I have an event occurred where there is extra work which can impact the planned Completion. At the time the event arose we have an Accepted Programme from the previous period. However by the time the instruction was issued by the Employer, we have another Accepted Programme with a new planned Completion. The latter does not include for the impact of the work.
I’m aware that Clause 63.3 denotes the impact on the planned Completion vs the Contract Completion date.
Which programme do we measure the extra work against? The one at the time it arose, or the one at the time of the instruction from the Employer?
A delay to planned completion is assessed by using the accepted programme current at the dividing date.
The dividing date will either be the date of the instruction or the date on which a compensation event was notified (whichever is earliest) - not when the event occurred.
Phil’s answer would be absolutely right for NEC4 but by reference to 63.3, I assume you are using NEC3 which is less explicit as there is no (equivalent) statement saying you use the “Accepted Programme current at the dividing date” as per clause 63.5 of NEC4.
However, contracts should be read as a whole and there is a reasonable argument for saying that, under NEC3 ECC, the criteria which divides forecast from actual in clause 63.1 also applies to 63.3 … but it is a reasonable argument not a definitive one.
I can confirm it is NEC3, thanks Jon.
This is an area I wrote an article on back in 2013 which you can find in the “guidance/publications” section of my “GMH Planning” website. What I concluded in the article was that NEC3 implies the following, but no where near clear enough and that NEC4 needed to specifically address this to make it more transparent. NEC4 came out and failed to make it transparent, until that is they brought out “NEC4 ECC practice note 1” which you can again download from the “guidance/downloads”. I have it on good authority the NEC4 contracts will be amended this year to reflect specifically the principles of the guidance note. In the meantime, the principles I suggest you should apply equally to NEC3 as that is what they always intended. The guidance note is a clarification of intent rather than a new rule. Process should be as follows:
- new CE has been notified
- take the last Accepted Programme at the point it was notified as a CE or instructed by the PM (if it is a change to Works Information)
- update it with progress and other CE’s that have already occurred, and reschedule to see where you were in terms of planned Completion before the CE had occurred.
- save that programme as an interim baseline, and then feed in the new CE, logic link it accordingly and reschedule the programme again. If planned Completion moves this time, that is the effect directly due to that compensation event. You can run a filter on anything that has changed compared to the baseline you stored and that can be the programme that can go with that quotation.
- repeat process for any other CE’s that occur that period.
In terms of your question - I guess you did not know you were doing that extra work until you had been instructed, so it should be that programme at the time of the instruction you would be basing this assessment on.
Glenn’s recommendations have been an ‘adopted standard’ for programme assessment over the past few years and works very well in practice.
For an understanding of the proposed changes to clause 63.5 of the ECC, have a look at clause 63.5 of the NEC4 Alliance contract.