Sub-contract claims - Building Contract Claims - page 455

is, therefore, relevant. There are differences in wording and arrangement of
clauses and the major points are as follows.
Progress
The words of clause 2.1 have been construed very broadly by contractors
over the years as obliging the sub-contractor to work in accordance with the
contractor's progress on the works and that if the contractor's progress
slowed or quickened, the sub-contractor was obliged to follow suit. It has
been held, under clause 11.1 of DOM/1, the relevant words of which have
been reproduced in clause 2.1 of DSC/C, that the sub-contractor may plan
and perform the work as he pleases if there is no indication to the contrary,
provided that he finishes it by the time fixed in the contract. The sub-
contractor's only obligation so far as programming requirements are con-
cerned are those requirements expressly contained in the sub-contract
itself 688 . It is likely that the same principle applies in the case of other
similarly worded sub-contracts such as NSC/C.
Notice
In clause 2.2.1 the sub-contractor's obligation to give notice of the material
circumstances is a qualified one. The material circumstances are to include
the cause or causes of the delay, insofar as the sub-contractor is able to identify
them. In practice, this qualification probably will make little difference, but
it does offer the sub-contractor some limited protection against allegations
that he has not included all the required information in his notice.
Extension of time
The architect is not involved at all in giving extensions of time. The duty
is the contractor's alone. This apart, the procedure is the same as under
NSC/C.
Time period
The time period within which the contractor must respond to the sub-
contractor's notice is 16 weeks, as opposed to 12 weeks in NSC/C; this
time limit runs from receipt of notice and what the contractor considers to
be 'reasonably sufficient' particulars and estimate.
Omissions
Omission directions given by the contractor can be taken into account.
688 Pigott Foundations v. Shepherd Construction (1996) 67 BLR 48.