For subcontractors and specialist contractors
Find the holes in your quotation before the main contractor does.
Workflow tools track your compensation events. Clause 60 tells you whether they will hold up.
You are working under an NEC subcontract, the events keep coming, and every quotation you submit is going to be assessed by somebody looking for a reason to cut it. Clause 60 reads your quotation, your cost build-up, your subcontract and your programme, and tells you where it is weak while you can still do something about it.
The two moments this is for
Before you submit
A quotation that goes in with an arithmetic error, the wrong cost basis for the Option, or a delay that the programme does not actually support hands the assessor a reason to reduce it. Clause 60 goes through it first, so what you send is the version you would want to defend.
It also shows you where the money may be missing. Preliminaries and time-related cost on an event that moves the Completion Date. A fee percentage left off, or the wrong one applied. An item priced from tender rates when the subcontract says Defined Cost. Risk that belongs in the quotation and was never allowed for. These are not exotic — they are the things a rushed quotation leaves behind, and once it is accepted they are gone.
When the assessment cuts you
The main contractor makes its own assessment and your quotation comes back reduced. The question is not whether you are annoyed, it is whether the cut is actually supported by the subcontract — and you usually have very little time to work that out.
Run the original quotation and the assessment through together. The review sets out, clause by clause and line by line, where the reduction has a contractual basis and where it does not, with every point cited to the document it came from. That is the difference between a reply you can stand behind and a phone call that goes nowhere.
What it actually checks
| Area | What the review does |
|---|---|
| Your subcontract | Reads the form you are actually working under, including the Z-clauses and amendments, rather than assuming the standard wording. Whether the event qualifies, under which clause, and what your contract has done to it. |
| The cost build-up | Re-sums it, tests rates against the Contract Data, checks the basis of assessment against the Option in use, and flags double counting between the build-up and the fee. |
| The time claim | Where a native programme is available, opens it: logic links, float, Key Dates and Sectional Completion, and whether the delay you are claiming genuinely moves a contractual date. |
| Consistency | Whether your narrative, your build-up and your programme tell the same story. They often do not, and it is the first thing a good assessor notices. |
| What is missing | Anything that cannot be verified from the documents you supplied is flagged as unverified rather than assumed. You get a list of what to go and find. |
If you do not use Primavera
Plenty of subcontractors programme in Asta Powerproject or Microsoft Project, and plenty receive
nothing but a PDF of the main contractor's programme. Being straight about it: the programme
analysis reads native Primavera P6 (.xer) files today. Without one, you still get the
full contractual and cost review — which is where most of the money sits — and the time section
tells you plainly what could not be tested rather than guessing.
Asta and Microsoft Project import are being worked on. If that is your position, say so when you get in touch and we will tell you honestly whether it is worth your time yet.
Why a subcontractor can put their name to it
- You remain the author. Clause 60 is assistive. It produces a structured first pass; your commercial team checks it, decides what to do and signs it. It does not make the call and it does not argue your case.
- Every finding is cited to the document and page it came from, and labelled fact or inference, so you can check it rather than take it on trust.
- It is side-neutral by design. The same pack produces the same analysis whoever runs it. That is exactly why a position built on it is hard to dismiss — an analysis built to reach a conclusion is worth very little in front of an adjudicator.
- Your data stays in the UK and is never used to train any AI model. That is contractually backed through the whole chain, which matters when the documents belong to your client. The full position →
Built by someone who has sat on both sides
Clause 60 is built by a chartered commercial manager with twenty years of NEC assessment, including on the £4bn Transpennine Route Upgrade. The checks in the review are the ones that come up again and again in practice — which is also why the report reads like a commercial review rather than a printout.
A second opinion on your worst one
Send me your most contentious live compensation event. I will run it through Clause 60 and walk you through what it finds, in twenty minutes. No charge.
Not a demo of the software — a second opinion on your own money, from someone who has assessed these for twenty years. You get the report either way, and if it turns out there is nothing in it, that is a useful answer too.
Two practical things. Nothing is uploaded until a data processing agreement is signed — it is one page and it goes out the same day, because the documents belong to your client, not to you. And I can take a couple of these a week, so if the diary is full I will say so rather than keep you waiting.
Would rather look first? The demo runs a complete review on a sample event with no sign-up, no upload and no call. Ready for more than one event? How a pilot works →
Or ring me on 0330 088 3390 — you will get me, not a switchboard.