Variations
Most variation arguments are not about money. They are about which rule applies, and whether the entitlement was established in the first place.
Entitlement, established or not: whether the contract gives a right to additional payment or time for what happened, before anybody argues about the figure.
The valuation rule that applies: contract rates, pro rata rates, fair valuation or daywork, applied in the order the contract sets rather than the one that suits.
Scope compared, not remembered: original scope against what was instructed, measured, so that the difference is a quantity on a schedule and not an opinion.
The evidential gaps, named: where the records do not support the position, said plainly, while there is still time to do something about it.
The problem
Before tender a change is priced by several parties who want the work. After signature it is priced by one who already has it.
An instruction given on site and valued eight months later leaves two people remembering a conversation differently, and nothing else.
The parties argue past each other because nobody has said which valuation rule they are using, and the contract usually provides an order that neither side has read recently.
On NEC contracts the whole thing runs differently. A compensation event has its own notice periods and its own quotation procedure, and treating it as a JCT variation under another name is how entitlement gets lost on time rather than on merit.
What the work covers
Two defined pieces of work. Either can be instructed on its own, and the first often makes the second unnecessary.
The clauses that apply, the notices and procedural steps required, the scope of works, and the instructions that show what was actually directed, ending in a view on whether an entitlement exists and how strong it is.
Original scope against instructed scope, quantities assessed, valuation built on the contractual methodology, and labour, materials, plant and subcontract costs evidenced, with a narrative that connects them.
The same questions under a different regime: notification periods, the quotation and how it is assessed, what happens when a notice was late, and how the event affects the prices and the programme together.
Who gave the direction, whether they were empowered to give it, what the contract says about work carried out on a verbal instruction, and how that instruction was treated by both sides at the time.
What exists, what it proves and what would need to exist for the claim to carry weight. Site records, allocation sheets, measurement, programme updates and correspondence are read against each other.
A variation claim that starts with the number is an invoice. One that starts with the clause is a claim.
Entitlement comes first because it decides everything after it. If the contract does not give a right to additional payment for what happened, the quantum is academic, and the honest answer is that there is no claim worth preparing.
This is commercial and contractual assessment, not legal advice. Where a question turns on legal interpretation, or on how a tribunal would read a clause, that belongs with a construction solicitor and we will say so rather than guess at it.
Questions
It depends on the contract, and most forms have a procedure for confirming a verbal instruction in writing. Whether that procedure was followed usually matters more than whether the conversation happened. It is one of the first things the review checks.
Yes. The contract sets an order for this: contract rates where they apply, then pro rata rates, then a fair valuation, with daywork where the work does not lend itself to measurement. The dispute is often about which step applies, not about the arithmetic.
The analysis is the same but the regime is not. Compensation events have notification periods and a quotation procedure, and entitlement can be affected by a late notice. We treat them as what they are rather than as variations with a different label.
Yes. Specialist support on a single claim inside an existing appointment is normal, and it does not change who holds the client relationship.
Insights
Two parties can spend six months negotiating the value of something one of them was never entitled to claim. It...
Read the article
Most variation arguments are not about money. They are about which valuation rule applies, and the parties are...
Read the article
Nobody sets out to instruct work verbally. It happens because somebody needed an answer that afternoon and the...
Read the article
