Recognising

 the  achievements  of  

professionals  who  specialise  in  
construction  claims    
  www.instituteccp.com
 
 

ICCP Industry Insights

Programmes & Planning

Most forms of contract require the Contractor to submit a programme of the works to the
Engineer for acceptance or approval and this usually has to be done within a specified time
frame - FIDIC, for example stipulates 28 days. On a complicated project, however it is a
challenge to produce a detailed programme within such a time frame. Nevertheless, the
contractor should do his utmost to produce the most detailed and accurate programme
possible and to do it within the time stipulated. As a minimum the programme should include:

1. A clear intention of how the time and sequence as to how the work is intended to
progress.
2. A clear critical path to completion.
3. Dates when the employer’s input is required with links to the critical path.

If delays occur and the contractor wishes to pursue an extension of time claim then the
programme will be the yardstick against which to measure delays, so it is essential to have
this in place as soon as possible. There seems to be a propensity amongst engineers to
prevaricate about accepting the contractor’s programme and in some cases to attempt to
pressure the contractor to allow for events that have happened post contract. An example
would be if the contract period was to start on a particular date, but the contractor did not
receive possession of the site on that date. It should be remembered that this programme
should be based upon the works included in the contract and consequently, in such a
situation, the Contractor should resist any pressure to change his programme to reflect the
actual date of possession, because this would not reflect the agreed situation at the time the
Contract was entered into. It is usual for contracts to allow for revised programmes to be
prepared should the previous version no longer reflect the intended sequencing of the project
or progress. This is the time to make amendments and not in the original ‘baseline’
programme.
  

Contract administration procedures should include for an updated programme to be

maintained, recorded, submitted, approved and kept as a record on a regular basis. An
updated programme will record the ‘as-built’ or actual progress up to the data date of the
update and will predict the future events, including the critical path and completion date after
the date of the update. Should it be necessary in a claim situation, to demonstrate whether or
not the project was on programme or that there were or were not concurrent delays at any
time, such a record will be an essential tool in doing so. Whilst updated programmes are
often finalised and recorded on a regular, possibly monthly, basis, if an event occurs which
may have a significant impact on time, it would be an appropriate measure to create and
record the updated situation at the time of the onset of the delay. This could go a long way to
proving or disproving entitlement to extensions of time and additional payment when a claim
is submitted.

If you are responsible for administering, preparing or responding to claims, it is very

important to establish a rapport with those responsible for planning and programming and to
ensure that they are aware of the requirements with regard to claims. Unless you are
proficient in the use of planning software, you will have to work with and depend on such
people when it comes to demonstrating the effects of delay on the programme, so the early
establishment of a good working relationship in this respect is essential.

Contract administration systems should establish procedures for the early identification of
potential claims, firstly because notices of such will usually have to be submitted in order to
protect entitlement and secondly, so that the contract administration system can kick in and
appropriate action be taken. One of the early things that should be done from a claim point
of view is to consult with the planners to ascertain whether the event will have an effect on
the programme and if so, what will be the likely effect. At this stage you are attempting to
discover whether a notice of an extension of time should be submitted, so an in-depth
analysis is not necessary, but the planners should at least provide a ‘best opinion’ on which
to base a decision to send a notice and flag the event as a potential claim. It is always better
to send a notice and then advise the Engineer, that having investigated the matter further, no
claim will be pursued.

  2  
  

Many arguments have taken place on the correct allocation of float contained in the
programme when it comes to extensions of time. One point of view is that the project owns
the float and the other is that because the programme is ‘owned’ by the contractor, then any
float contained therein also belongs to him. It is suggested that, in order to avoid later
differences of opinion on the subject, it is good practice for the employer to stipulate how the
float should be used within the conditions of contract. If the use of float is not defined in the
contract, it is sensible for the parties to attempt to agree on the matter and record such an
agreement during the early stages of the project.

This paper was provided by FICCP, Andy Hewitt.

If you have a paper or article to be considered for inclusion in the ICCP Knowledge Centre
and blog, please do let us know via hello@instituteccp.com.

Ensure that you receive notifications of new ICCP Industry Insights by:

§ Following us on LinkedIn
§ Liking us on Facebook
§ Following us on Twitter
§ Subscribing to our mailing list

Find out more about becoming an Associate, Member, Fellow or Corporate Member of
the ICCP at www.instituteccp.com

  3