Referring to Clause 32.1:
The Contractor shows on each revised programme
· the actual progress achieved on each operation and its effect upon the timing of the remaining work.
· the effects of implemented compensation events.
· how the Contractor plans to deal with any delays and to correct notified Defects and
· any other changes which the Contractor proposes to make to the Accepted Programme.
and Clause 35 states the definition of compensation event implementation:
A compensation event is implemented when
· the Project Manager notifies his acceptance of the Contractor’s quotation
· the Project Manager notifies the Contractor of his own assessment or
· a Contractor’s quotation is treated as having been accepted by the Project Manager.
The changes to the Prices, the Completion Date and the Key Dates are included in the notification implementing a compensation event.
On the basis of the 2nd bullet of Clause 32.1, If the Contractor, in his submission of a proposed revised Programme, made a revision to the Completion Date due to a Compensation Event which is NOT yet implemented, can the PM reject the proposed revised Programme?
1 Like
Elvin - The impact of a non-implemented compensation event should, in my view be shown in a programme update (32.1 lists minimum not maximum requirements). However, until it is implemented the impact will only be on planned Completion not the Completion Date.
If a programme has been submitted showing a revised Completion Date before a compensation event has been implemented then yes it would be quite right for the PM to reject it. However, if the impact is shown against planned Completion then the PM would be wrong to reject the programme.
The second bullet of 32.1 is purely picking up on any compensation events that have been accepted/implemented that period that have time effect then you move the Completion Date by that amount. The first bullet picks up on he fact you should be showing the effect of non-implemented compensation events but this should only be reflected in movement of the planned Completion.
It is a misconception to think that anyone should not/can not show non-implemented compensation events and indeed for me would be a reason to reject the programme as it would not be realistic.
But back to your original question yes the wrong Completion Date is a reason to reject the programme. You should have only moved the planned Completion, and as and when the CE is implemented in the future then you can move Completion date by the agreed amount and (hopefully) it will catch up again with planned Completion.
This emphasizes the whole reason for the two distinct milestones. Planned Completion reflects reality, whilst Completion Date reflects (potential) liability.
Agree completely with the above statements. Would point out that :
- under clause 14.1, acceptance of a communication from the Contractor by the PM does not change the Contractor’s liability to Provide the Works;
- a compensation event is implemented under 65.1, whereupon the Completion Date would change.
In other words, acceptance of the programme with a wrong Completion Date in it does not change the Completion Date. Given this, if the rest of the programme is up to standard, it may well be worth accepting it, whilst noting that the Completion Date is wrong.