In this excerpt, two speakers discuss how NEC3 contract clauses governing specification changes are intended to be applied. Speaker B recalls a training case study about a minor change to a cherry‑tree species in a specification. He argues that a full‑blown time‑and‑motion cost study would be disproportionate; instead, the project manager and contractor should use a pragmatic, proportionate approach to agree on a sensible solution. The conversation highlights that while the clause is valuable, both parties must keep in mind the possibility of a loss‑leader provision in the contract, allowing flexibility to avoid unnecessary expense. Overall, the dialogue stresses interpreting the clause in line with its purpose—facilitating reasonable, cost‑effective adjustments rather than triggering exhaustive analyses.
