In your article on the Olympic Stadium (NCE 1 June), there was an implication that the NEC3 contract is a 'one size ts all' contract. It is not.
One of the strengths of the NEC is its exibility. Many options and standard clauses are available, and the user is required to choose those most appropriate to the particular project.
The NEC has six main options, one of which must be selected. This choice determines the general allocation of risk between contractor and employer, and how the contractor is to be paid. There are a number of secondary options which may be selected as required.
The option clauses have been drafted using owcharting (as were the core clauses) to maintain the logic and consistency both within and between all clauses.
This exibility minimises the need for bespoke clauses (z clauses) amending or augmenting the contract clauses.
The clear intention is that z clauses should be introduced only for ne tuning as necessary, to suit particular circumstances.
While I would not go so far as to say that the NEC should never be amended, I support Rudi Klein's opinion that a properly drafted NEC contract should overcome many of the failings of JCT.
Bill Weddell, 47 Kingswood Avenue, Shortlands, Bromley, Kent, BR2 0NR