acceleration of the works

Donald,

I absolutly agree with you.

The Contractor needs Client/Consultant approval, in order to revise the time schedule (even in the form of acceleration). The hidden intentions can be shortening Provisional Sum Items, or earlier appointement of nominated subcontractors; in order to plan a Claim.

Moreover, as you said; CONTRACTUALLY, the Master Baseline is considered part of the Contract Documents; hence, alterations require approval of all parties.

All,

I remember discussing this a while back - most standard forms of contract make the provision of a programme by the contractor a contractual obligation - this does not automatically make the programme a contract document.

In many standard forms the programme is NOT a contract document.

Andrew, I am definitely with you on this one.

Even if it is a "contract document", what does that mean?

If "contract document" means that each and every detail of it is some sort of a contract promise, and that any departure in any detail is some sort of technical contract breach, then it is ridiculous. A contractor will continuously be in this technical breach right from day 1, because things, hopefully only small things, change.

If not every detail, then saying "contract document" must be accompanied by a very strict specification of which details are the promises.

The idea that the contractor requires the permission of the client to change the program, in any respect at all, could only have been thought up by lawyers. Of course it’s in contracts, but it is ridiculous. The contractor has already assumed the risk of meeting a small number of specific promises, eg the handover date. If the client deprives the contractor of just about the only tool available to manage that risk, ie the program and the ability to plan and then revise the plan as frequently as necessary, the client is the main problem and is acting against his own interests. There may be some things that the contractor cannot change because they are not within his control, such as the dates that the client will supply equipment, and the contractor cannot oblige/force the client to change his dates to match some revision, but that’s all.

If the programme is part of the contract, and it can be, then for better or worse, it comes under excatly the same rules concerning a change to the terms of the contract, just like any change to any other term in that contract.

Which leads to some very interesting arguments!!!!!!!!!!!

Note - we are talking about a change to the contract terms here, not a change to the scope of works within the contract.

One needs to absolutely certain what is meant by "programme". Many get confused between baseline programme and update. Baseline programme, generally, can only be changed with proper approval process. But current programme or update is just the current status of the project. It may show late or early completion depending on status of the project. And it should. It is the crystal ball of the project.

Changing the baseline programme would be change in contract terms.

Change in current programme has nothing to do with contract terms. It is part of project management.

But isn’t an updated programme, if different from the baseline programme, a change of the baseline programme?

If the updated programme if different, you must have departed from the original baseline programme!!!!!!

Not going to get into a great debate on this subject as the arguments really turn on the exact wording of the contract.

in my humble opinion (though i’m not really humble), it is not reasonable to say that a Program or Schedule is a contract document by itself. I believe that it is an element (or an obligation as Andrew said) forming part of the contract documents.

Why? because basically a Contract is a promise, and Planning and Scheduling are always uncertain! (until it happened). How can you make a promise on Design/Engineering works beforehand?

For me, a Program or Schedule is a Deliverable! a complex one, which defines the whole deliverables!

one of the many things I don’t understand is the Contract, is there anything as a Standard Contract? or is there anything as a Standard Wants? (i.e. wants of the Client), is it possible to classify or categorize the Wants, the Needs, and the Allowable and Practicable?

If you consider the Contract as the "Wants", how do you consider the Program or the Schedule of Works?

Anoon,

There is no such thing as a standard contract. A contract is a legally binding promise by parties to do something - in the context of construction:

Contractor - promises to build what the Employer wants
Employer - promises to pay

The starting point is that the price the Contractor and Employer has agreed includes for EVERYTHING. But as we know, construction projects change or unforessen events occur. Therefore the time and cost of these risks are shared between Employer and Contractor - how that is done must be set out in the contract otherwise, (with a few exceptions), the risk is with the Contractor. Eg quantities are the Employers risk in a full re-measurement contract or under FIDIC, the first 15% change is with the contractor and any greater change with the Employer.

As all construction projects are different and Employers priorities are different, so each contract is different - even standard forms of contract are usually amended to reflect the Employers requirements.

How the programme fits into everything will therefore be a matter of the contract wording, as will the significance of changes to the programme.

The Contractor is only entitled to an EOT if the extra work will impact the current agreed or approved finished date.

He is compensated for the additional work ie. for all resources and cost including profit & overhead etc.. for performing the extra work.

It is his choice to use the existing resources or mobilize additional resource to perform this work.This may not constitute and EOT if it does not extend the current longest path.

Rajeev,

Although what you say is correct, the usual problem is that the Contractor doesn’t agree with the current completion date - either because EoT claims have been but in and no EoT granted which the contractor believes is incorrect, or there are EoT claims yet to be settled.

The Employer tries to make the contractor stick to the current completion date, the contractor can’t make the current completion date, or only can at considerable expense which he has no guarantee of getting back. Often after the job the Employer wants to charge LD’s from the current completion date and the contractor doesn’t agree with the date

- and before you know it, a dispute has started.

It’s the first sceanrio above that leads to interesting questions about acceleration, constructive or instructed.