Planning advice for contractors

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.

JCT vs NEC vs FIDIC, from the planner's side. The three contracts use the same words, programme, notice and extension of time, and give each a different job. This guide sets them side by side, follows one late-access event through each week by week, reads three court cases with the programme at their centre, and sets out how I run the programme when a job moves between them.

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.

A FIDIC extension of time is decided on the programme and the records. This guide takes the 2017 Red and Yellow Books from the planner's side: the Sub-Clause 8.5 grounds and what each carries, the Notice of Claim and fully detailed Claim under 20.2 with the Engineer's 14 days and the late-submission review, the 42 plus 42 days under 3.7, concurrent delay, the programme evidence that wins the days, and what an EU grant adds on funded work.

In June 2026 the High Court refused to enforce a £1.65m NEC adjudication award in Premier Modular v Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust. The legal headline is natural justice. The lesson for contractors is a project controls one. The whole dispute turned on which programme was the Accepted Programme, and the date the claim relied on was never in it. Under NEC, a compensation event is only as good as the Accepted Programme it stands on, and acceptance is a status you earn,

Hong Kong has now used the NEC form on more than 850 public works contracts and, since July 2023, has its own stand-alone edition of the ECC. The Hong Kong Edition re-engineers payment timing, compensation event assessment and dispute resolution, and every change lands on the programme. This is what the 2023 edition changes at programme level, where first submissions fail acceptance, and what a defensible programme contains.