NEC4 ECC opt C After PM accepted the Contractor's scope for its design, there is no contract clause for a change or Contractor's proposal to the Scope provided by the Contractor. Is this correct? What could the Contractor do on this matter? Thanks.
Sorry for replying late I was totally tied up by office works these days…. The contract itself doesn’t dictate whether PM and Client must be different. However, normally the Client will hire a PM to administer and manage a contract. This is from a risk sharing point of view first of all, and secondly the Client may not have the resources to manage the project himself or herself. However we do have examples of a client using his in house employees as PM. Those are normally projects with smaller scopes.
@@execute-order66 Sorry I was slow! You know in our field, we have to reply to client's enquiries like in one day or two. So thanks for bearing with me over this TH-cam side.
It really depends on specific situations but generally speaking I can share with you the followings: Cl. 20.1 obliges the Contractor to Provide the Works in accordance with the Scope. However, the Scope provided by the Client before (and at the time of) and after the submission becomes an issue here. #擺龍門 Under the contract, Cl. 21.2, a reason for not accepting the Contractor's design is that it does not comply with either the Scope or the applicable law. However, reading the whole contract together, the PM is not obliged to refuse acceptance if the Contractor submits a design which does not comply with the Scope. Such submission can be deemed as a Contractor's request to change the Scope provided by the Contractor for its design. If the PM does accept the Contractor's design, the PM should change the Scope accordingly. Cl. 60.1(1), such a change to the Scope may (or may not) be a compensation event. If the PM decides to change the Scope back to the original, Cl. 60.1(1) applies again. It is therefore important for the PM to act competently and in due diligence and discuss with the Client whether such change is permissible by the Client. I skip the details here to avoid the thesis...but these are the general principles. As it often happens, disagreements between Client and PM is a separate issue. I again skip the details here... Points to note: 1. There is a precedence of the Scope in CD Part one over the Scope in CD Part two; 2. Cl. 14.1, when the PM accepts the Contractor's design, there is no change of liability for the design.
好感動，咁快回應了問題，十分感謝，已subscribe🙏🏻。廣東話真係易明好多！
You are welcome.
就算已經係NEC Accredited Manager , 都未必明晒同識運用, 拍多啲廣東話NEC, 例如性質相似嘅clauses 實際嘅分別同用法😄
We all know the feeling my friend. 😉
This is a motivating comment. Will do more in this Cantonese channel.
NEC4 ECC opt C
After PM accepted the Contractor's scope for its design, there is no contract clause for a change or Contractor's proposal to the Scope provided by the Contractor. Is this correct? What could the Contractor do on this matter? Thanks.
Thanks I got your WhatsApp message. I just replied by a recording. Hope it helps!
@@NECFewMinutes Thank you!!!
Hello 想問下 如果 CL 15.2 early warning meeting should be held by the PM , Contractor and Client , 咁 依PM 同 Client 會唔會係同一個人 ？
Sorry for replying late I was totally tied up by office works these days….
The contract itself doesn’t dictate whether PM and Client must be different. However, normally the Client will hire a PM to administer and manage a contract. This is from a risk sharing point of view first of all, and secondly the Client may not have the resources to manage the project himself or herself.
However we do have examples of a client using his in house employees as PM. Those are normally projects with smaller scopes.
@@NECFewMinutes 好感動，咁快回應了問題，十分感謝
@@execute-order66 Sorry I was slow! You know in our field, we have to reply to client's enquiries like in one day or two. So thanks for bearing with me over this TH-cam side.
想問問cl. 21.2, 如果PM睇contractor's design睇漏眼, 批咗個唔comply with client scope嘅contractor's design, 咁個責任會係點？
It really depends on specific situations but generally speaking I can share with you the followings:
Cl. 20.1 obliges the Contractor to Provide the Works in accordance with the Scope. However, the Scope provided by the Client before (and at the time of) and after the submission becomes an issue here. #擺龍門
Under the contract, Cl. 21.2, a reason for not accepting the Contractor's design is that it does not comply with either the Scope or the applicable law. However, reading the whole contract together, the PM is not obliged to refuse acceptance if the Contractor submits a design which does not comply with the Scope. Such submission can be deemed as a Contractor's request to change the Scope provided by the Contractor for its design. If the PM does accept the Contractor's design, the PM should change the Scope accordingly. Cl. 60.1(1), such a change to the Scope may (or may not) be a compensation event. If the PM decides to change the Scope back to the original, Cl. 60.1(1) applies again. It is therefore important for the PM to act competently and in due diligence and discuss with the Client whether such change is permissible by the Client. I skip the details here to avoid the thesis...but these are the general principles.
As it often happens, disagreements between Client and PM is a separate issue. I again skip the details here...
Points to note:
1. There is a precedence of the Scope in CD Part one over the Scope in CD Part two;
2. Cl. 14.1, when the PM accepts the Contractor's design, there is no change of liability for the design.