NEC3 ECC: Acceptance of revised programme, but fundamental changes from previous version?

The Contractor’s previous revision of the programme was accepted. The Works Information required X number of manholes to be built, but due to poor information from the designers, the number of manholes increased.

The Contractor has made an assessment of the increase in quantity and in this new version of the programme they are now stating that works completed a few months ago actually took longer. In other words Revision 2 said for Section A, the completion of manholes took 10 days. In Revision 3 they have split the activity into two items - Original works scope say 9 days and additional works say 3 days, totally 12 days. This contradicts Rev 2 where they stated it took 10 days.

Can this Revision not be accepted as it is unrealistic? It appears the Contractor is trying to apply for more time than actually utilised.

Related to the above, it was reported on the contractors programme that say for Section A, works were completed on 5 June 2016. Follow on Contractors have accessed this area and have found some works to be incomplete, which will affect the handover to the client. As such the Contractor returned and completed the unfinished works.

On further investigation Areas B, C and D have also not been completed, as previously reported by the Contractor on his programme.

Can the Contractor be requested that in his new revised programme to reflect the new completion dates, taking into effect the works that were not done and not noticed by the Employer at the time Rev 2 of the programme was accepted?

Regarding the manholes, if the work was before the progress date of the programme update then it should be a matter of fact when they were completed and how long they took.

If the durations are not factual then you can not accept it on the basis that it does not comply with the contract. You should also bear in mind that the effect of the compensation event (the change in Works Information) needs to assessed against the accepted programme at the time of the event.

Regarding areas B, C and D it is not clear if these were Key Dates, Sectional Completion Dates or just “normal dates” in the programme. However, from a programme perspective, if there is still work to complete then the Contractor is required to show these on the revised programme in accordance with the first bullet point of clause 32 - the actual progress achieved on each operation and its effect upon the timing of the remaining work .

I am not too sure why you are getting too hung up on actuals in this question. As soon as it was known that extra manholes are required than stated in WI then this would be notified as a compensation event. The CE should be a forecast of both time and cost at the time it was notified as a compensation event. On the programme it should have seen if this affected planned Completion, and if so there would be a time entitlement and if not there is not.

You should go back to the Accepted Programme at the time the CE was notified and see what (if any) effect that had on planned Completion to ascertain any entitlement. After that the reality will all just come out in the wash - in as much as they finish before or after the revised entitlement