Clause 60.1(21) makes any additional compensation event stated in Contract Data part one count as a compensation event. So in NEC4 ECC the list isn't always closed at twenty: the Client can add project-specific events at tender, and they work through the normal process.
NEC3 ECC (April 2013) has no equivalent entry. Its Contract Data once had a place for additional events, but an amendment removed it, so they'd generally be added by Z clause. In NEC4, the form has its own space, so a project-specific risk can be allocated without amending the core clauses. See the guide to NEC4 Contract Data.
What triggers it
There are two steps. First, an event is listed in Contract Data part one. If it isn't listed, this entry does nothing. Second, what's described happens, and has an effect on Defined Cost, Completion or a Key Date.
The Client's choice to list an event says a lot about who holds a particular risk. Common reasons include:
- A risk that could otherwise bring high prices at tender, so the Client takes it on and pays only if it arises.
- A known issue on the project, with an uncertain outcome.
- A dependency on a third party that the Client can influence and the Contractor can't.
Those are the Client's reasons. A Contractor can also ask for an event to be added during tender queries or negotiations, provided that it's before the contract is formed.
Drafting one that works
The other entries have been refined by long use. This one is whatever someone wrote at tender stage, so ambiguity is a real risk.
| Weak wording | Better wording, in effect | Why |
|---|---|---|
| "Delays by the planning authority" | The stated planning condition isn't discharged by a named date | Clear date, clear fact, easy to test |
| "Unforeseen archaeology" | Archaeological remains found in zone C that need a stated level of excavation | Removes the "foreseen" debate and gives a physical boundary |
| "Tenant issues" | Tenant X hasn't vacated Unit 4 by 31 March | Names the person, the place and the date |
| "Network Operator's outage is not available" | The operator withdraws a booked outage with less than a stated notice | Separates the risk from the Contractor's own failure to book |
Good drafting answers four questions: what exactly has to happen, how will we know, is it limited to a place or a time, and how does it interact with the other entries? It helps if the wording can say whether only part of the effect counts, as 60.1(12) and (13) do for their own events. Our guide to Z clause mistakes covers similar problems.
How it is usually evidenced
Since these are usually factual triggers, the evidence depends on the wording: a planning authority's notice, a tenant's move-out record or a utility's withdrawal letter, along with the normal records of what the Contractor's team did as a result.
Worked example
A fictional shopping-centre extension on Option A, with illustrative figures. Contract Data part one adds this event, in substance: the existing tenant of Unit 4 hasn't vacated by 31 March. The Client's lease talks are ongoing, and the Client would rather hold that risk than have tenderers price it.
The tenant leaves on 21 April. On 1 April, the Contractor notifies an event under 60.1(21), as the Project Manager hasn't.
| Effect | Defined Cost |
|---|---|
| Demolition Subcontractor remobilisation | £6,500 |
| Resequencing steelwork deliveries | £3,400 |
| Time-related cost for two weeks' delay to planned Completion | £24,100 |
| Subtotal | £34,000 |
| Fee at an illustrative 10% | £3,400 |
| Change to the Prices | £37,400 |
Without the added event, the Contractor would be testing 60.1(2) instead, depending on whether Unit 4 was within the Site and what dates were shown. The added entry saves that argument, which is exactly its purpose.
How it is assessed
Once it's on the list, the event runs like any other. The 61.3 time bar applies unless a communication caused the event, and the normal reply under 61.4 follows. The dividing date, the Defined Cost plus Fee calculation and the delay rules are the same as for the rest. See assessing compensation events.
What people get wrong
- Not reading it. Many teams work from the printed list and forget that Contract Data has added to it. Read Contract Data part one when you start, and brief the team on any additions.
- Overlap with core entries. An added event on archaeology could overlap with 60.1(7) or 60.1(12). Say whether it replaces them or runs alongside.
- Putting it in the wrong place. Extra events belong in Contract Data part one. Extra Client's liabilities have their own entry there too, and they aren't the same thing; see 60.1(14).
- Using it to take away rights. This is for adding events. Removing or narrowing other entries needs a Z clause.
- Assuming a tender query changed the list. Only what ends up in the Contract Data counts. Check the final version before signing.
Related guides
- NEC Compensation Events: The Complete Guide
- Compensation Events Under Options B and D
- Compensation Event: Prevention
- Compensation Event: Quotation for a Proposed Instruction Not Accepted
See how this works in practice
Click through Contract Status with sample contracts: raise the notice, reply to it, and watch both sides of one record.
Take the guided tour Book a demo
Take the NEC4 ECC quiz, use the free NEC tools or download free NEC templates.
This guide is general information in our own words, not legal advice. Your contract and its Contract Data always govern. NEC, NEC3 and NEC4 are trade marks of Thomas Telford Ltd; Contract Status is not affiliated with or endorsed by NEC.