Does anything after CE notification date need to be progressed?
PM is asking for progress up to end of the CE impact but in step 3 you have not yet added the CE?
The reason is because we (The Contractor) have progressed critical activities (starting after CE notification date) ahead of programme and the PM does not think this is critical anymore nor should it be on the impact programme for the quote assessment?
Yes - under NEC4 where they have given it a name which is “the dividing date” you take into account progress up until the “dividing date”. This is the date the instruction was given (if the instruction results in a compensation event) or for all other events when the compensation event was notified.
Basically anything that you know has changed before the dividing date can be assessed (but would have to be proven/justified).
Thank you Glenn
For NEC3 (our Contract) our dividing date would then be the CE notification date. We (Contractor) notified the CE.
Apologies, but just to make it clear; any activities that was planned to start after “the dividing date” should remain as planned with the previous accepted logic?
The contract is not explicit on this point even with NEC4. Broadly speaking I think what you describe is a sensible approach as that was the last agreed sequence between the Parties. However there would be a strong argument to say that if you knew (and could prove) you had planned BEFORE the dividing date to do a sequence of activities in a different order or in a different way in the future (even if these are activities AFTER the dividing date) you would have a case. However, what this does NOT allow the Contractor just to change logic in the programme to make the CE now critical that wasn’t before and think they can claim for it. The PM would simply assess that themselves.
For me it is about assessing the CE against what was known to be true at that point - and that could be for changes to activities after the dividing date (again if you can prove it).
The new NEC4 2019 amendment to clause 63.5 states:
The assessment takes into account:
1)any delay caused by the compensation event already in the Accepted Programme, and
2)events which have happened between the date of the Accepted Programme and the dividing date
for 2 you could argue that an event that has happened is you have planned to change the logic after the dividing date, but I think more obviously it is there to pick up actual progress and other compensation events that have occurred since the last Accepted Programme up until the dividing date.