Clause 60.1(16) makes it a compensation event when the Client doesn't provide the materials, facilities or samples for tests and inspections that the Scope says it will. It's a narrow entry on the compensation events list, often overlooked because the delay can look like a general commissioning problem.
The related duty is clause 41.2 in NEC4 ECC and 40.2 in NEC3. The entry's number is the same in both, and NEC3 refers to the Employer and the Works Information. This is one of the few entries that depends on the Scope alone, with no date on the Accepted Programme to test against.
What triggers it
- The Scope gives the Client the job. It may say that the Client provides water, power, a test rig, a laboratory, a batch of samples or access to its live system for a test. Scope wording usually decides who does what (see tests and inspections).
- The Client doesn't do it, at all, or not in the way the Scope describes.
- There's an effect on Defined Cost, Completion or a Key Date.
Which entry fits?
| What went wrong | Entry | What you test against |
|---|---|---|
| Client doesn't provide test materials, facilities or samples | 60.1(16) | The Scope |
| Client doesn't provide something else it should | 60.1(3) | The date on the Accepted Programme |
| Supervisor's test holds up the work unnecessarily | 60.1(11) | What was necessary |
| Supervisor searches for a Defect and doesn't find one | 60.1(10) | The search result |
| The Contractor's own test materials aren't ready | None | The Contractor's own responsibility under 41.2 |
Scope wording rarely gives dates, but the Scope may say "at least four weeks before commissioning". Use that when it's there. When there's no timing, show the Accepted Programme date for the test and your notice of it, since a Client can only provide a facility if it knows when it's needed.
How it is usually evidenced
- The Scope clause, inspection and test plan, or commissioning plan that gives the Client the responsibility.
- The Contractor's notice under 41.3 of when the test is planned, and reminders about what's needed.
- A dated record of what was missing on the day, and when it finally arrived.
- The test certificate, showing when the test could finally run.
- Waiting and rebooking costs for the commissioning team and specialist subcontractors.
Worked example
A fictional treatment works upgrade on Option C, with illustrative figures. The Scope says the Client provides treated water at a stated flow, for pressure testing and disinfecting the new pipework. The Accepted Programme shows testing in weeks 30 and 31. The Contractor gives notice in week 26 and repeats it in week 28.
In week 30, the Client's plant is on restricted output because of a maintenance outage it hadn't mentioned. There isn't enough flow to run the test for two weeks.
| Effect | Defined Cost |
|---|---|
| Specialist commissioning team, stood down and returned | £7,800 |
| Testing equipment extended on hire | £2,400 |
| Time-related site costs for two weeks' delay to planned Completion | £21,800 |
| Total (the Fee is then added) | £32,000 |
Testing is almost always near the end of the programme, with little or no float, so a short failure can have a direct effect on Completion. That's what makes the entry matter. If the Contractor could reasonably have brought in tankered water for £6,000 and avoided most of the delay, 63.9 would point the assessment to that as the prompt, competent reaction, as long as the Scope and the Client allowed it. Consider the alternatives and record why they were or weren't possible.
How it is assessed
The Contractor notifies, since no instruction or notification caused this. That means the 61.3 time bar applies, so don't let a commissioning dispute run for two months before notifying. The dividing date is the notification date, and the usual assessment follows, with delay measured against planned Completion.
What people get wrong
- Assuming the Client provides it because it always has. If the Scope doesn't say so, this entry doesn't apply. Agree it in writing, or better, get it into the Scope by instruction.
- Vague Scope wording. "Water will be available" doesn't say how much, at what pressure or when. Clients writing the Scope should be specific, and tenderers should query it.
- Treating the missing facility as a Supervisor delay. If the test can't run for lack of what the Client should provide, the Supervisor's conduct isn't the point.
- Not asking in time. The Client needs notice. Show the test on the programme, and raise an early warning if you see a problem.
- Forgetting samples. Samples often sit in a specification appendix and get lost. Check the whole Scope when you plan testing. Other entries are covered in the full NEC4 list.
Related guides
- NEC Compensation Events: The Complete Guide
- Compensation Event: A Corrected Assumption
- Compensation Event: Client Breach of Contract
- Compensation Event: Prevention
- Compensation Event: A Client Liability Event
- Compensation Event: Client Taking Over Early
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.