Programme acceptance is a means of keeping the contractual record connected to the work, not an end in itself. When it stalls, the team needs to resolve the reasons without allowing the plan used on site to diverge.
Resolve the reasons for non-acceptance
The Contractor submits a programme, the Project Manager returns comments and the next submission arrives a month later with some of the same issues unresolved. Meanwhile, the site team works to a different plan. The formal programme process continues, but it is no longer helping the people delivering the project.
The response is to identify why the programme is not being accepted and resolve those matters. Another reporting template will achieve little if the real problem is missing design information, an unrealistic sequence or disagreement about how progress should be shown.
Submit a plan the team intends to use
Under NEC4 ECC, programmes submitted for acceptance need the information required by clause 31.2 and the Scope. Revisions also need the updating information required by clause 32.1. The planner should check those requirements, but the site and commercial teams need to check whether the programme describes the actual delivery plan.
Take a staged road closure. The programme may show the surfacing operation correctly while omitting the time needed to obtain the possession, relocate temporary traffic arrangements and inspect the work before reopening. A software report will not identify every missing dependency. The people organising the closure need to review the sequence.
Give each submission a clear revision and progress date. Keep the issued programme, its supporting explanation and the response together so that the team can establish which version was submitted and which was accepted.
Explain the changes that need a decision
A short accompanying explanation can save substantial review time. Identify material changes in sequence, the reason for movement in planned Completion and decisions or information needed for forthcoming work. Explain why an activity has moved rather than leaving the reviewer to compare hundreds of dates.
Where a planned possession is no longer available, explain the alternative sequence and the decision needed from the Client. Include the remaining uncertainty. A narrative that says only that the programme has been updated adds little.
Keep this proportionate. A small project may need a page of explanation, while a complex interface may need a separate working session. The aim is to make the programme understandable, not to create a second document that must repeat it.
Make review comments specific
Clause 31.3 limits the grounds for non-acceptance: impracticable plans, missing contractual information, an unrealistic representation of the Contractor’s plans or non-compliance with the Scope. A response should identify the relevant problem and give enough detail for it to be corrected.
“Programme unacceptable” leaves the Contractor with no useful direction. If the proposed traffic switch cannot take place during the permitted working hours, identify the affected operation and constraint. If a logic link is wrong, explain the dependency that has been missed.
Separate matters preventing acceptance from suggestions for improving presentation. Consolidate specialist comments before issuing the response, so the Contractor does not have to reconcile contradictory requests from different reviewers.
Show delay without settling liability through the programme
The programme needs to show the work remaining and the effects of events on delivery, including events whose contractual treatment is unresolved. Removing a known delay until the compensation event is agreed would leave an unreliable plan.
Consider a late equipment delivery whose cause is disputed. The revised programme should show when the equipment is now expected and how installation will proceed. Identify the event and preserve the parties’ positions on responsibility through the separate contractual process.
Acceptance of the programme does not itself move the Completion Date. Nor does it settle the value of a compensation event. The distinction is explained in NEC4 Acceptance: Design, Programmes and Quotations.
Close out the review promptly
After non-acceptance, agree who will address each issue and arrange a focused review of the corrections. Waiting until the next routine reporting cycle can leave an avoidable gap in the accepted record.
If the Project Manager does not respond, use the applicable notification procedure rather than treating silence as an informal decision. The response-times article deals with that process. Keep the review moving alongside the work, with a clear record of what remains to be resolved.
