractor's recovery prospects on the event, but it does shift the burden. Before clause 64 activated, the contractor's quotation was the default starting point and the project manager had to demonstrate why it should not be accepted. After clause 64 has been invoked and an assessment made, the project manager's assessment is the default starting point and the contractor has to demonstrate why it should be revised. The shift in burden is significant and can be expensive to overcome.
What the long-running pattern looks like
A project where clause 64 is invoked once or twice over a multi-year programme is a project with normal procedural friction. A project where clause 64 is invoked routinely is a project where the structural switching mechanism has activated, and the contractor's commercial position is deteriorating in a pattern that requires intervention rather than incremental fix.
The long-running pattern has a recognisable shape. It usually starts with one or two missed quotation deadlines for legitimate reasons (genuine information gaps, unclear instructions, complex events). The project manager invokes clause 64 on those events. The contractor responds with assessment support packs but the assessments come back lower than the contractor expected. The contractor's planning team becomes more cautious about subsequent quotations, taking longer to prepare them properly. More deadlines slip. The project manager invokes clause 64 again. The pattern compounds.
By month six or month nine, the contractor's compensation event register shows a high proportion of project manager assessments rather than agreed contractor quotations. The aggregate value of those project manager assessments is significantly below what the contractor believes the events were worth. The contractor is fighting individual events through challenge mechanisms but losing ground in aggregate.
The intervention required at this point is structural rather than tactical. Resolving individual events through challenge mechanisms is necessary but insufficient. The contractor needs to address the underlying conditions that allow clause 64 to keep activating: programme administration discipline, quotation pack standardisation, deadline tracking, and resource allocation to the compensation event process.
For contractors who have allowed the pattern to develop, specialist NEC programme support provides the systematic intervention that brings programme administration and compensation event processes back to a state where clause 64 stops activating. The recovery is not instant. It typically takes two to three months of disciplined administration to rebuild the position. But the cost of that recovery is a small fraction of the cost of allowing the pattern to continue for the remaining duration of the project.
Summary: NEC4 clause 64 compensation event
Clause 64 is not a procedural fallback. It is a switching mechanism that determines who controls commercial valuation of compensation events. 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 in clause 64.1, the contract switches valuation control to the project manager.
The switch produces a structural reduction in entitlement, typically thirty to sixty percent below what a compliant contractor quotation would have produced, because the project manager assesses from a position of incomplete information and tends toward conservative assumptions. The reduction is not the result of the project manager acting in bad faith. It is the natural result of valuation being made by the party with less information.
The contractor who understands clause 64 as a switching mechanism rather than as a procedural irritant treats every quotation as a contribution to keeping valuation control. Every compliant quotation reinforces the contractor's position. Every missed deadline, every quotation that is not correctly assessed, every event without proper programme information moves the contract closer to the project manager taking valuation control.
The disciplines that prevent clause 64 activation are administrative rather than commercial. Track every relevant date through a CE clock. Use a standard quotation pack structure. Maintain programme currency through clause 32 revisions. Use extensions properly when more time is needed. Submit interim quotations when complete information is not available. None of these is technically difficult. All require consistent execution across the life of the project.
When clause 64 has been invoked, the contractor's response in the first forty-eight hours determines what happens next. Request the specific trigger relied upon. Issue an assessment support pack regardless of whether invited. Maintain a complete contemporaneous record. Engage substantively with the assessment when it arrives. Use the contract's challenge mechanisms where the assessment is genuinely incorrect.
The contractor who maintains the disciplines and responds substantively when clause 64 is invoked finds the mechanism rarely activates and rarely results in significant entitlement loss when it does. The contractor who treats compensation events as a low priority administrative process finds clause 64 becoming the standard route to valuation, with consequences that compound across the duration of the project.
FAQ
When can the project manager make their own assessment under NEC4 clause 64?
In four circumstances under clause 64.1: the contractor failed to submit a quotation within the time allowed, the quotation submitted was not correctly assessed and the project manager does not instruct a revised quotation, the contractor failed to submit a revised quotation that was instructed, or the contractor had not submitted the alterations to the accepted programme or other relevant information when the compensation event occurred. These four conditions are the only valid triggers for a clause 64 assessment.
What does "not correctly assessed" mean in clause 64.1?
It means the quotation does not comply with the assessment rules in clauses 63.1 to 63.10. Common examples include using the wrong dividing date, using an out-of-date accepted programme, failing to include the required programme alterations, inconsistency between the cost and time elements, or using rates and resources that do not match the schedule of cost components. The project manager's view of "not correctly assessed" is binding for the purposes of invoking clause 64, but the contractor can challenge that view through formal mechanisms.
Why does a project manager assessment typically produce a lower entitlement than a contractor quotation?
Because the project manager assesses from a position of incomplete information. They do not have the contractor's full cost records, programme model, resource plans, or operational knowledge. They are required to make their best assessment from what is reasonably available to them, which typically produces conservative valuations. The structural bias toward lower entitlement is consistent across most clause 64 assessments, regardless of the project manager's intentions.
How can contractors prevent clause 64 from activating?
Five disciplines: run a CE clock that tracks every relevant date, use a standard quotation pack structure for every event, maintain programme currency through clause 32 revisions, use extensions properly under clause 62.5 when needed, and submit interim quotations with explicit assumptions when complete information is not available. Applied consistently, these disciplines produce an administrative regime where clause 64 rarely activates.
What should a contractor do when the project manager invokes clause 64?
Respond the same day with a request for the specific trigger condition relied upon. Issue an assessment support pack containing cost build-up, time impact assessment, assumptions, and evidence index, regardless of whether one was invited. Maintain a complete contemporaneous record of all communications and decisions. When the project manager's assessment is issued, engage substantively, identifying specific points of disagreement and using the contract's challenge mechanisms where the assessment is genuinely incorrect.
What is the Costain v Bechtel principle and why does it matter for clause 64?
Costain Ltd v Bechtel Ltd [2005] EWHC 1018 (TCC) addressed whether the project manager under an NEC contract owes a duty of impartiality when administering certification and assessment functions. The court accepted there was a serious issue to be tried but did not finally determine the question. The practical position that has emerged is that the project manager must apply the contract's rules honestly when administering specific contractual functions, even though they are appointed and paid by the employer. For contractors, this means clause 64 assessments that systematically undervalue events on the basis of the employer's commercial preferences are challengeable on grounds beyond the simple correctness of the assessment.
Can the contractor refuse to accept a clause 64 assessment?
The contractor cannot refuse to accept it as the contractual valuation, but they can challenge it through the contract's dispute resolution mechanisms. Under W1, the contractor can refer the matter to senior representatives, then to adjudication. Each challenge route has its own timescales and evidential requirements. The contractor's preparation in the first forty-eight hours after the assessment is invoked determines how strong each subsequent route can be.
What happens if clause 64 assessments become a pattern across the project?
The contractor's compensation event register fills with project manager assessments rather than agreed contractor quotations, the aggregate entitlement on those events runs significantly below what the contractor believes was justified, and the commercial baseline of the project deteriorates. Resolving individual events through challenge mechanisms is necessary but not sufficient. The contractor needs structural intervention in programme administration and quotation processes to address the conditions that keep allowing clause 64 to activate. The article on NEC clause 32 programme revision covers the revision discipline that anchors that intervention.
About the author
Roman Bazelchuk is the Founder of NEC Planning Solutions Ltd, a UK project planning and controls consultancy supporting contractors with NEC programme compliance, compensation event assessments and live project controls. He is an NEC Accredited Project Manager and holds the APMG Project Planning and Control qualification, with a BSc in Mechanical Engineering and postgraduate training in Planning and Control.
NEC Planning Solutions provides contract-aware planning support through a QA-governed delivery model, helping project teams keep programmes accepted, current and commercially useful from tender through to live delivery.
Need to prevent clause 64 activation or recover from a pattern that has developed?
If compensation events are routinely being assessed by the project manager, if the gap between contractor quotations and project manager assessments has become commercially significant, or if programme administration has fallen behind to the point that clause 64 keeps triggering, specialist NEC programme support brings the structural disciplines that put the contractor back in control of valuation.
