For clients and Project Manager teams
Assessed inside the period. On every project, to the same standard.
Workflow tools track your compensation events. Clause 60 tells you whether they will hold up.
Quotations arrive faster than the hours to assess them, and the reply period runs regardless. The risk is not that your team lacks the skill — it is that on a busy month the standard applied to an event depends on who was available.
The three things that actually cost money
A reply period that runs out
Under NEC, a Project Manager who does not reply in time can be treated as having accepted the quotation at its full value — including its cost, its delay, its risk allowances and its errors — without anyone having assessed it. It is expenditure nobody approved, and the route to reopening it is adjudication from a weak position.
A first pass in minutes means the reply goes out inside the period, with a reason. The three mechanisms →
An assessment that does not survive
An assessment made on hindsight, or on what feels fair, rather than on clause 63 and the Accepted Programme, is the assessment that gets overturned. So is one that cannot show its working when it is challenged a year later.
Every finding is cited to the document and page it came from and labelled fact or inference, and every review records the inputs and methodology version that produced it. The working exists before anyone asks for it.
A time claim taken on trust
Checking a delay properly means opening the contractor's native programme and working through it — logic links, float, Key Dates and Sectional Completion — and that is exactly the job nobody has a spare day for. So the claimed delay is often accepted because disproving it would take longer than the period allows.
Clause 60 opens the native Primavera P6 files and tests the question that decides the money: does the claimed delay genuinely move a contractual date, or is it absorbed by float? Where a competent reviewer should confirm the logic themselves, the report says so rather than handing you a false green light.
For the people above the project
- Consistency across a programme. On a framework with several Project Managers, your exposure is set by how disciplined the least organised team is during its busiest month. The same structured treatment everywhere removes that variable.
- Visibility of what was assessed and why. Not a register of what was notified — a record of what each assessment actually found, and on what evidence.
- Capacity without headcount. The constraint on assessment quality is hours, and this is the part of the job that is identical every time.
- Procurement-ready. UK data residency, tenant isolation enforced at the database, independently penetration tested with no Critical, High or Medium findings, Cyber Essentials, and your data never used to train any AI model. The full position →
Your Project Manager still makes the assessment
Clause 60 is assistive, not advisory. It gives the assessor a worked-through starting point on day one instead of a pile of files and a deadline; the assessment remains the Project Manager's, and they sign it. It is also side-neutral — the same pack produces the same analysis whichever party runs it, which is what makes a position built on it hold up when the contractor challenges it.
Where to start
The demo runs a complete review on a sample NEC4 Key Date event, in front of you, with no sign-up and no upload.
Or ring me on 0330 088 3390.