Illustrative example. This report reviews a fictional compensation event on a sample scheme. Clause 60 is an assistive tool — it supports a qualified reviewer's judgement and is not a substitute for it. Review before relying.

CWR-CE-07

CE-07 — Pavement specification change

MIS — Motorway Improvement Scheme · NEC4 ECC Option A

AMBER

Assessable at £75,712 — the quotation is largely sound, but two queries should be resolved before you accept it, and one bond-coat quantity could reduce Defined Cost by up to £1,500.

GREEN
Contractual basis. Valid compensation event — PMI-PV-07 is a written PM instruction changing the Scope, Clause 60.1(1) applies, and it was notified in time.
AMBER
Cost. The build-up is sound — correct Schedule of Cost Components basis, correct Fee, no working-area overhead. One query: the 25,000 m² bond-coat / tack-coat quantity — up to £1,500 of Defined Cost is unsupported until it's measured.
AMBER
Time & programme. The claimed Key Date (KD-2) movement of 6 working days is arithmetically consistent with the contractor's own XER — but the float distribution and critical-path logic should be verified in Primavera P6, and the Option X7 delay-damages exposure confirmed, before it's implemented.
TO CLOSE
Missing information. Two items complete the assessment: the bond-coat quantity basis, and the full float distribution from the native programme files.

What a review done at speed would likely miss

It would take the £75,712 and the claimed Key Date slip at face value. Clause 60 checked the time claim against the programme's own float — not the assertion — flagged the unsupported bond-coat quantity, and surfaced the Option X7 delay-damages exposure to confirm. Those are the three points that decide what you actually pay.

Read the full report — all 19 pages (contractual basis, cost, time, consistency, risk, liability)