Under NEC4 we have an Accepted Programme with a defined schedule of labour/plant resources. The linkages of the activities on the critical path is such that delays in one area push out the programme in other areas that had a later access date therefore moving planned completion. However, these delays would be (at least in part) mitigated by increasing the resources and concurrent working.
Do we have an obligation to increase resources to mitigate delays as part of ‘collaborative working’ or are we entitled to revise the programme using the same resource basis as the accepted programme?
Jon, I suggest that you should discuss the matter with the PM and agree which is the preferred solution. I suspect the PM may request 2 quotes, unmitigated and mitigated.
This is always a difficult question to answer. There is a general obligation to mitigate where possible/practical but mitigation I would generally describe as doing things a different way at no particular extra cost or risk. That being the case, another gang would clearly be an additional cost - so could be argues as more than mitigation, but equally if it is the type of resource that would be easily sourced and not increase risk particularly then it would be expected to be done.
There is no obligation to always increase resources no matter what as clearly no planned Completion/Completion Date would ever change. I would base this on what I plan to do. If I would definitely get extra resources then I would base it that way and point out that you are helping the Client here. If it doesn’t particularly suit then show planned Completion date moving and the entitlement to move Completion Date once implemented - with the option for the Client to then ask for a separate quote to accelerate it back.