Planning advice for contractors

Most of the commentary on PPN 026 has led with the 20 per cent weighting. It is the wrong headline. What changed is that the menu is gone, and that on the larger contracts the commitment you write becomes a KPI somebody publishes and reports on every year.

Delay damages are the part of the JCT to NEC transition contractors think they already understand. The rate is in the contract data and it starts when you are late. What changes is not the arithmetic but the procedure: JCT surrounds the deduction with three notices a contractor can attack, and NEC removes all of them. Plus the conclusion most find backwards, that taking option X7 out of the contract raises exposure rather than lowering it.

Every contractor arriving on NEC has heard that NEC is strict about notices and JCT is relaxed. It is half wrong, in the half that costs money. JCT keeps two notices because it keeps two lists: the extension of time notice carries no sanction, while the loss and expense notice has been held by a court to be a condition of being paid at all. NEC runs one notification and one deadline, and it bars time and money together.

The JCT Standard Building Contract asks for a master programme under clause 2.9, leaves critical paths optional in the Contract Particulars, and only requires an update when you apply for an extension of time. The Design and Build form does not expressly require a programme at all. None of that changes what a retrospective claim has to prove. This is the gap between the contractual floor and the evidential bar, and what to keep so the claim stands up.

Cash is the part of the JCT to NEC transition nobody rehearses. Both forms pay on a fixed cycle under the same Act, so the shape looks familiar. Then the detail bites: the contractor's application stops being optional, the pay less window shortens by two days, and clause 50.5 withholds a quarter of the price for work done to date until a compliant programme is submitted. The payment cycle, set side by side.

Vocabulary transfers faster than machinery. A JCT team learns to say compensation event within a fortnight, then prices its first one like an extension of time application with the money to follow. There is no money to follow. The mechanism comparison in full: what triggers each, who assesses it, against what standard, and why the notice reflex has now flipped on both contracts.

Most JCT and NEC comparisons stop at philosophy: one allocates risk, the other encourages collaboration. Both true, and useless when the project manager has just rejected your programme. This is what actually changes when a team fluent in JCT runs an NEC job: the programme becomes a contractual instrument, extensions of time become compensation events on an eight-week clock, change is valued from Defined Cost rather than your rates, and early warnings acquire a price.

A compensation event quotation has two limbs, time and money, and the money is the one contractors price worst. This is the guide to the change to the Prices: how it is built from Defined Cost and the Fee under clause 63.1, why your tendered rates usually do not apply, where your overhead and profit actually sit, why the forecast you agree is final, and the handful of points where valid entitlement quietly leaks away in the pricing.

The notice says not accepted, and what happens next decides more than the fate of one submission. This playbook covers the moment in full: the four reasons Clause 31.3 permits and why they are the only four, the detail a notice must give you under Clause 13.4, the triage that sorts right from wrong from unclear, when withholding acceptance becomes a compensation event under 60.1(9), and the cost of drifting while the Accepted Programme goes stale.