How do you identify a genuine date conflict?
First check whether both entries describe the same milestone. Delivery to site, completion of installation, completion of testing and taking over can be separate events. Similar labels are not sufficient evidence that two dates conflict.
NEC's January 2020 article on contract data and scope explains why project-specific entries matter to contract administration. It does not resolve your tender's document precedence or make one programme date authoritative. Pre-bid Review is independent and is not affiliated with NEC.
This guide is a document-review aid and is not legal advice. Contract interpretation and proposed qualifications require an appropriately qualified adviser and the authorised bid team.
Sources: NEC: Get contract data right, especially the scope, January 2020
Which fields belong in a mismatch register?
Keep original wording beside your concise description. Reference the actual clause or schedule only after checking it in the supplied tender edition; this page does not supply a standard clause number.
| Field | Record | Review use |
|---|---|---|
| Milestone | Original label and intended event | Confirm the entries concern the same obligation |
| Document A | Title, revision, location and date | Preserve the first source |
| Document B | Title, revision, location and date | Preserve the conflicting source |
| Dependency | Approval, access or preceding work reference | Identify what the date relies on |
| Potential effect | Affected package or review question | Avoid an unapproved contractual conclusion |
| Clarification | Question, submission route and response reference | Track the employer's answer |
| Bid decision | Authorised position, owner and approval | Distinguish approved treatment from a draft |
What does a worked comparison look like?
Illustrative example. A fictional contract schedule identifies equipment delivery on 15 June. A tender programme labels installation complete on 15 June, while a scope note describes installation following delivery. The reviewer first asks whether the programme includes a different delivery date or assumes same-day installation.
Enter the three references and ask the employer to confirm the intended delivery and installation milestones. Do not silently replace the contract schedule date with the programme date. No duration or entitlement can be inferred from this fictional comparison.
If the response points to an addendum, retain that addendum with the register and review any dependent dates. An answer to the delivery question might leave access, testing or completion obligations unresolved.
What should happen before the bid is approved?
Review unresolved rows with the commercial and planning owners. Separate factual transcription, an interpretation requiring advice and a proposed bid qualification. Record who approved the treatment and how it appears in the submission.
Do not invent a precedence rule from a familiar contract name. The supplied form, edition, amendments and tender instructions govern the review. Check them directly and obtain advice where their effect is uncertain.
Keep the register after submission with its response history. If the employer later revises a date, assess related obligations through the authorised process rather than editing the old record as if the conflict never existed.
Common questions
What else should the bid team know?
Should the earliest date always be used?
No. That is not a universal interpretation rule. Record the conflict and obtain an authorised resolution.
Can two different milestone dates both be correct?
Yes. Establish what each event means before treating the dates as contradictory.
Does a clarification draft qualify the bid?
No. Track the approved submission wording and the tender instructions separately.