Gary – that is indeed the whole point. If you include a programme with a whole load of “what ifs” then that is equally not very helpful. It might snow – but it might not. That is why you raise an early warning and discuss what you could do to mitigate the situation. You would then reflect in the plan anything that you WILL be doing, but not what you MIGHT end up doing.
NEC2 used to have the requirement to show early warnings as a requirement, and the NEC3 June 2006 amendments deleted that requirement for this reason. The article that I had published that you will find on my website summarises this, as always showing at the point at which you issue the programme the minimum effects that you know an event will have at that time.
Interesting point. -Your method is certainly neater, but would mean not showing on your programme potential delays (ie Early Warnings) that you feel are more likely than not to have an effect.
-eg if the weather forecast is for 2 weeks of heavy snow, i would prefer to submit an early warning and reflect the delays this snow would cause me on the programme now whilst we (client & contractor) might still have time to do somethign about it, rather than wait until the snow fell, it became a notified CE, and it was too late to implement any mitigations like off-site storage.
So long as you are clear in the submission how you have represented in your programme any EWs or non-implemented CEs, I don't see much of a downside to including EWs when doing so gives you a more accurate (or at least more probable) programme?
Gary - can I make a subtle but important point. I do not agree that Early Warnings should EVER affect the planned Completion Date, or at least not without changing their name. Early warnings are for things that might or could affect the project in terms of time/cost/quality (to simplify the clause), and if that IS now affecting planned Completion then it should be notified as a compensation event, assuming it is not a Contractor risk item and fits clause 60.1.
Therefore I always advise that notified compensation events are the ones that can affect planned Completion, and it is only "implemented compensation events" that can affect the Completion Date.
More such matters are reviewed in an NEC3 Programme Workshop which is next running in London in early December. Anyone interested in attending visit my website www.gmhplanning.co.uk for more details.
Programme requirements under the NEC form of contract are much more onerous than any other form, but the good news is that there is nothing that it asks you to do that you should not want to be doing for yourself. I can point you towards several articles that I have had published that you should find of use. You will find this on my website, together with a whole new guidance section of various elememnts of the contract, but much of it focusing on programme. Website is "gmhplanning.co.uk".
Hope you find this of use
Glenn Hide, NEC Consultant / Project Manager NEC Guidance Notes | NEC Training | NEC Consulting
Member for
16 years 7 months
Member for16 years7 months
Submitted by Gary Whitehead on Wed, 2011-10-12 09:23
There is a very important contractual difference between a Compensation Event (CE) and an Early Warning (EW). A Project Manager's Iinstruction (PMI) could lead to one, both or neither depending on the instruction. The difference is that CEs will move your completion date, EWs will only move the planned completion date.
So for each PMI, Check Clauses 60 - 64 to see if it constitutes a CE, how the contractor should be responding, and how to reflect this on the programme.
Clause 32 says the contractor is obliged to show on his revised programme:
-The effect of Implemented CEs (generally CEs where the cost & time impact has been agrred)
-Any other changes which the contractor proposes to make
So you could argue you don't need to include EWs or non-Implemented CEs, but then the PM could reject on the basis that it does not represent the contractor's plans realistically. A grey area and i think it's safer to include (but not move the completion date), making it clear in the description / coding the status of these.
Member for
14 yearsGary – that is indeed the
Gary – that is indeed the whole point. If you include a programme with a whole load of “what ifs” then that is equally not very helpful. It might snow – but it might not. That is why you raise an early warning and discuss what you could do to mitigate the situation. You would then reflect in the plan anything that you WILL be doing, but not what you MIGHT end up doing.
NEC2 used to have the requirement to show early warnings as a requirement, and the NEC3 June 2006 amendments deleted that requirement for this reason. The article that I had published that you will find on my website summarises this, as always showing at the point at which you issue the programme the minimum effects that you know an event will have at that time.
Hopefully this subtlety makes sense…
Glenn
www.gmhplanning.co.uk
Member for
16 years 7 monthsGlenn, Interesting point.
Glenn,
Interesting point. -Your method is certainly neater, but would mean not showing on your programme potential delays (ie Early Warnings) that you feel are more likely than not to have an effect.
-eg if the weather forecast is for 2 weeks of heavy snow, i would prefer to submit an early warning and reflect the delays this snow would cause me on the programme now whilst we (client & contractor) might still have time to do somethign about it, rather than wait until the snow fell, it became a notified CE, and it was too late to implement any mitigations like off-site storage.
So long as you are clear in the submission how you have represented in your programme any EWs or non-implemented CEs, I don't see much of a downside to including EWs when doing so gives you a more accurate (or at least more probable) programme?
Welcome to Planning Planet, by the way.
Cheers,
G
Member for
14 yearsGary - can I make a subtle
Gary - can I make a subtle but important point. I do not agree that Early Warnings should EVER affect the planned Completion Date, or at least not without changing their name. Early warnings are for things that might or could affect the project in terms of time/cost/quality (to simplify the clause), and if that IS now affecting planned Completion then it should be notified as a compensation event, assuming it is not a Contractor risk item and fits clause 60.1.
Therefore I always advise that notified compensation events are the ones that can affect planned Completion, and it is only "implemented compensation events" that can affect the Completion Date.
More such matters are reviewed in an NEC3 Programme Workshop which is next running in London in early December. Anyone interested in attending visit my website www.gmhplanning.co.uk for more details.
Regards
Glenn Hide
glenn@gmhplanning.co.uk
www.gmhplanning.co.uk
Member for
14 yearsProgramme requirements under
Programme requirements under the NEC form of contract are much more onerous than any other form, but the good news is that there is nothing that it asks you to do that you should not want to be doing for yourself. I can point you towards several articles that I have had published that you should find of use. You will find this on my website, together with a whole new guidance section of various elememnts of the contract, but much of it focusing on programme. Website is "gmhplanning.co.uk".
Hope you find this of use
Glenn Hide, NEC Consultant / Project Manager
NEC Guidance Notes | NEC Training | NEC Consulting
Member for
16 years 7 monthsGeoff, There is a very
Geoff,
There is a very important contractual difference between a Compensation Event (CE) and an Early Warning (EW). A Project Manager's Iinstruction (PMI) could lead to one, both or neither depending on the instruction. The difference is that CEs will move your completion date, EWs will only move the planned completion date.
So for each PMI, Check Clauses 60 - 64 to see if it constitutes a CE, how the contractor should be responding, and how to reflect this on the programme.
Clause 32 says the contractor is obliged to show on his revised programme:
-The effect of Implemented CEs (generally CEs where the cost & time impact has been agrred)
-Any other changes which the contractor proposes to make
So you could argue you don't need to include EWs or non-Implemented CEs, but then the PM could reject on the basis that it does not represent the contractor's plans realistically. A grey area and i think it's safer to include (but not move the completion date), making it clear in the description / coding the status of these.
Member for
19 years 10 monthsHi Geoff Take the line of
Hi Geoff
Take the line of least resistance aqnd just change the labels and send a note stating what the changes are and why they were made.
Nest regards
Mike Testro