NEC ECC: Subcontractor timescales wrong on Accepted Programme

If the Subcontractor has shown an incorrect duration of an activity/ some activities, and that programme is accepted, can you challenge them on these durations on the next submission? i.e. - If they had “0” days in the last accepted, but on the revised programme they show “5” days, is this their risk/ delay?

Likewise, if they show “18” days on the Last Accepted, and on the revised, but you want to reduce it to “5” days, can you challenge them on this to reduce it to reflect “reality” and “their plans”? This relates to activities that were two months in the future on the last Accepted, but are now in the next 4 weeks, and the methodology has been revised to benefit the subcontractor.

Of course the answer is yes. Any programme you take on face value and if something has changed or is wrong then it should be changed to reflect reality. There is no grounds to say for a single aspect “you accepted this last month so you have to accept it this month”. It is their programme to show a realistic picture of how they plan to do the works, the duration’s and relative logic of their activities. If you now know it does not comply with a reason in 31.3 then that is grounds to not accept the programme.

Thanks Glenn.
Just to check though, if the duration is now increasing from the Last Accepted due to an error (typo), any increase in time that affects the critical path fulls to the subcontractor doesn’t it? Just want to clarify… I.e. - previously they had “0” days, but now want “5” days. Arguebly “0” wasn’t realistic, but this isn’t the fault of the contractor.

Yes - any change to the Subcontractor activity on the critical path will affect their planned Completion - but it will not move Completion Date even if you accept the programme. Only thing that moves the Completion Date is if the increase to the duration is somehow a compensation event i.e. a change to the Works Information.