NEC3: Project Reporting (CVR's) - CL.32 V CL.31 Programme

NEC3 - The Project Controls Team on a large infrastructure project have been reporting progress to date from the “Baseline Programme”, they have been using the Cl.31 Programme. I believe they should be using the “last accepted programme” (Cl.32 programme), as this always as this contains “change” (new works/CE’s, delays etc) which were not in the Cl.31. The “last accepted” should be the “project baseline” as it contains the original programme duration but now contains planned programme duration for the change that’s happening along the way. The “planned” v “actual” is only really relevant to the Cl.32. I view the Cl.31 as a programme that is quickly superseded and become of little value once the newer Cl.32 programmes are accepted. Why would you measure off a Cl.31 programme which may be 6-9 months out of date? The planners are trying to “re-baseline” the programme every 6 months, I don’t see the need if you use the Cl.32 submitted every 4 weeks.

1 Like

Any suggestions welcomed.

The team is likely to be tracking and reporting progress measured against defined metrics, including earned value reporting. As you have said, however, this is, to a large extent, a purely theoretical exercise in many respects especially as the actual work ‘moves on’ further away from the stated baseline programme. Unless this is linked in some way to your work, through KPI’s etc, then it is likely to be a reporting mechanism only.

I agree that the effort required to produce the specified ‘output’ is significant and if a different mindset and approach were adopted this effort could be channelled to produce much more useful data and information, especially with the adoption of targeted technologies to extract ‘real time’ progress.

Hello Andrew - They are indeed reporting Key Dates (KPI’s linked to meeting these dates) and earned value. Implemented Compensation Events move the Key Dates, this is only reflected in the Cl.32 programme, hence the baseline needs to move in my opinion. Could the earned value not be updated each 4-weekly period?

EV = percentage completion (works progress) x budgeted cost of works scheduled (Total of the Prices). My view is the recent Cl.32 reflects the percentage completion (actual works completed on site) and the BCWS is the total of the prices with the new CE’s implemented (original budget + change). Hence the only true earned value figure comes off the Cl.32 programme, not the Cl.31.

1 Like