Contract Administration: JCT vs NEC

Why Contract Administration Matters

Contract administration is the commercial engine of a construction project. It is the process by which the quantity surveyor, the contract administrator, and the project manager turn the contract documents into a working commercial framework — managing payments, assessing changes, resolving disputes about time and money, and ultimately arriving at a final account that both parties can accept. The procurement route determines the contractual structure; contract administration determines whether that structure works in practice.

The two dominant contract suites in UK construction — JCT and NEC — take fundamentally different approaches to contract administration. JCT, rooted in over 90 years of practice, separates time, cost, and change into distinct contractual mechanisms: variations are valued under one set of clauses, extensions of time are assessed under another, and loss and expense is ascertained under a third. NEC, designed in the 1990s to promote collaboration and proactive risk management, integrates all three into a single compensation event mechanism — one process, one assessment, one outcome covering time and money together.

This article provides a side-by-side comparison of contract administration under JCT SBC/Q 2024 and NEC4 ECC, covering the core commercial processes that the QS manages day to day: interim payments, variations, extensions of time, loss and expense, completion, final accounts, and dispute resolution. It explains how the same commercial activity works under each contract, where the philosophical differences lie, and what the QS must do differently depending on which contract governs the project. It follows on from our Construction Procurement Routes guide, which explains how the choice of procurement route determines which contract form is used.

The Key Contractual Roles

Who Does What Under Each Contract

The first difference the QS encounters is the contractual role structure. Under JCT, the key roles are the employer, the contractor, the architect or contract administrator (CA), the quantity surveyor, and (where appointed) the clerk of works. The architect/CA issues instructions, certifies completion, and makes decisions on extensions of time. The QS prepares valuations, values variations, ascertains loss and expense, and negotiates the final account. The two roles are distinct — the CA decides entitlement; the QS quantifies it.

Under NEC4, the role structure is simpler but the responsibilities are broader. The key roles are the client, the contractor, the project manager (PM), and the supervisor. The project manager performs many of the functions that JCT splits between the architect/CA and the QS — the PM assesses compensation events (covering both entitlement and quantum), certifies payments, and accepts the programme. The supervisor deals with quality, testing, and defects. The QS role is not explicitly defined in the NEC contract; in practice, the QS typically supports the PM in assessing compensation events, preparing cost reports, and managing the financial aspects of contract administration. The QS’s influence under NEC depends on how the client structures the PM’s support team rather than on a contractual role definition.

This structural difference matters. Under JCT, the QS has a defined contractual function — the contract refers explicitly to the “quantity surveyor” in the valuation and loss and expense clauses. Under NEC, the QS must carve out their role within the PM’s team, and the PM retains ultimate responsibility for all assessments. A QS working on NEC contracts for the first time must understand that their professional judgement is exercised through the PM’s authority, not independently of it.

Interim Payments

JCT: Monthly Valuations and Certificates

Under JCT SBC/Q 2024, interim payments follow a monthly cycle governed by clause 4.9. The QS prepares an interim valuation at each valuation date specified in the contract particulars, assessing the value of work properly executed, materials on site, variations instructed, and any loss and expense ascertained. The architect/CA issues an interim certificate based on the QS’s valuation, and the employer pays the certified amount less retention. The payment cycle is underpinned by the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (as amended by the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009), which requires a payment notice within five days of the due date and gives the employer the right to serve a pay less notice before the final date for payment.

Retention is typically set at 5% in the contract particulars. Half is released upon practical completion; the remainder is released when the architect/CA issues the certificate of making good at the end of the rectification period. The retention mechanism provides the employer with security against defective work — but it also ties up the contractor’s cash flow, which is why the Construction Playbook encourages alternatives such as project bank accounts and retention bonds.

The QS’s role in interim valuations under JCT is central. The QS must inspect the works (or rely on the clerk of works’ records), measure the work executed since the last valuation, apply the contract rates from the bill of quantities, include the value of unfixed materials on site (subject to the contractual conditions for off-site materials), add the agreed value of any variations, and include any ascertained loss and expense. The valuation must be fair — neither overstating the work to assist the contractor’s cash flow nor understating it to protect the employer’s position.

NEC4: Defined Cost and Payment Assessment

Under NEC4 ECC, payment is assessed by the project manager at each assessment date specified in the contract data (clause 50). The amount due depends on the pricing option chosen. Under Option A (activity schedule), the PM assesses which activities have been completed and pays the price for each completed activity — there is no payment for partially completed activities unless the contract data specifies otherwise. Under Option B (bill of quantities), the PM assesses the quantity of work completed and applies the bill rates. Under Options C and D (target cost), the PM assesses the contractor’s defined cost (actual costs of people, plant, materials, subcontractors, plus the fee percentage) and compares it against the target for the pain/gain share calculation.

The NEC4 payment mechanism is designed to be simpler than JCT’s because the compensation event system handles all changes to the prices. There is no separate mechanism for valuing variations, no separate loss and expense track — everything flows through the compensation event process and adjusts the total of the prices. The PM issues a payment certificate, which serves as the payment notice required by the Construction Act. Retention, if applicable, is specified in the contract data and released upon issue of the defects certificate.

For the QS supporting the PM, the payment assessment under NEC requires a different skill set from JCT valuations. Under Option A, the QS must understand the activity schedule and assess completion of discrete activities rather than measuring quantities. Under Options C and D, the QS must audit the contractor’s actual costs (defined cost), verify that they are properly incurred, and advise the PM on whether the costs are reasonable and within the scope of the contract. This audit function is more forensic than the traditional QS valuation role under JCT — it requires access to the contractor’s cost records, timesheets, and subcontract accounts.

Variations and Compensation Events

JCT: Architect’s Instructions and Valuation Hierarchy

Under JCT SBC/Q 2024, variations are instructed by the architect/CA under clause 3.14. The contractor must comply with any instruction that constitutes a variation — the contractor has no general right to refuse, though the Schedule 2 quotation procedure (the 13A quotation) gives the contractor an opportunity to price the variation before it is confirmed. The QS values the variation using the hierarchy set out in clause 5.6: if the varied work is of similar character and executed under similar conditions to work in the contract, the contract rates apply; if the character or conditions have changed, the contract rates are adjusted by a fair allowance; if there is no similar work in the contract, a fair rate is used. For work that cannot properly be valued by measurement, daywork rates apply under clause 5.7.

The JCT approach separates the valuation of the changed work from the time and cost consequences of the change. If a variation causes delay, the contractor must claim an extension of time under clause 2.29 (relevant events). If the variation causes additional cost beyond the value of the changed work itself — for example, disruption to the programme, extended preliminaries, or acceleration costs — the contractor must claim loss and expense under clause 4.24 (relevant matters). The QS manages all three tracks: valuing the variation, advising on the time impact, and ascertaining the loss and expense. These are separate contractual entitlements assessed under separate clauses, and a contractor may receive one without the other.

NEC4: The Compensation Event Mechanism

Under NEC4 ECC, the compensation event is the sole mechanism for dealing with change (clause 60). There are no separate variation clauses, no separate extension of time clauses, and no separate loss and expense clauses. When a compensation event occurs — whether it is a change to the scope, a client instruction, unforeseen ground conditions, exceptionally adverse weather, or any of the events listed in clause 60.1 — the contractor (or PM) notifies it, the contractor submits a quotation, and the PM accepts the quotation or makes their own assessment. The quotation covers both the effect on prices (the cost impact) and the effect on the completion date (the time impact), assessed together in a single process.

The compensation event quotation procedure under clause 62 operates to strict timescales. The PM has one week to respond to a compensation event notification, confirming whether it is accepted as a compensation event. The contractor then has three weeks to submit a quotation showing the effect on defined cost, the effect on the completion date, and any effect on key dates. The PM has two weeks to respond — accepting the quotation, requesting a revised quotation, or making their own assessment. If the PM fails to respond within the required period (and a further two weeks pass), the contractor’s quotation is deemed accepted under clause 62.6. These time bars are strict and apply to both parties — a contractor who fails to notify a compensation event within eight weeks of becoming aware of it loses the entitlement entirely.

The philosophical difference is fundamental. JCT treats change as a disruption to the contract that must be valued, time-assessed, and cost-assessed through three separate mechanisms. NEC treats change as an integrated event that adjusts the contract price and the completion date simultaneously. The NEC approach is arguably more efficient — one process instead of three — but it requires both parties to engage with the compensation event procedure promptly and thoroughly. A contractor who misses the notification deadline, or a PM who fails to respond within the time limits, faces real commercial consequences.

Extensions of Time

JCT: Relevant Events and the Architect’s Duty

Under JCT SBC/Q 2024, the contractor is entitled to an extension of time if completion is likely to be delayed by a “relevant event” listed in clause 2.29. The list includes: variations, acts or omissions of the employer, suspension of works, failure to provide design information, changes in law, exceptional adverse weather, strikes, and (new in JCT 2024) discovery of unforeseen contaminated material, unexploded ordnance, and epidemics (where selected in the contract particulars). The contractor must notify the architect/CA as soon as the likely effect becomes reasonably apparent, and the architect/CA must assess the notification and fix a new completion date — within eight weeks under the 2024 edition (reduced from twelve weeks in JCT 2016).

The extension of time mechanism protects both parties. It protects the contractor from liquidated damages for delay that is not the contractor’s fault. It protects the employer’s right to deduct liquidated damages by ensuring that a fair completion date is set — without the EOT mechanism, the employer’s right to liquidated damages could be defeated by the prevention principle (the common law rule that a party cannot benefit from a breach it has caused). The leading case on concurrent delay — Henry Boot Construction v Malmaison Hotel [1999] — established that where the contractor’s delay is caused concurrently by a relevant event and a non-relevant event, the contractor is entitled to an extension of time for the period of delay caused by the relevant event, but is not entitled to loss and expense for that period.

An important distinction that the QS must understand is the difference between relevant events (clause 2.29) and relevant matters (clause 4.24). Relevant events trigger an extension of time. Relevant matters trigger loss and expense. Some events qualify as both — a variation is both a relevant event (entitling the contractor to time) and a relevant matter (entitling the contractor to cost). But some events are one and not the other — exceptional adverse weather is a relevant event (the contractor gets time) but not a relevant matter (the contractor does not get cost). The QS must assess each claim against both lists to determine the contractor’s full entitlement.

NEC4: Programme-Based Time Assessment

Under NEC4, there is no separate extension of time mechanism. Time entitlement is assessed as part of the compensation event process — the contractor’s quotation must show the effect of the compensation event on the planned completion date shown on the accepted programme, and the PM adjusts the completion date accordingly. The programme is a contract document under NEC4 (clause 31) — unlike JCT, where the master programme is typically advisory and not contractually binding unless specifically incorporated.

This distinction has profound practical consequences. Under NEC4, the accepted programme shows the contractor’s planned completion, the completion date, time risk allowances, and float. Terminal float — the gap between planned completion and the completion date — belongs to the contractor. Time risk allowances — the contractor’s own contingency buffers within activity durations — also belong to the contractor. When a compensation event occurs, the PM assesses its effect on planned completion by reference to the accepted programme. The compensation event cannot consume the contractor’s terminal float or time risk allowances — it adjusts the completion date by the number of days the event delays the planned completion.

The NEC approach to concurrent delay is simpler than JCT’s. Because each compensation event is assessed against the accepted programme, the question is straightforward: does this event delay the planned completion beyond the current planned completion date? If the contractor has its own delays (from events at the contractor’s risk), those are absorbed by the contractor’s time risk allowances. The programme-based approach avoids the complex retrospective delay analysis that JCT claims often require — but it depends on both parties maintaining an up-to-date accepted programme throughout the project, which requires discipline and engagement from both the contractor and the PM.

Loss and Expense

JCT: A Separate Recovery Mechanism

Under JCT SBC/Q 2024, loss and expense is governed by clauses 4.20–4.24. The contractor must notify the architect/CA as soon as a relevant matter causes (or is likely to cause) direct loss and expense beyond what is recoverable through the variation valuation or other contractual provisions. This notification is a condition precedent — if the contractor fails to notify promptly, the entitlement may be lost entirely. The QS’s role is to ascertain the loss and expense: investigating the contractor’s claim, examining the supporting evidence (timesheets, invoices, programme analysis, productivity records), and calculating the additional cost that the relevant matter has caused.

Common heads of claim under loss and expense include extended preliminaries (the additional cost of keeping the site open, management, plant, and facilities for longer than planned), disruption to labour productivity (where the contractor’s workforce is unable to work as efficiently as planned due to the relevant matter), idle plant and resources, and additional professional fees. The QS must apply established principles of quantum assessment: the contractor must prove causation (that the loss was caused by the relevant matter, not by the contractor’s own inefficiency), the contractor must mitigate (take reasonable steps to minimise the loss), and the damages must be foreseeable at the time the contract was made.

The RICS publishes practice information on the ascertainment of loss and expense, providing guidance on methodology, evidence requirements, and the QS’s duty to assess claims fairly. The QS must be independent in this assessment — neither accepting the contractor’s figures uncritically nor rejecting them without proper investigation. The QS’s ascertainment should be capable of standing up to scrutiny in adjudication or arbitration if the claim is disputed.

NEC4: No Separate Mechanism Needed

Under NEC4, there is no separate loss and expense mechanism because the compensation event assessment already covers all cost consequences. When the PM assesses a compensation event under clause 63, the assessment includes the effect on defined cost — which encompasses all the cost impacts that would be claimed as loss and expense under JCT: extended preliminaries, disruption, idle resources, additional management costs. The fee percentage is added to the defined cost change, providing the contractor’s margin. There is no need for the contractor to submit a separate claim, prove separate causation, or go through a separate ascertainment process — everything is captured in the compensation event quotation.

This integration is one of NEC’s most significant differences from JCT. It means that the QS (supporting the PM) assesses the full commercial impact of every change at the time it occurs, rather than dealing with variation valuations during the project and loss and expense claims months or years later. The compensation event procedure forces both parties to deal with the financial consequences of change in real time — which is more demanding during the project but typically results in fewer disputes at the end.

Delay Damages Under Both Contracts

Both contracts provide for the employer to recover delay damages (liquidated damages) if the contractor fails to complete by the contractual completion date (after any extensions of time have been granted). Under JCT, liquidated damages are specified in the contract particulars and deducted by the employer from amounts otherwise due — the architect/CA must first issue a non-completion certificate confirming that the works have not been completed by the completion date. Under NEC4, delay damages are a secondary option (X7) — if selected, the contractor pays delay damages at the rate specified in the contract data for each day from the completion date until completion is achieved. The mechanism differs, but the commercial effect is the same: the contractor bears the financial risk of delay that is the contractor’s responsibility.

Practical Completion and Defects

JCT: Practical Completion and the Rectification Period

Under JCT SBC/Q 2024, practical completion is certified by the architect/CA when the works have reached a state where they are fit for the employer’s intended purpose and substantially complete, with only minor defects remaining (clause 2.30). Practical completion is not defined precisely in the contract — it is a matter of professional judgement for the architect/CA. The certificate of practical completion triggers several important consequences: the rectification period begins (typically 12 months, as specified in the contract particulars), half of the retention is released, the contractor’s obligation to insure the works ends, and the employer’s right to deduct liquidated damages ceases to accrue.

During the rectification period, the architect/CA may notify the contractor of any defects that appear, and the contractor is obliged to return and make them good at no cost to the employer. At the end of the rectification period, the architect/CA issues a certificate of making good (clause 2.41), confirming that all notified defects have been corrected. The remaining retention is released upon issue of this certificate. If the contractor fails to return and correct defects, the employer can employ others to do the work and recover the cost from the contractor.

NEC4: Completion and the Defect Correction Period

Under NEC4, completion has a specific contractual definition (clause 11.2(2)): the works have been completed in accordance with the works information (scope) and any defects that would prevent the client from using the works have been corrected. The supervisor decides whether completion has been achieved — not the project manager. Completion triggers the defect correction period (specified in the contract data), during which the contractor must correct any defects notified by the supervisor. The supervisor issues a defects certificate at the end of the defect correction period (or earlier if all defects have been corrected), and the remaining retention is released.

A key difference is that NEC4 ties completion to the works information (scope) rather than to a subjective assessment of “practical completion.” If the works do not comply with the scope, completion has not been achieved — regardless of how nearly complete they appear. This more objective definition can create disputes about whether minor non-compliances prevent completion, but it also provides greater certainty about what the contractor must deliver before completion is certified.

The Programme: Advisory vs Contractual

JCT: Programme as a Management Tool

Under JCT SBC/Q 2024, the contractor is required to provide a master programme (clause 2.9), but the programme is not a contract document unless the parties specifically incorporate it. In practice, the programme is a management and monitoring tool — the architect/CA and QS use it to track progress, identify delays, and assess the impact of variations on the critical path. But because it is not contractually binding, disputes about delay often require retrospective delay analysis — comparing what actually happened against what was planned, using techniques such as impacted as-planned analysis, time impact analysis, or as-built vs as-planned analysis.

NEC4: Programme as a Contract Document

Under NEC4, the accepted programme is a contract document (clause 31). The contractor must submit a programme showing the sequence of activities, resource allocation, float, time risk allowances, and planned completion. The PM either accepts the programme or notifies the contractor of reasons for not accepting it. The accepted programme is the baseline against which all compensation events are assessed — it determines how much time and money a compensation event is worth. The contractor must submit revised programmes regularly (typically every assessment period), showing actual progress, the effect of compensation events, and how the contractor plans to deal with any delays.

This programme-centric approach is one of the most significant practical differences between JCT and NEC. It forces both parties to engage with the programme as a live commercial document, not just a planning tool. It reduces the scope for retrospective delay claims because the time impact of every compensation event is assessed in real time against the accepted programme. But it also creates a significant administrative burden — maintaining an accepted programme, submitting regular revisions, and ensuring that every compensation event is assessed against the correct programme version requires resources and discipline from both the contractor’s planning team and the PM’s support team.

Early Warning and Risk Management

JCT: Reactive Notification

JCT SBC/Q 2024 does not have a formal early warning mechanism. The contractor is required to notify the architect/CA of events that may cause delay (clause 2.23) or loss and expense (clause 4.21), but these notifications are reactive — they are triggered by events that have already occurred or are imminent. There is no contractual mechanism for the parties to meet regularly, review emerging risks, and agree mitigation strategies before they crystallise into formal claims. In practice, good project management under JCT involves regular progress meetings and risk reviews, but these are management processes rather than contractual obligations.

NEC4: Proactive Risk Management

NEC4’s early warning mechanism (clauses 15–16) is one of its defining features. Either party — the contractor or the PM — must notify an early warning as soon as they become aware of any matter that could increase the total of the prices, delay completion, delay meeting a key date, or impair the performance of the works in use. The PM maintains an early warning register, and the parties hold risk reduction meetings at intervals specified in the contract data (typically monthly) to review the register, assess risks, and agree mitigation actions.

The early warning mechanism has real commercial teeth. Under clause 64.1, if the contractor fails to give an early warning that an experienced contractor could have given, the PM can assess the compensation event as if the contractor had given the early warning — effectively reducing the assessment to reflect the cost that would have been incurred if the risk had been managed proactively rather than reactively. This creates a direct financial incentive for the contractor to flag problems early rather than waiting until they become claims. The cultural effect is significant — NEC projects typically have a more collaborative and transparent approach to risk management than JCT projects, precisely because the contract rewards early notification and penalises late claims.

Final Accounts

JCT: The Final Certificate

Under JCT SBC/Q 2024, the QS prepares the final account by agreeing the final value of the contract with the contractor — including the original contract sum, the value of all variations, any loss and expense ascertained, and any other adjustments. The architect/CA issues a final certificate (clause 4.15) stating the final balance due between the parties. The final certificate has conclusive evidence provisions — under clause 1.9, the final certificate is conclusive evidence that the quality of materials and workmanship is to the reasonable satisfaction of the architect/CA, that the contract sum has been properly adjusted, and that all extensions of time due have been given. If either party wishes to challenge the final certificate, they must commence adjudication, arbitration, or litigation within 28 days of the date of the final certificate. After that period, the final certificate becomes binding.

The QS’s role in the final account under JCT is substantial. The QS must ensure that every variation has been valued, every claim for loss and expense has been ascertained or rejected, all provisional sums have been adjusted, all prime cost sums have been settled, and the retention has been properly released. The final account is typically the subject of extended negotiation between the QS and the contractor’s commercial team, and it is not unusual for the final account on a complex project to take 12–18 months to agree after practical completion.

NEC4: The Final Assessment

Under NEC4, the final assessment is made by the PM four weeks after the supervisor issues the defects certificate (clause 53). The PM assesses the final amount due — including all accepted compensation events, any pain/gain share under Options C and D, and the release of any remaining retention. Under Option C (target cost), the final assessment includes the calculation of the contractor’s share — the pain/gain share based on the difference between the final total of the prices (the target) and the final total of defined cost plus fee (the actual cost). If the actual cost is below the target, the saving is shared; if above, the overrun is shared, subject to any cap on the contractor’s pain share specified in the contract data.

The NEC approach to final accounts is typically faster than JCT’s because the compensation event mechanism requires all changes to be assessed during the project rather than deferred to the final account stage. By the time the defects certificate is issued, most compensation events should already have been assessed and the prices adjusted accordingly. The final assessment is largely an administrative exercise — confirming the total of the prices, making the final payment assessment, and calculating the share (under target cost options). There is less scope for the protracted negotiation that characterises JCT final accounts, because the contract mechanism forces the parties to deal with commercial issues in real time.

Dispute Resolution

Adjudication: The Statutory Right

Both JCT and NEC4 are subject to the statutory right to adjudication under the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996. Either party can refer a dispute to adjudication at any time, and the adjudicator must reach a decision within 28 days (extendable by 14 days with the referring party’s consent or by agreement). The adjudicator’s decision is binding until the dispute is finally determined by arbitration, litigation, or agreement. Adjudication has transformed construction dispute resolution since its introduction in 1998 — it provides a rapid, relatively low-cost mechanism for resolving disputes without stopping the project.

JCT: Three-Tier Resolution

Under JCT SBC/Q 2024, the dispute resolution provisions provide for adjudication as a right at any time, followed by final resolution through either arbitration or litigation (as specified in the contract particulars). The 28-day challenge window after the final certificate is a critical deadline — if neither party challenges the final certificate within this period, the certificate becomes conclusive evidence on the matters it covers. The QS must ensure that any unresolved disputes are flagged before the challenge window closes.

NEC4: Dispute Resolution Options

NEC4 provides three dispute resolution options (W1, W2, and W3), selected in the contract data. Option W1 provides for adjudication followed by the tribunal (arbitration or litigation). Option W2 (for contracts subject to the UK Construction Act) mirrors the statutory adjudication requirements. Option W3 provides for a dispute avoidance board (DAB) — a standing panel that can give opinions and decisions on disputes as they arise during the project, followed by adjudication and the tribunal if the DAB decision is not accepted. The NEC approach reflects the contract’s emphasis on collaboration and early resolution — the early warning mechanism and risk reduction meetings are intended to resolve commercial differences before they become formal disputes.

Summary: JCT vs NEC4 at a Glance

Commercial Activity	JCT SBC/Q 2024	NEC4 ECC
Payment basis	Monthly valuation of work done; QS prepares, CA certifies	Assessment at notification dates; depends on pricing option (A–F)
Variations / change	Architect’s instruction; QS values using contract rates hierarchy	Compensation event; contractor submits quotation; PM accepts or assesses
Time and cost	Separate: EOT (clause 2.29) + loss & expense (clause 4.24)	Integrated: compensation event covers time and cost together
Programme status	Advisory (not contractual unless incorporated)	Accepted programme is a contract document (clause 31)
Early warning	No formal mechanism	Mandatory early warning register + risk reduction meetings (clause 15)
Notification time bar	Condition precedent for loss & expense; no strict time bar for EOT	8 weeks from awareness or entitlement lost (clause 61)
Completion	Practical completion (architect/CA’s opinion)	Completion per works information (supervisor’s assessment)
Defects period	Rectification period (typically 12 months); certificate of making good	Defect correction period; defects certificate
Final account	QS prepares; CA issues final certificate with conclusive evidence effect	PM makes final assessment 4 weeks after defects certificate
Dispute resolution	Adjudication + arbitration or litigation	W1/W2/W3 options; may include dispute avoidance board
QS role	Defined in contract: valuations, variation assessment, loss & expense	Not defined: QS supports PM within the PM’s authority

Cross-References and Further Reading

This article sits within a series of practical guides on ProQS.site covering the core skills of the quantity surveyor. Related articles include:

Construction Procurement Routes — explains how the choice of procurement route determines which contract form is used, and how the QS’s role varies across traditional, D&B, management contracting, and framework procurement.

NRM 1 Cost Planning Guide — covers cost planning from order-of-cost estimate to pre-tender cost plan. The cost plan sets the budget that the QS manages through contract administration during the construction phase.

NRM 2 Practical Measurement Guide — covers the preparation of bills of quantities under NRM 2, which form the basis of the JCT valuation mechanism and the pricing document for interim payments and variation valuations.

BIM for Quantity Surveyors — covers how BIM integrates with cost management across all procurement routes and contract forms, including model-based quantity extraction and information management under ISO 19650.

Methods of Measurement in Construction — covers the principal measurement standards used in UK construction, explaining where each standard applies and which contract forms they typically support.

What Comes Next

This article has set out the core contract administration processes under JCT SBC/Q 2024 and NEC4 ECC side by side, showing how the same commercial activities — paying the contractor, managing change, assessing time, recovering cost, completing the works, and settling the final account — work under fundamentally different contractual philosophies. JCT separates time, cost, and change into distinct mechanisms, giving the QS clearly defined roles within each. NEC integrates them into a single compensation event process, requiring the QS to work within the PM’s authority and engage with change in real time. Neither approach is inherently superior — JCT provides familiarity, transparency, and a well-established body of case law; NEC provides integration, collaboration, and proactive risk management. The QS who can operate effectively under both is the QS who can work on any project in the UK construction industry. Future articles on ProQS.site will explore specific contract administration topics in greater depth, including variation valuation techniques, delay analysis methods, and the preparation of final accounts.