When assessing time the logic of the Accepted Programme has been used.
The Accepted Programme in this case is the first programme as all revisions required since have been rejected due to being inaccurate as to the work done and still to do. Therefore the PM assessments of time are not drawn up in a programme format. The contract is approaching 2 years from the start date.
Would it be considered that the PM should have his own detailed programme which could be done accurately for historical events (albeit he would need additional resource to do so) but pure guess work for activities yet to be done.
Hence my question, to what level of detail should be given regarding time, within the PM Assessment? The Contract and the Guidance Notes state that details are to be given but silent on what these should be.
If the PM is making their own assessment then it needs to be in enough detail to convince the Contractor that it is correct, otherwise they are more likely to want to take the matter to adjudication.
NEC4 practice note 1 and the new wording of 63.5 (Jan 2019 amendments) make it clear that you assess a compensation event against the last Accepted Programme BUT only after taking into account progress and other compensation events that occurred before the date the compensation event was instructed/notified (known in NEC4 as the dividing date) . The principle of this guidance note is still applicable to NEC3.
I would say that the level of detail the PM needs to provide with his assessment is the same as that which the Contractor needs to provide with his quotation. If that doesn’t include a full programme then it at least needs to include a full explanation of how the additional time has been established.
Thank you Glenn