NEC4 Programme Preparation and Acceptance

When a programme moves between the Contractor and Project Manager for several months without being accepted, I would ask what the team is using to organise the work. The site may have a current schedule while the contractual record remains stuck at an earlier revision. Different people can then be arranging the same work against different dates, with no clear account of what has changed.

The programme submitted for acceptance should be one the Contractor intends to use. Preparing it involves the people responsible for the work, including those providing information or access which the Contractor depends on. Their discussion with the Project Manager should begin while the programme is being developed, so that formal submission records a sequence which has already been examined and is capable of prompt acceptance.

The NEC4 programme fundamentals article explains the information required under the Engineering and Construction Contract (ECC). A programme can contain that information and still describe a sequence which will not work on Site. The review needs to examine whether the work can happen as shown, without disguising delay or confusing acceptance with entitlement to additional time.

Preparing the programme for review

The fictional Ironbark Recycled Water Scheme is a regional Australian utility project using ECC Option C. A pipeline, pumping station and balancing tank will supply an industrial estate from an existing treatment plant. That plant remains operational during construction and connection.

At a later stage in the project, the Contractor prepares programme P09 to reflect the pump-delivery difficulty considered in Early Warning in Practice. P08 is the current Accepted Programme. The Contractor is examining whether expediting delivery and bringing preparatory work forward will protect commissioning. P09 needs to show a workable sequence, including the operator's contribution, rather than simply move the installation bar to a later date.

The planner starts with reliable progress information. A reported percentage complete is not enough if the work still required is misunderstood. Installed pipework may still need testing, and placing an equipment order says little about how much manufacture and delivery remain. The remaining durations need to reflect that work, with the dependencies checked against what is actually happening on Site.

The site manager and relevant specialists should review the sequence and the resources needed to carry it out. On Ironbark, bringing preparatory work forward will help only if the crew and working area are available. Moving a testing activity to recover time is not credible unless the preceding work will release it. Artificial constraints or removed logic links can make the dates look better without making the proposed sequence achievable.

The check also needs to cover clause 31.2 and Scope, including required information about methods and resources, float and time risk allowances. For a revision, clause 32.1 requires actual progress and its effects on the remaining work to be shown, together with proposals for dealing with delays, correcting notified Defects and other proposed changes to the Accepted Programme. A short compliance check can catch omissions, but it cannot replace reviewing how the work will be done.

Work through the programme before submission

I would treat formal submission for acceptance as the end of the preparation and review work wherever possible. A programme which arrives without prior discussion leaves the Project Manager to discover its assumptions, seek advice and identify conflicting arrangements during the response period. Working through those questions beforehand gives the team a much better prospect of acceptance on the day of submission.

For Ironbark, the Contractor's planner and site manager should meet with the commissioning specialist and plant operator, involving the Project Manager or an appropriately authorised delegate. They need to examine the connection sequence in sufficient detail to establish when operator support is required and what must be complete before isolation can begin. A single activity called 'commissioning' can conceal several separate dependencies.

Suppose that discussion reveals a conflict. The draft P09 shows the connection taking place while the operator's team is committed to other plant work. The Contractor and operator work through an alternative sequence, bringing some checks forward and moving the connection to an available period. The planner incorporates those arrangements and checks their effect on planned Completion before formal issue.

The programme must distinguish arrangements which have been agreed from assumptions still awaiting confirmation. Clause 31.2 addresses the timing of work by the Client and Others as last agreed with them by the Contractor or, if not agreed, as stated in Scope. Inserting a convenient date for the operator's work does not establish its agreement or change its obligations. If the arrangements cannot be reconciled with the contract, the Project Manager needs to address the necessary decision separately.

These discussions should be recorded, and required communications still need to be issued. Informal agreement does not replace acceptance or authorise a change to Scope. Nor should an extra internal review stage delay a submission already due under the contract. The same approach underlies NEC4 submissions and responses: work together to prepare the decision, then communicate it through the contractual process.

Explain what has changed

The formal submission should identify its revision and the date to which progress has been recorded. Retain the issued programme and supporting information together, rather than rely on a link to a working file which will be overwritten. If Scope requires particular formats or files, provide them. The reviewer needs to be able to examine the submitted version and distinguish it from later working changes.

A concise accompanying explanation should identify the changes which matter. For P09, that means explaining the pump-delivery position, the work brought forward and the revised operator arrangements. If planned Completion has moved, explain which activities and dependencies account for the movement. An entry saying 'updated for progress' leaves the reviewer to find that explanation among hundreds of dates.

The narrative should also identify outstanding assumptions and decisions. If expediting has not yet been confirmed, say so and explain the delivery date used in the forecast. The team can then see what needs attention and how a different outcome would affect the sequence. Assuming an earlier delivery without the supplier's confirmation could leave the site team arranging work around a date which cannot be met.

The explanation supports the programme rather than replacing it. A narrative saying that the operator's availability has been accommodated is inconsistent with a schedule still showing the unavailable period. Before submission, check that the revised logic and dates reflect the discussion and that the people organising the work recognise the sequence being issued.

Acceptance and reasons for non acceptance

Clause 31.3 gives the Project Manager two weeks from submission to notify acceptance or reasons for non-acceptance. Where the programme has already been reviewed and the submitted version reflects those discussions, there is no practical reason to wait until the end of the period. The response should identify the programme and revision so that its status is clear to everyone using it.

The clause identifies four reasons for non-acceptance: the Contractor's proposals are not practicable, information required by the contract is missing, the programme does not represent the Contractor's intentions realistically or it does not comply with Scope. The review should address those matters rather than become a search for a perfect programme or a different presentation which the reviewer would prefer.

If P09 nevertheless arrives with an omission, a conversation may resolve it. The Project Manager might find that the planner has left an operator activity out of the submitted export, although the sequence has already been agreed. Ask the question and establish whether a properly recorded correction can be supplied and assessed within the response period. Immediate non-acceptance is not the only way to obtain missing information.

Where a formal non-acceptance is necessary, the reasons need to enable correction. A response might explain that P09 does not show the operator's isolation activities or the system tests following connection, identify the relevant Scope requirements and ask for those activities and their dependencies to be included. 'Commissioning detail insufficient' gives much less assistance to the person who has to revise it.

Separate issues preventing acceptance from suggestions which do not. If the submitted sequence is practicable but a different layout would be easier for the Client's report, that preference should not be presented as a contractual omission unless the contract requires it. Withholding acceptance for a reason not stated in the contract is a compensation event under clause 60.1(9). The distinction affects the contractual consequences of the response.

Consolidate specialist advice before communicating the decision. The operator and commissioning specialist may identify different concerns, but the Contractor should not have to reconcile contradictory instructions from several reviewers. A review-comment record can identify the affected activity and requirement, with each subsequent response explaining how the issue has been addressed. 'Noted' is not a correction where the underlying sequence remains unchanged.

What programme acceptance means

If the Project Manager accepts P09, it becomes the latest Accepted Programme and supersedes P08. The team then has an identified revision for the contractual uses of the programme as well as for organising the work. Earlier revisions still need to be retained because compensation event assessments may depend on the programme which was current at an earlier dividing date.

Acceptance does not guarantee that the proposed sequence will succeed or transfer responsibility for organising the work to the Project Manager. Clause 14.1 preserves the Contractor's responsibility to Provide the Works and its liability for its design. The Contractor still needs to arrange the resources and manage the work shown. Acceptance of the programme does not replace a separate design acceptance required by the contract.

Acceptance does not amend Scope, change the Completion Date or a Key Date, or establish compensation event entitlement. On Ironbark, accepting P09 with a later pump-delivery date does not mean that the Client has taken responsibility for the supplier's delay. If P09 forecasts late Completion, acceptance does not grant additional time or remove the Contractor's obligation to achieve Completion by the Completion Date. The programme fundamentals article explains the underlying acceptance provisions.

Planned Completion and the Completion Date

Planned Completion is the date on which the Contractor realistically intends to achieve Completion using the sequence, resources and remaining durations shown in its programme. The Completion Date is the contractual date by which Completion must be achieved. Both belong on the programme, even when they happen to fall on the same day. Changing the forecast does not, by itself, change the contractual obligation.

The planner first needs to understand what achieving Completion involves. On Ironbark, finishing pump installation would not be enough if Scope requires connection, testing and performance demonstrations before Completion. Those activities and their dependencies need to lead to the planned Completion milestone. Clause 11.2(2) also requires correction of notified Defects which would prevent the Client from using the works or Others from doing their work. The milestone should represent that contractual position, rather than whichever construction activity happens to finish last.

There is no requirement for planned Completion to coincide with the Completion Date. If the Contractor intends to finish earlier, its programme should show that intention realistically. Extending activities or inserting an artificial constraint simply to put both milestones on the same date conceals the intended sequence. The Project Manager should examine whether the earlier finish is achievable, rather than require the Contractor to use all the available time.

Suppose P08 shows planned Completion ten days before the Completion Date. That gap is terminal float. If a procurement delay for which the Contractor is responsible moves planned Completion five days later in P09, the forecast would still be five days before the contractual deadline. The programme should show the movement and its cause. The Contractor has used part of its margin, even though the Completion Date has not changed and is not yet forecast to be missed. The team still needs to examine what can be recovered and whether the circumstances require an early warning.

Terminal float is different from float between activities within the working sequence and from time risk allowances included for identified risks. It should be visible as the gap between the two Completion milestones, rather than hidden within an activity. It is commonly described as belonging to the Contractor because compensation event delay is assessed by reference to planned Completion, rather than by waiting until the contractual deadline is exceeded. It can nevertheless reduce through the Contractor's own delay, as in this example.

Show delay without deciding entitlement

If the practicable sequence in P09 forecasts Completion after the Completion Date, the programme should show that position. Shortening testing durations or retaining an unavailable connection period to make the finish date look compliant would conceal the problem the team needs to manage. A later forecast is not, by itself, one of clause 31.3's stated reasons for non-acceptance.

Where the cause or treatment of an event is disputed, its physical effects still belong in the current programme. If an instruction introduces additional controls work, that work cannot be omitted while its time assessment is being discussed. Identify the instruction and the work affected, while recording the compensation event's status separately.

For a compensation event quotation, the relevant alterations to the Accepted Programme are dealt with under clause 62.2. Clause 63.5 assesses delay to the Completion Date by reference to the delay to planned Completion due to the event, using the Accepted Programme current at the dividing date and the applicable assessment rules. It is not necessarily based on whichever revision has most recently been accepted when the quotation is prepared.

For comparison, suppose an instruction for additional controls work, rather than the Contractor's procurement delay, causes an assessed five-day delay to planned Completion. Starting from P08, the forecast would still be five days before the existing Completion Date. That does not rule out a corresponding change to the Completion Date. The Client does not get to absorb the compensation event delay into the Contractor's terminal float first. The assessment must identify the delay caused by the event, taking account of any effect already included in the Accepted Programme and events which happened between its date and the dividing date. It cannot simply attribute every movement since P08 to the instruction.

Keeping the issued revisions and their acceptance dates allows the team to follow those changes without turning every programme review into a negotiation of the compensation event assessment. The current forecast can then inform delivery while the separate assessment establishes any change to the contractual dates.

The status of the latest submission can also affect who makes that assessment. If, when the Contractor submits quotations, the Project Manager has not accepted its latest programme for a reason stated in the contract, clause 64.1 requires the Project Manager to assess the compensation event. Clause 64.2 addresses assessment of the programme for the remaining work in those circumstances. These provisions do not give the Project Manager a general right to disregard a programme simply because it disagrees with the Contractor's proposed sequence.

Keep the accepted record current

If, instead, P09 is not accepted for a stated reason, identify who will correct each issue and arrange a focused review. Clause 13.4 requires a resubmission within the period for reply, taking the reasons into account. There is no benefit in routinely waiting for the next reporting cycle if the correction can be made sooner. If the corrected programme is issued as P10 and accepted, it replaces P08 as the current Accepted Programme.

Until a later programme is accepted, P08 retains that contractual status. That does not make its old delivery assumptions true or justify ignoring current information. The Contractor generally need not wait for programme acceptance before proceeding with the work, although separate requirements, including design acceptance, still apply. The team must manage the current position while resolving the gap in the accepted record.

An unaccepted revision does not, by itself, justify retaining a quarter of the Price for Work Done to Date. Clause 50.5 concerns the first programme where none is identified in Contract Data. It provides for that quarter to be retained in assessments of the amount due until the Contractor submits a first programme showing the information the contract requires. Its trigger is not simply the absence of acceptance, and it does not become a recurring deduction each time a later revision is not accepted.

Silence also needs to be dealt with expressly. Under clause 31.3, if the Project Manager has not notified acceptance or reasons within two weeks, the Contractor may notify that failure. If it continues for a further week after the Contractor's notification, acceptance is treated as given. The required notification needs to be communicated properly; a chase email should not automatically be assumed to perform that function. The response-times article addresses follow-up notices in more detail.

An informal request for information does not automatically stop the response clock. Where an extension to the period for reply is needed, clause 13.5 requires agreement before the reply is due and the Project Manager informs the Contractor of the agreed extension. The review arrangements should help the parties meet their obligations rather than leave the timing of the decision uncertain.

Once accepted, the programme needs to reach the people organising the work. On Ironbark, the procurement team needs the confirmed pump arrangements, and the site and operator teams need the same connection sequence. Keep the original issued revisions as the record, then continue updating the programme as progress and circumstances change. The interval in Contract Data is a maximum between submissions, not a reason to leave a material change unaddressed until the next routine issue.

Working through the programme with the people responsible for delivery and review is the approach explored in NEC4 ECC programme management training. On Ironbark, the site team and operator should finish the review knowing how they will organise the connection, which arrangements are confirmed and what still needs a decision.

The provisions described here are those of the June 2017 NEC4 ECC incorporating the January 2023 amendments. The signed contract's Scope, submission periods, delegations and amendments must be checked.