
In this segment of William Doyle MRICS’s YouTube video, two speakers discuss how contract clauses—specifically under NEC3—are interpreted in practice. They illustrate the point with a training‑course case study about a specification change for cherry‑tree species. Rather than undertaking a costly time‑and‑motion study to determine the defined cost of the change, the project manager and contractor may simply agree on a comparable tree, recognizing that the administrative cost of a formal analysis could exceed the benefit. The dialogue highlights the usefulness of such contract provisions, while also warning that hidden “loss‑leader” clauses can undermine project performance if not kept in mind. The overall message stresses the importance of balancing formal contractual mechanisms with pragmatic, cost‑effective decisions to improve project outcomes.










