Why should the two records remain distinct?
The NEC publisher describes notification, quotation, assessment and implementation as parts of the compensation event process. Its 25 July 2025 programme guidance separately describes the Accepted Programme and its role in assessing time effects. A planning revision should therefore be traced to the actual event record rather than treated as proof of implementation.
Pre-bid Review is independent and is not affiliated with NEC. This article is not legal advice. The actual contract edition, options, amendments and communications require qualified contracts and legal review; this guide does not determine entitlement or whether a deeming provision applies.
Sources: NEC Contracts: Compensation events: an introduction for new NEC users
What should an electrical package review reconcile?
Start with the exact programme revision and event identifier, not a date copied into a slide. The reviewer needs to distinguish a forecast movement, an assessed effect and the recorded contractual outcome. An event may affect time, money, both or neither according to the actual process.
| Field | Evidence | Review action |
|---|---|---|
| Programme | Revision, submission and acceptance evidence | Do not infer an event status from this alone |
| Event identity | Notification and controlled reference | Match the same scope change |
| Assessment | Quotation or assessment and time basis | Retain pending or disputed status |
| Implementation | Actual implementing communication or reviewed contractual basis | Do not replace missing evidence with a programme label |
| Dates and prices | Before and after records with approval reference | Trace each change to its basis |
| Open issue | Owner and required clarification | Keep a forecast distinct from an agreed position |
How can a forecast move while the event remains unresolved?
Illustrative example. A fictional electrical package programme shows planned completion moving from 10 June to 17 June after a supplier interface change. The accepted programme record exists, but the compensation event register still shows its quotation under review. The document reviewer records both states without declaring the contractual Completion Date changed by seven days.
The contracts reviewer then checks the actual communications and applicable mechanism. This illustration does not decide what the parties are entitled to, identify a contractual dividing date or calculate damages. It shows why two distinct evidence references are needed.
How should the position be carried into a bid or handover?
Keep the programme assumption and unresolved event visible to the authorised commercial reviewer. When implementation is evidenced, link the actual outcome and reconcile affected dates, prices and downstream package assumptions. Preserve the previous status and communication history.
Do not edit an event to implemented simply because a newer programme contains the change. Conversely, a missing internal register entry does not establish that no contractual mechanism operated. Obtain the source evidence and a qualified disposition.
Common questions
What else should the bid team know?
Does a programme label prove an event was implemented?
No. Reconcile the actual event process and implementation evidence.
Does an event necessarily change both time and price?
Do not assume this. Record the actual reviewed outcome.
Can this worksheet establish legal entitlement?
No. It is a document review aid and is not legal advice.