What are the NEC payment mechanisms?
Sophie Drysdale and Allan Owen discuss the most suitable payment options for different forms of construction contracts.
- Details
Various different NEC payment mechanisms are used across the construction industry and all standard forms of construction contract include different payment mechanism options.
The three most commonly used payment mechanisms are fixed price, target price, and cost reimbursable, and there is a myriad of variants of each of these mechanisms.
The NEC suite of contracts offers six main payment options (A to F). This article outlines:
- the NEC4 ECC Option A (Priced contract with activity schedule), Option C (Target contract with activity schedule), and Option E (Cost reimbursable contract) payment mechanisms,
- the potential benefits and the risks associated with using each of these mechanisms, and
- guidance on selecting the appropriate payment mechanism for your contract.
Option A (Priced contract with activity schedule)
In an Option A contract, subject to agreed reopeners, the Contractor is paid a fixed price (which includes all profit and overheads) based on completed activities listed in the Activity Schedule.
Examples of reopeners include compensation events (which provide a mechanism for the Contractor to claim additional cost and/or time for unexpected changes, e.g., changes to the scope, unforeseen changes in physical conditions, exceptionally adverse weather, events beyond the control of both parties, changes in the law, etc.) and adjustments for inflation.
Outside of the agreed reopeners, the Contractor carries the cost risk. If the cost of the work exceeds the agreed fixed price, the Contractor will earn a smaller profit margin or may make a loss.
Option A is appropriate where the Contractor is able to accurately price the work. Accordingly, the work must be clearly defined, with a settled and sufficiently detailed design, and significant changes to the requirements should not be foreseen.
Potential benefits | Potential risks |
|
|
Note: the same principles apply to an Option B (Priced contract with bill of quantities), save that the Contractor is paid based on quantities of work completed in accordance with the Bill of Quantities.
Option C (Target contract with activity schedule)
In an Option C contract, the parties agree (i) a target cost for the work based on activities listed in the Activity Schedule and (ii) a formula for sharing any underspend or overspend against the target cost. The target cost is subject to agreed reopeners such as those listed above in the context of Option A.
The Contractor is paid based on the actual costs it incurs in carrying out the work plus a pre-agreed fee percentage fee to cover its overheads and profit. Once the works are complete, the total cost paid to the Contractor is compared to the target cost and any underspend or overspend is shared between the parties in accordance with the pre-agreed formula (i.e., subject to any reopeners, the cost risk is shared between the parties). An NEC Option C contract is effectively a cost reimbursable contract, with built-in incentivisation against the target cost.
Option C is appropriate where the parties have sufficient knowledge and experience to accurately estimate the likely cost of the work and to negotiate and agree the formula for sharing any underspend or overspend. It is also important that Client (and Project Manager) is experienced in managing Option C contracts.
Potential benefits | Potential risks |
|
|
Note: the same principles apply to an Option D (Target contract with bill of quantities), save that the target cost is based on quantities of work completed in accordance with the Bill of Quantities.
Option E (Cost reimbursable contract)
In an Option E contract, the Contractor is paid based on the actual costs it incurs in carrying out the work plus a pre-agreed lump sum or percentage fee to cover its overheads and profit.
Option E is appropriate in the context of alliancing style arrangements and/or where the work cannot be clearly defined at the outset and the risks associated with the works are high, for example due to urgency or where projects are of such significant scale and complexity that securing a fixed price or target cost isn’t viable.
Option E is more suitable for an experienced Client and Project Manager. The Client carries the cost risk and active and skilled contract management by the Client and Project Manager is necessary throughout in order to control costs.
Potential benefits | Potential risks |
|
|
Selecting the appropriate payment mechanism for your contract
Whether a particular payment mechanism is appropriate for your contract will depend on a variety of factors including the certainty and nature of scope, the level of design development, the ability to price the works, and the intended allocation of risk between the parties.
Although selecting the appropriate payment mechanism for your contract is important in allocating cost risk, it is not the be-all and end-all in terms of allocation of risk.
There are other equally important strategies and risk allocation mechanisms that should also be used to manage risk.
Issues such as fee percentage, limits of liability, liability periods, incentives and pass-through risks (such as inflation and change in law) all feed into the overall risk apportionment between the parties.
In considering your approach to risk allocation, it is important to consider what your main drivers are – the matrix between time, cost, and quality – and use this information to make informed decisions on key risk allocation positions across the contract.
When in contract, irrespective of your approach to risk allocation, effective contract management (notably in respect of change control) is essential.
Our specialist construction lawyers advise councils and other public bodies on the various aspects of development contracts. If you would like to discuss your options in connection with NEC payments, please get in touch.
Sophie Drysdale is an Associate and Allan Owen is a Partner at Sharpe Pritchard LLP.
For further insight and resources on local government legal issues from Sharpe Pritchard, please visit the SharpeEdge page by clicking on the banner below.
This video is for general awareness only and does not constitute legal or professional advice. The law may have changed since this page was first published. If you would like further advice and assistance in relation to any issue raised in this article, please contact us by telephone or email enquiries@sharpepritchard.co.uk
Click here to view our archived articles or search below.
|
OUR RECENT ARTICLES IPA guidance 2025: Managing PFI distress and preparing for expiry
Jul 03, 2025
Aanya Gujral and David Owens dive into the recent guidance published on managing the risks associated with Private Finance Initiative (“PFI”) projects.
Data (Use and Access) Act – Updating Data Protection Law and more
Jul 03, 2025
On the 19th June 2025, the Data Use and Access Bill (“DUA Bill”) received Royal Assent to become the Data Use and Access Act 2025 (“DUA Act”).
Modifying subsidies: What is permitted and what is not?
Jun 24, 2025
Beatrice Wood and Oliver Slater explore recent developments and discuss the process of awarding subsidies.
Getting new PPP right: Smarter tools for smarter infrastructure
Jun 24, 2025
Nicola Sumner, Steve Gummer and Roseanne Serrelli discuss the 'dos and don'ts' of Public-private Partnerships in their new form.
Zones/RABs and heat networks: The path to an investible infrastructure asset class?
Jun 19, 2025
The UK’s new heat network zoning framework (the outlines for which were drawn by the Energy Act 2023) is set to redefine how low‑carbon heating is delivered by creating geographic zones, where district heat networks are the mandated, optimal solution.
Partial debt guarantees- Reviving Investment in UK Water Infrastructure
Jun 17, 2025
Is it Time for a Public Sector Major Infrastructure Debt Guarantor?
Court gives clarity on consultations : R (The National Council for Civil Liberties) and others v The Secretary of State for the Home Department
Jun 10, 2025
Chloe Woodward and Joe Walker discuss a recent judgment on when engagement with third parties constitute a formal consultation and must therefore adhere to case law on being 'run fairly'.
URS Corporation Limited v BDW Trading Limited [2025] UKSC 21 – Supreme Court hands down significant judgment for the construction industry
May 27, 2025
Helen Arthur explores a recent Supreme Court judgment on building safety in high-rise buildings, explaining what the decision means for defects claims.
Catch me if you can: Local government blazes a trail in increased SME spending
May 21, 2025
Juli Lau and Natasha Barlow take readers through the report published by the BCC on procurement spending.
Changing Course: Navigating Variations Under JCT and NEC Contracts
May 21, 2025
Tiah Weekes explains the process of changes to contracts in the field of construction.
Lessons in public consultation: High Court finds failures in local authority’s consideration of consultation responses
May 21, 2025
George McLellan and Samuel Hart explore the High Court decision ruling that Lambeth Council broke the law in the process of establishing an LTN in the borough.
Allocating risk in amended JCT contracts: Lessons from John Sisk & Son Limited v Capital & Centric (Rose) Limited
May 12, 2025
David Owens and Elizabeth Withers explore recent developments in construction contract case law.
|
ABOUT SHARPE PRITCHARD We are a national firm of public law specialists, serving local authorities, other public sector organisations and registered social landlords, as well as commercial clients and the third sector. Our team advises on a wide range of public law matters, spanning electoral law, procurement, construction, infrastructure, data protection and information law, planning and dispute resolution, to name a few key specialisms. All public sector organisations have a route to instruct us through the various frameworks we are appointed to. To find out more about our services, please click here. |
OUR NEXT EVENT
|
OTHER UPCOMING EVENTS
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |