NEC3 PSC revised programme rejection

We are engaged under a PSC3 option C. The Programme submitted for acceptance includes start, completion, activities & tasks (to provide the scope), critical path, float & TRA, which has been accepted. The revised programme with progress input has been rejected with comment that the actual costs we have incurred (ACWP) is not shown against the budgeted progress (BCWP). We assume the only reason the EA wants this is to use the programme as a vehicle to withhold costs if they exceed the budget on an activity. Is there any obligation to provide this, given the programme is a management tool to give a snapshot of progress (and change) at a specific point in time. Would we be within our right to ignore this request and continue to submit or programme monthly as required. We provide an estimated forecast at completion as a separate submission with forecast costs against the agreed WBS contained in the programme

Earned value metrics are not a standard NEC requirement so I presume that this has been added to the Scope as information to be shown on a programme submitted for acceptance.

There are a number of ‘issues’ with cost loading a programme for earned value reporting, not least how to deal with time risk allowances and float, which creates problems with a ‘correct’ allocation of cost (both budgeted and actual).

As you have said Option C requires the preparation and submission of forecast (cost) which should be the appropriate forum to discuss any related issues, including earned value reporting. Any ‘withholding’ of costs would, presumably, be part of the share calculation which is not assessed prior to Completion.

I would continue to submit a programme for acceptance. It is common for requirements to be ‘expanded and detailed’ post contract, especially where there the requirement is not comprehensive, but try to maintain focus on what the contract actually requires you to do and to comply with this, regardless of any ‘additional expectations’.