NEC Clause 62.2 - Delay to Planned Completion

There is no case law that I know of that directly answers your question.

Notwithstanding that the NEC3 contract tends to fall apart if actions are not taken promptly and all assessments are done prosepctively, I would say that it would be the accepted programme that was in force at the time that the CE occured.  At clause 63.1 it notes that the assessment date would be the date when the Project Manager should have instructed the contractor to submit a quotation.   This is for a different purpose but the principle might be the same.

Thanks for the response Ken.

We submitted alterations to the plan based upon the programme at the time of the event.

I think doing it on a later version would have included mitigating actions taken in the subsequent months and therefore the compensation received may not have been adequate.

Hi Oliver

In my understanding of NEC3 there should only be one programme in use at any time.

The original or one that has been revised by a compensation event.

The accepted programme may be updated with progress between events but the non progressed programme should be used to impact compensation events.

Best regards

Mike Testro

Hi Mike,

Not quite right. -There is only one programme, which is the latest accepted programme.

The latest accepted programme is revised for both CEs and progress. -You don't apply CEs to an unprogressed version, since contractor owns the (current) float.

Hi Oliver,

The correct process if done in a timely fashion is CE notified => contractor quotes (inc time impact) => PM accepts  (CE Implemented, completion date ammended) => Contractor excecutes CE.

So if doing it retrospectively, I would suggest you should take the accepted programme at the point the CE was notified.

If any CEs with a time impact have been implemented since that point, you're into a can of worms as the time impacts agreed would all be based on the "incorrect" accepted programme and hence probably "wrong". Definitely one to be handled by agreement and not case law, I would suggest.

Don't have the relevant docs to hand and am not aware of any relevant case law or precedence, so just my $0.02

Cheers,

G

Hi Gary

If the progress update shows the contractor is ahead of programme then by impacting the updated programme he is giving away his hard earned float.

That is why the impact should be on the current accepted programme.

Best regards

Mike Testro

That's not how NEC works, Mike.

1) CE is assessed verses latest (progresed and accepeted) programme

2) If impact of CE would be to delay forecast completion, then the contractual completion date is pushed back by the same amount of time, so contractor's terminal float (difference between forecast and contractual completion) remains constant

Every progress update becomes (if accepted) the new contractual baseline

Cost & time impacts of CEs are (or at least should be) agreed at the time of instruction, and based on the current intent rather than the original intent as at contract award.

Cheers,

G