Programmes that stand up to clause 31.3, and to a claim.
Under NEC4 the programme is a contractual document. It needs to show what clause 31.2 requires, and it needs to be sound enough to carry a compensation event or a delay argument.
Sound familiar?
Programmes rejected for something the file could have shown.
Delay arguments built on a critical path that doesn't hold.
Not knowing which revision moved the finish, and why.
How it helps
NEC4 submission check
Clause 31.2, 31.3, 32.1 and 32.2 items checked before submission, with what to check by hand where the file can't show it.
What moved the finish
Windows analysis and half-step attribution between updates, with each critical delay credited where it started.
How exposed the programme is
The forensic scorecard, anomaly register and remediation plan, before the other side's expert reads it.
A typical cycle
- 1
Enter the Completion Date and Key Dates from Contract Data.
- 2
Upload the programme and the previous accepted revision.
- 3
Resolve the fails, and check the by-hand items.
- 4
Submit, keeping the workbook as the record.
[TESTIMONIAL PLACEHOLDER: a consented quote from one of our Commercial and NEC managers]
Check your next update before anyone else does.
Fourteen days free. Export an XER from P6 and see what it says.