Yes Andrew,

We even have tried to push for some legislation as for our agencies to adopt a single type of contract for Lump Sum Contracts; no agreement whatsoever. Of course Unit Price Contract used for roads is a separate issue.

But we learn many good things from each other.

One of our common practices in CPM specs is to specify ownership of float to whoever reaches it first; I believe it should be left opened in purpose, to be spelled loud and clear that float ownership should be evaluated on the merits of each case, pre-allocation of float I believe it to be wrong; some procedure to better handle/negotiate this issue must be pursued.

I believe in the UK it is common practice not to allocate ownership of float, if this is the case you should even spell it out loud and clear it is not by omission but on purpose.

Best regards,
Rafael

Andrew,

We are used to work under many different contracts, for government contracting we have versions at the federal level, usually GSA/General Service Administration, at the State Level at home we have a different contract from every agency such as The Public Buildings Authority, The Aqueducts and Sewers Authority and The Department of Transportation (a Unit Price Contract), among others. For private contracts we have the AIA Standard form of Agreement, from the American Institute of Architects, we have the AGC Standard form of Agreement from the Associated General Contractors of America and the hundred of variations individual lawyers might imagine, some in Spanish, some in English. Some are good some not so good, in my opinion some leaning too much on one side.

In relation to our concept of Contractual Baselines I was expecting better from the NEC, good to know, thanks again for your clarifications. Maybe someday I will grasp a full copy of the agreement including the General Conditions and Comments, always something good comes out of these, of value when negotiating private agreement clauses.

Cordially,
Rafael

Well Andrew

We have a different definition for Latest Accepted programme or what we call Contract Baseline, different from Latest Update.

Here the latest accepted preogramme becomes the Contract Baseline, the updates are interpreted as a depiction of actual statues not as a contract change.

The updates are used for delay evaluation not to change contract terms. To us is always relevant to know and compare actual reality to contractual conditions. At least our contracts say "time is of essence."

Well is good to know the difference between UK and USA contractual conditions. Thanks for your clarification.

Cordially,
Rafael

Andrew,

Which baseline to use as a comparison to analyze delays? Seems like a consensus, the latest update prior to delay event, or even better an update to a data date just to the beginning of impact.

I understand the NEC does not pretend to substitute other contract documents such as the specifications. I like the idea of leaving the details to other documents to allow flexibility while at the same time placing due order at a contract location where it takes precedence. CPM is not required or justified for all contracts. Always forward looking, agree 100%.

Usually under the specs is where you find the definition (or lack of it) for Contractual Baselines. When defined it is relevant to know, it has a legal meaning, when required it can create defacto change orders, it is the comparison base for your updates, keeps focus ont the contract dates and milestones. At home it is relevant to be aware of the differences, is the common practice to define Contractual Baselines under our CPM specs. Whether it is useful or not, or just adding confusion is another issue.

As a Contractor I would like the Owner to forget about contract time, let me do whatever pleases me without any penalty and just use the latest update schedule to justify my delay claims.

http://www.ronwinterconsulting.com/rabaseline.htm

or as an example

http://www.virginiadot.org/business/resources/Post-Award_Construction_Sc...

Seems like my returning of a low blow got you in the middle, it was not intended for you, sorry. My testimonial about Contractual Baselines, when defined by the specs is in no way in conflict to your statement about which baseline to use as a comparison for delay analysis.

Cordially,
Rafael

Rafeal,

No the NEC contract doesn’t use the traditional Baseline concept at all, except on day one for the first submitted and approved programme, (which in conventional language is the Baseline). After that it uses approved updates ONLY, the original "Baseline" programme is irrelevant.

The impact of changes is forecast prospectively against the approved update programme. ie, if done properly, real time assessments measured against a programme that accurately reflects the state of the project at the time the change happened.

Time and money elements of the change are priced prospectively, EoT agreed, (if applicable), based on the agreed PREDICTION of the impact and then you get on and do it. Even if later found to be wrong, the price and EoT stands in 99% of circumstances.

So for both contractor and employer, sometimes they will win, sometimes they will lose, you could say it just reflects the same general risk of being in business.

The NEC has its faults but it obliges parties to agree things as they go along, (dispute reduction and increased price certainty), and up’s the standard of planning/programming required by a 1000% over other standard forms - so in those respects I can’t knock it. Other standard forms should maybe think about following suit and certainly some are at least using parts of the NEC concepts now.

Hi Rafael

Thank you for the feed back and your interpretation.

If pressed I would rather follow Andrew’s advice.

Best regards

Mike Testro

Hi Rafael

Just as a point of interest - have you ever worked under a NEC form of contract?

Best regards

Mike Testro

Oliver,

True, but is earned value mentioned in an NEC contract? - very useful thing to do to monitor progress/money but not a requirement of the NEC.

The NEC is about sorting things as you go, a quotation for a CE is like a mini tender, prospective, some you will win, some you will lose, but price it, (time and money), agree it and move on. No retrospective disputes theoretically, (Yeh!!!!).

As for programming - keep an up-todate and accurate programme that reflects what’s actually going on and remains a meaningful management tool.

And further:

NEC doesn’t use the concept of a Baseline programme for measuring project performance. The first Accepted programme is the Baseline but then it recognises that things change and so should the programme if it is to remain of any use.

So when there’s a change, (and not just a CE), the programme is updated and the updated programme becomes the new Accepted programme replacing the last one. The "Baseline" or previous Accepted programme is then completely irrelevent, forgotten about, copy kept but otherwise binned.

And so on and so on for each and every change that occurs.

I also qualify the below with a lack of contract expertise:

Under NEC, the asesment of compensation events is based on predicted and not retrospective results.

The latest accepted current plan is effectively the new baseline against which impact of all new CEs are analysed.

Because total float is available to accomodate both poor contractor progress and any CEs (whoever gets there first), the NEC philosophy is that it the only delays that are contractually relevant are those that exceed the available float, and are hence CEs.

It relies heavily on an extremely transparent relationship between client & contractor, whith frequent (daily, or at least weekly) updates to the plan so true effect of CEs can be understood.

When it works, it has some real benefits -no reptrospective (and hence highly subjective)assesment of EOTs, no comparing current programme to an original baseline that may bear no relation to how the work is now being done, no working on a project with pending EOT claims without knowing what your contractual completion date actually is, etc

When it fails, it can be a nightmare -If the client doesn’t have the resources to fully analyse & accept each update within the period for reply it’s easy for the contractor to sneak in a bit of massaged future works to minimise delay penalties or maximise additional time allowances. If updates are not frequent enough you can get into difficulties assesing which delays came first and hence just eat up float, and which are genuine CEs.

Cheers,

G

Hi Oliver.

Don’t ask me - I havent a clue.

Its a classic case of the bland leading the bland.

Best regards

Mike Testro

Hi Oliver

I agree with you - but then again I bow to Andrew’s knowledge of contract administration.

maybe both should be done thus comparing actual with conractual.

Between you and me I have yet to get involved in a NEC contract.

Best regards

Mike Testro

Hi Shahzad

The point of the NEC suite of programmes is that time is managed against changes.

The CA requests a change and the contractor must submit his proposals for time and money.

If the change request is accepted then the new programme sets the future progress.

Also if the Contractor is way behind time the CA may request a revised programme.

Best regards

Mike Testro

Dear Shahzad,

You compare your updated schedule to the approved schedule by the Engineer.

With kind regrds,

Samer