To progress or not progress

Thanks for your views Charleston.



Ronald, thanks for the link, was an interesting read. Just for your info (and not "in conflict with philosophy in USA); the NEC contract programme administration is set up in a way to incoporate a TIA process by regularly updating the contract programme to reflect all progress, delay events, changes to works info. etc. to become the new ’Accepted Programme’. Therefore differences in the progress at the time of the event and when the programme was issued would only ever be minor.



Stuart, try contacting nec on the users website, they can usually provide you with good guidance to programme queries on nec.

But Ronald,



Please take note that Stuart is from UK, hence follows the english laws



while AACEI is from the beloved, sometimes hated, US of A.



I did track some of the post here in PP, generally dominated by native english speaker from england and



It seems they are in conflict with the philoshophy in USA.



There preference is to use the SCL protocol, which I believe is not comprehensive as the AACEI.



I really don’t want to start brainstormiong or disccusion but indeed it is worth evaluating the pro and cons with regards to .....



a lot of topics

Stuart,



What you are asking about is called a “Time Impact Analysis.” The AACEi has posted their Recommended Practice on this at http://www.aacei.org/technical/rp.shtml (look for it as the second-to-the-last entry on this page.) I hope that this will help. Good luck.

Stuart,



Completely agree, all assessments that I undertake are againts only the accepted programme. Furthermore, dependant upon your progress, this may also require to review your remaining programme prior assessing the CE that would be near on impossible to do if there are many events throughout the project.



I would, however, bear in mind the following possible scenarios:



1. If works in progress are ahead/or behind than what is indicated on your programme, you may incur some disruption cost that would not be able to identify without identifying progress at the time of the event.

2. What if, works to your critical path were progressing ahead of the accepted programme (i.e. potentially resulting in an earlier planned completion)and possibly chanigng the critical path. Activities previously showing float then become critical and, if delayed, would then entitle additional time against planned conmpletion.



Both the above are very unlikely, but I see would be the only reasons that you would want, or need to include progress.



As you say, the Contract only states to assess the impact of CE’s against the ’Accepted Programme’

Stuart,



I am a Contractors planner also, I am currently working on ECC3 contract so Im not entirely sure on the differences.



The updated programmes for acceptance should be reflective of current progress achieved and rescheduled to indicate the Contractors plans for the remaining works period. I think that technically to the Contract, the assessments of Compensation Events are made against the most recently Accepted programme; and hence the progress acheived at that date of issue. I dont beleive its a contractual requirement to reflect acheived progress at the time of the event as part of your assessment.



However, to indicate progress at the time of the event would identify a more accurate representation of actual impact to the programme. I would be mindful however, that if a large number of Compensation Events are raised, this would become incredibly administrative.

Well! In order to assess the impacts of the events, you need the as built program (to-date) to prove if the events affecting the Critial Path or change sequence of works etc...



In that case you have to base on a current program to assess the damage.



HTH



Alex

maybe the Client wanted to see the impact in the program, why not do it? after all, you still got your original and accepted program