In the case where there is a sectional completion, an activity within the section is linked on the critical path to another activity outside of the sectional Completion which are not dependent on each other. The link was accepted in the Contractor’s submission, unnoticed at that time. A delay has occurred within the sectional Completion therefore with the non-dependent link this also reflects within the overall planned Completion. The CE is subject to a PMA due to many inaccuracies. and not just the time element. Can the PM in assessing the programme mitigate overall delay by breaking the the non-dependent link, which will transpire to only adjust the sectional completion date?
No I don’t think the PM is able to do this contractually. The NEC has recently published ECC Practice note 1 which you can download from www.gmhplanning.co.uk. This make sit clearer now that when assessing a CE from an Accepted Programme that may be a few months old, progress and other compensation events should be taken into account first to see where the Contractor was before the CE Came along, and then assess the CE to identify impact. Progress and other CE’s should be taken into account but it says nothing about incorrect logic or change in logic - which I think would be a step too far and would make the Accepted Programme redundant if ANY changes could be done on an Accepted Programme before assessing a CE.
Hopefully NEC will be clarifying the rules in the main body of the contract very soon rather than leaving this advise in guidance notes. Whilst written for NEC4 the same principle should apply to NEC3.
Although I would agree with Glenn’s comments, the only thing I would ask is the accuracy of the logic in the first place. If the link was not correct, then surely it could be argued that they are correcting wrong logic for it to become reality? No doubt it is being used to their advantage, but wrong logic is still wrong logic?