An NEC4 project may have a design waiting for acceptance, a revised programme showing delay and a quotation for an associated compensation event. If the responses to those submissions leave their status unclear, the Contractor may be ready to order equipment while the planner and commercial team are working to entirely different assumptions.
Under the NEC4 Engineering and Construction Contract (ECC), each response needs to communicate the decision required by the relevant procedure. Accepting a design, accepting a programme and accepting a compensation event quotation have different effects. A shared 'accepted with comments' status can conceal those differences and leave important decisions unresolved.
The fictional Ironbark Recycled Water Scheme, introduced in NEC4 Explained, provides an example. A regional Australian utility is procuring a pipeline, pumping station and balancing tank under ECC Option C. The new system will supply recycled water from an existing treatment plant to an industrial estate. The plant must remain operational during construction and connection.
For this example, Scope makes the Contractor responsible for the pumping-station connection design and requires design particulars for acceptance. A missing hydraulic assessment delays its review. The operator then requests an additional control function, leading to an instructed change. The Contractor must deal with the design response while updating its programme and preparing a compensation event quotation.
Working together before formal submission
In my seminars, I encourage teams to treat submission for acceptance as the end of the preparation and review process. The ideal response is acceptance, ideally on the day of submission. A document which lands on the Project Manager's desk cold is much more likely to need correction or take the whole response period to assess. The work needed for a prompt decision should already have taken place.
For design, this means the Contractor's designers working with the Client's design team and operator as the design develops. They can test the proposals against Scope, discuss the supporting calculations and resolve review comments before formal issue. On Ironbark, a design workshop would allow the teams to work through the isolation sequence and establish what hydraulic assessment is needed while there is still time to provide it.
The Project Manager needs to be involved sufficiently to understand the proposed submission and the outcome of those discussions. The Contractor then submits the agreed documents at identified revisions, and the Project Manager can check that they reflect what has been reviewed and communicate acceptance. Submission and acceptance provide the contractual ratification of that work. Agreement between the technical teams does not itself replace the Project Manager's acceptance, change Scope or transfer the Contractor's design responsibility.
Taking the discussion offline means speaking directly and working through the documents together, while retaining the decisions and required communications in the project record. It does not mean keeping agreements off the record. Nor should a requirement to obtain informal agreement delay a submission, notification or response which the contract already requires. If a genuine disagreement remains, the formal process must still be used within the applicable time.
Preparing a submission for a decision
The Contractor should first establish what it is submitting, which provision requires it and what decision is needed. Design particulars required by Scope follow clause 21.2. A programme follows clauses 31 and 32, while a compensation event quotation follows clause 62. A document uploaded for discussion should be distinguishable from a submission issued for one of those decisions.
The package should identify its documents and revisions, explain material changes and contain the supporting information needed for the assessment. On Ironbark, the design reviewer needs the proposed isolation sequence and its hydraulic assessment. The planner needs the sequence and dependencies shown in the programme. The person assessing the quotation needs the proposed changes to the Prices and dates, with details supporting that assessment.
The package needs to follow the contractual communication arrangements. Record the issue date and the decision requested, and retain the attachments as issued. A link to a live folder which is later overwritten can make it difficult to establish what was reviewed.
Other submissions, including proposed Subcontractors and quality plans, have their own requirements. Notifications and certificates also perform distinct functions. An early warning or compensation event notification should not be routed through a generic design-acceptance workflow merely because the software makes that convenient.
Design submissions and review comments
Ironbark's Scope requires the connection design to maintain the existing service while the treatment plant remains operational. The Contractor submits drawing PS-021 revision A, but the supporting hydraulic assessment does not address the isolation sequence shown on that drawing. The operator cannot establish whether the proposed arrangement meets the operating constraint.
If the missing assessment is discovered after submission, the Project Manager can pick up the phone. The Contractor may have the calculation but have omitted it from the package, or the reviewer may have misunderstood where the relevant information is shown. A conversation can establish what is missing and whether it can be supplied promptly. If it resolves the concern, the supplementary information or corrected submission should be formally recorded, with the documents under review clearly identified. The Project Manager may then be able to accept without a formal non-acceptance and another review cycle.
Clause 13.4 recognises that more information may be needed to assess a submission fully. If the Project Manager withholds acceptance, the reasons must contain enough detail for the Contractor to correct the matter. A response stating 'not accepted, operator comments attached' may leave the Contractor searching through observations without knowing which ones prevent acceptance.
If the information cannot be provided and assessed in time, a reasoned non-acceptance may be necessary. The response could state:
Design submission IBK-PS-021 revision A is not accepted. The hydraulic assessment does not address the isolation sequence shown on drawing PS-021 revision A. Please provide the assessment for that sequence so that compliance with the existing-service requirement in Scope can be assessed.
This identifies the missing information and explains why it is needed. It does not assert that the design has failed a requirement which the available information cannot yet establish. Where the information does show non-compliance, the response should identify the affected requirement and explain the problem. Clause 21.2 identifies non-compliance with Scope or applicable law as a reason for not accepting design.
The operator and technical advisers should explain which requirement each material comment concerns. Their advice needs to reach the Project Manager in time for a reasoned response. A preference for a different drawing layout should not be presented as non-compliance unless Scope requires that layout. Forwarding every review comment unchanged can leave the Contractor with contradictory requests or preferences presented as obligations.
Where a formal non-acceptance is needed for this design submission, clause 13.4 requires the Contractor to resubmit within the period for reply, taking the reasons into account. Revision B should show how the missing assessment has been supplied and reconcile the drawings with it. A comment-response schedule can help the reviewer find the changes, but a series of 'noted' entries does not demonstrate that the problem has been resolved.
Changes requested during review
Revision B supplies the missing assessment and demonstrates that the proposed arrangement meets the existing service requirement. During review, the operator asks for an additional remote-control function. For this example, that function is not required by the existing Scope. The technical team agrees that it would be useful, but it introduces a new requirement.
The Project Manager should address that request expressly. Acceptance under clause 21.2 and an instruction changing Scope under clause 14.3 perform different functions. A comment asking the Contractor to include the new function should not leave its status or contractual effect uncertain.
If the utility decides to require the function, the Project Manager should issue an instruction identifying the change to Scope. The instruction and the applicable compensation event procedure then need to be dealt with, including any relevant exceptions. The design can be revised against the changed requirement.
For the design and programme submissions considered here, withholding acceptance for a reason not stated in the contract is a compensation event under clause 60.1(9). Clause 13.8 distinguishes withholding for a stated reason, which is not a compensation event. A genuine need for information to assess compliance should therefore be distinguished from a request for additional work.
Suppose the Project Manager instructs the additional function in PMI-014. The Contractor incorporates it in revision C and identifies the instruction in its resubmission. If the resulting design is acceptable, the response can identify the decision directly:
I accept design submission IBK-PS-021 revision C for the pumping-station connection and isolation arrangements, comprising drawing PS-021 revision C and hydraulic assessment HA-021 revision C. These documents incorporate the change instructed in PMI-014.
Acceptance under clause 14.1 preserves the Contractor's responsibility to Provide the Works and its design liability. It does not turn a review comment into a change to Scope or transfer responsibility to the operator. Under clause 21.2, the Contractor does not proceed with the relevant work before its design has been accepted. Unrelated work which can proceed in accordance with the contract needs to be considered separately.
Revised programmes and acceptance
The design review and additional control function affect the work still to be done. The Contractor submits programme P07, showing the revised controls work and a later planned Completion. The Project Manager needs to assess the programme against the contractual requirements, without treating its response as a decision on the Contractor's entitlement to additional time.
The planners should work through the proposed sequence with the operator and Project Manager before formal issue. On Ironbark, that discussion should check the agreed isolation activities and tests against the Contractor's programme. The formal submission should reflect those discussions, so that acceptance does not have to wait while the reviewer discovers how the connection is intended to proceed.
If P07 nevertheless omits the operator's agreed isolation activities and the system tests which follow the connection, the Project Manager should raise the omission directly with the Contractor. The missing activities affect whether the proposed sequence is practicable and whether the required information has been shown. A response stating 'not accepted, Completion Date exceeded' does not identify that problem and confuses the forecast with the contractual deadline.
If the omission cannot be resolved through discussion and a properly recorded correction in time for acceptance, the formal response should identify what is missing:
I do not accept programme P07. It does not show the operator's agreed isolation activities or the system tests following the connection. These activities are needed to show the sequence and timing required by clause 31.2 and Scope. Please include them, with their dependencies, so that the proposed sequence can be assessed.
Clause 31.3 gives the Project Manager two weeks to notify acceptance or reasons for non-acceptance. Its stated reasons concern impracticable proposals, missing information, an unrealistic representation of the Contractor's intentions or non-compliance with Scope. The reasons should explain the defect in the submitted programme sufficiently for correction. Withholding for an unstated reason has the compensation event consequence described above.
The Contractor includes the missing activities in P08, and the Project Manager accepts it. Planned Completion may still be later than the Completion Date. The programme must show a realistic forecast, including unresolved delay. Acceptance does not itself move the contractual date or establish that the Client is responsible for the movement. The programme acceptance process needs to keep those decisions distinct.
For Ironbark's site team, P08 now provides the current accepted sequence for managing the remaining work. The Project Manager's response should identify that revision. The report should continue to show the contractual Completion Date separately, with the status of any proposed change to it. An 'approved finish date' field which merges the two dates would lose information the team still needs.
Compensation event quotations and responses
For this example, the Project Manager has notified PMI-014 as a compensation event and instructed a quotation. The Contractor submits quotation CE-014 revision 1, setting out proposed changes to the Prices and dates with its assessment details. Where the event alters the programme for remaining work, clause 62.2 also requires the relevant alterations to the Accepted Programme. A supplier price for the additional controls, by itself, does not address the complete assessment.
The time assessment needs particular attention. P08 records the Contractor's current intentions, but comparing its finish with the earlier programme would not, on its own, isolate the effect of PMI-014. The assessment must use the Accepted Programme current at the dividing date and apply the contractual time-assessment rules. Ironbark's original incomplete design submission does not become a Client-caused delay merely because an instructed change follows it.
The Contractor's commercial team and the Project Manager should discuss the assessment as it is prepared, involving the planners where time is affected. They can examine the records and test how the quotation separates the instructed change from the earlier design delay. Resolving that issue before submission would allow the formal quotation to record an assessment already understood by both teams and capable of prompt acceptance.
If the submitted quotation nevertheless attributes the whole movement in planned Completion to the new control function, the Project Manager should discuss that concern with the Contractor. They may resolve a misunderstanding or agree how the earlier missing assessment should be treated. Any resulting correction needs to appear in the quotation being accepted. An email saying 'cost agreed, time rejected' leaves uncertainty about whether the quotation has been accepted or what the Contractor is expected to submit next.
If a revised quotation is required, the response could state:
Please submit a revised quotation for CE-014. Revision 1 attributes the whole movement in planned Completion to PMI-014, without distinguishing the effect of the incomplete design submission. Show the effect of the instructed change using the Accepted Programme current at the dividing date and explain how the earlier review delay has been treated.
Under clause 62.3, the Project Manager replies within two weeks of submission. For an instructed event such as this, the reply is acceptance of the quotation, an instruction to submit a revised quotation or notification that the Project Manager will make its own assessment. Clause 62.4 requires reasons for an instruction to revise. The Contractor submits the revised quotation within three weeks, subject to a properly agreed extension. These are procedure-specific periods, rather than a general design-review timetable.
The Project Manager's own assessment is required in the circumstances stated in clause 64.1. Those include an incorrect Contractor assessment where a revised quotation has not been instructed, as well as specified failures concerning quotation or programme submissions. In this example, P08 is accepted before the quotation is submitted. If the latest programme instead remained unaccepted for a stated contractual reason when the quotation was submitted, the applicable clause 64 provisions would need to be followed.
The Contractor's revised quotation should identify the assessment changes and retain a clear record of any matters already agreed. Once the complete quotation is acceptable, the Project Manager's response should identify the quotation revision and its supporting cost and time assessments. It should not leave a qualification about time unresolved under a general acceptance label.
Acceptance of the quotation implements the compensation event under clause 66.1. The resulting changes to the Prices and relevant dates must be carried into the contractual records. An assessment may establish additional cost without changing a contractual date. Under Ironbark's Option C, the implemented price change adjusts the target rather than becoming a separate addition to periodic payment. The compensation event procedure and Option C payment provisions govern those consequences.
Resubmissions and response periods
The review record should identify the applicable period, what starts it and the action due. Assume Ironbark's period for reply is two weeks for the design submission. Programme acceptance also has a two-week response period, but that period comes from clause 31.3. The quotation procedure has its own submission and response periods. Their occasional numerical similarity is not a reason to configure every communication against the same deadline.
The operator's technical review needs to fit within the Project Manager's response period. Waiting for advice or internal approval does not, by itself, extend the deadline. The Client's approval arrangements need to support the contractual decision rather than create another review stage before the clock starts.
The period allowed for a reply is not a target waiting time. If the review is complete and the submission is acceptable, the Project Manager should communicate that decision promptly. A phone call to resolve a question does not stop the response clock or replace the required contractual reply.
Where an extension to the period for reply is needed, clause 13.5 requires agreement before the reply is due, with the Project Manager informing the Contractor of the agreed extension. Quotations and replies to quotations have their own extension provision in clause 62.5. Record the agreement under the appropriate provision rather than assume a request has already extended the deadline.
Keep the issue and response dates for each revision. A properly communicated non-acceptance followed by a resubmission creates a further review cycle. An informal request for information should not be assumed to have stopped the clock. Nor should waiting for programme acceptance be assumed to extend a compensation event quotation deadline. Any necessary extension must be addressed through the applicable provision.
Late decisions and follow up notices
If a response is overdue, establish which communication took effect and what decision is missing. Contact the person responsible and identify the work affected. Failure by the Project Manager or Supervisor to reply within the period required by the contract is addressed by clause 60.1(6), but any entitlement and assessment still require the compensation event provisions to be followed.
The consequences of continued silence depend on the submission. An unanswered design submission does not become accepted simply because the Contractor sends a reminder. For a programme, clause 31.3 allows the Contractor to notify the failure to respond; a further week of continued failure then results in acceptance being treated as given. For a quotation, clause 62.6 provides its own failure-notification procedure and a further two-week period before the quotation is treated as accepted. Those further notifications must be communicated as required by the contract.
A general chase email or an entry in the overdue register should not be assumed to perform that function. The follow-up procedures for unanswered communications need to be tracked separately from routine reminders. Where the missing decision threatens the connection work, the team should also use early warning to address the developing problem while preserving the required contractual notices.
Keeping the decisions connected
Before Ironbark's connection proceeds, I would ask the team to show the accepted design and the instruction which introduced the additional control function. The planner should be able to identify the current Accepted Programme and distinguish its forecast from the contractual Completion Date. The commercial team should show whether the compensation event assessment has been implemented and what it changed.
Each record should link to the others without merging their contractual functions. Design acceptance leaves the Contractor's design responsibility in place. Programme acceptance establishes the Accepted Programme record without itself changing the Completion Date. Acceptance of a compensation event quotation implements its assessment. A system which displays all three as 'accepted' still needs to preserve those different consequences.
Working through these connected submissions is useful in NEC4 contract administration training. The team can test its actual forms and review routes against the decisions it needs to make. At Ironbark, the operator and construction team should be organising the connection against identified requirements and decisions which have actually been communicated, rather than assumptions about what a document-control label permits.
The provisions described here are those of the June 2017 NEC4 ECC incorporating the January 2023 amendments, without project amendments affecting these procedures. The signed contract's Scope, delegations and response periods must be checked.
