Planning advice for contractors

Most contractors prepare NEC programmes for submission. The strongest contractors prepare them for review. The difference is whether the planning team knows what the project manager actually checks, in what order, and what triggers rejection at each step. This article walks through the review sequence as the project manager experiences it: the first thirty seconds, the structural integrity pass, the clause 31.2 information check, the realism test, and the scope compliance che

Most NEC4 time impact assessments fail at the project manager's desk, not in the planning team. The analysis is usually sound. The structure is what fails. This article explains the five elements every accepted assessment contains: the dividing date with justification, the accepted programme with version, the compensation event fragnet built in isolation, the impacted programme with the calculation, and the narrative that walks the project manager through the cause and effect

NEC requires mitigation but cannot impose acceleration. Most contractors confuse the two. Contractors who mitigate when they should be quoting for acceleration give away recovery work the contract entitles them to be paid for. Contractors who refuse to mitigate lose entitlement because the assessment assumes they would have mitigated anyway. This is the practical guide to understanding where the line sits and how to protect the commercial position on both sides of it.

A programme that has lost integrity does not announce itself. It looks exactly like one that works. The problems only surface when a compensation event tests it and the programme cannot answer the one question the NEC contract keeps asking. This article describes five signs any project director can check in ten minutes, without specialist planning knowledge, to know whether the programme is protecting their commercial position or quietly giving it away.

Most contractors submit programme revisions that update progress, move the data date forward, and miss everything else clause 32 requires. The project manager receives a schedule that shows where the job is but not what the contractor is doing about it. That is not a revision. It is a progress snapshot. This article explains what a clause 32 programme revision actually needs to contain, why most revisions are rejected, and what to do when the project manager is deliberately a

Primavera P6 is the industry-standard scheduling tool on major UK construction projects. It is also an opinionated one. Its defaults were shaped by contracts that work very differently from NEC, and a P6 schedule built to generic best practice will usually look fine on the surface and fail at the moments that matter most. This is the complete contractor guide to Primavera P6 for NEC programmes.

Most contractors come to NEC with JCT instincts: claim extensions retrospectively, reconstruct delay at the end, argue from the completion date. NEC works the opposite way. Time entitlement is built prospectively, one compensation event at a time, against planned completion at the dividing date. Get that wrong, and you are fighting uphill for every week. Get it right, and the contract does the heavy lifting. This is the complete contractor guide to NEC delay analysis and exte

Most contractors treat clause 31 as a procedural hurdle to clear at the start of the job. Submit the programme, wait for acceptance, move on. That approach quietly hands commercial control to the project manager. This article explains what the accepted programme actually protects, how the deemed acceptance mechanism works, and why a programme that was accepted at mobilisation provides almost no commercial protection by month six.

The programme schedule goes to the planner. The programme narrative goes to the decision-maker. Most contractors write one that describes the Gantt rather than argues the case. Here is why that costs them at clarification and what a strong narrative actually does.