NEC4 Programme Compliance Tracker

A quarter of your money, held for a missing document

Under NEC4 clause 50.5, while no programme has been submitted the Project Manager withholds one quarter of the Price for Work Done to Date from every certificate. On £8.4m of work done, that is £2.1m of your cash. Not a penalty for a bad programme, a retention for a missing one.

See the 31.2 checklist

What the sample project shows

NEC4 ECC Option C, four programme revisions, none accepted

£8.4m Price for Work Done to Date. Rev 0 and Rev 1 rejected for missing clause 31.2 content. Rev 2 rejected because the PM disliked the piling sequence. Rev 3 submitted 6 July, no response.

Withheld

£2.1M

Days held

105

Financing cost

£54k

31.2 items missing

4 of 11

Rev 2 was rejected on a ground that does not exist. Disliking a practicable, compliant method is not one of the four permitted reasons. And the PM is 42 days past the two-week response period on Rev 3. Both now documented and dated.

The eleven things clause 31.2 requires

Miss any one and the programme can be rejected on ground 2. And the retention stays where it is. Score it before you submit, not after.

#	The programme must show
1	Starting date, access dates, Key Dates and Completion Date
2	Planned Completion
3	Order and timing of the operations the Contractor plans to do
4	Order and timing of the work of the Client and Others
5	Float
6	Time risk allowances
7	Health and safety requirements
8	Dates when the Contractor needs access to parts of the Site
9	Dates the Client provides materials, facilities and Plant
10	Dates for acceptances and information from Others
11	Statement of method, with principal Equipment and resources

Time risk allowances, Others' work and health and safety requirements are the three most commonly missed.

Only four grounds are valid

NEC4 permits exactly four reasons for not accepting a programme. Anything else is not a rejection you have to accept quietly.

Ground relied on	Status	What it means for you
1. Not practicable	Valid	The PM must explain why the method cannot be built as drawn.
2. Missing information	Valid	The one you control. And the one the 25% retention turns on. Close it and it disappears.
3. Not realistic	Valid	But the PM must say what is unrealistic. "Too optimistic" with no analysis is not a reason.
4. Does not comply with the Scope	Valid	Ask which Scope clause the programme conflicts with.
Disagreeing with your method	NOT valid	If the sequence is practicable, realistic and compliant, preference is not a ground.
Fear of conceding a compensation event	NOT valid	Acceptance does not concede entitlement, and worrying that it might is not a ground.

Building Safety Act gateways

Gateway approvals are acceptances from Others, so clause 31.2 requires them on the programme. They are also enormous, and most programmes understate them badly.

Gateway 2 runs at a 43-week median

48 weeks in London. No construction on a higher-risk building may start until it is approved, and over 1,500 applications have been sitting in progress.

A 12-week allowance understates it by 40 weeks

Roughly a quarter are not approved first time

The approval rate has run at about 77%. The tool computes a probability-weighted duration including the resubmission branch, rather than assuming first-time success.

Expected duration, not best case

Gateway 3 blocks handover

Completion certificate before occupation. Cases have waited more than 500 days. That is revenue deferred, not just a milestone missed.

Occupation, and income, wait on it

Pricing

NEC4 Compliance Tracker

£249

One-time purchase

Clause 31.2 pre-submission checklist
Submission register & two-week clock
Retention exposure calculator
Invalid-rejection analysis
Building Safety Act gateway model

Complete suite

£1,399

All six products

PROJECT CONTROL CENTER
Forecast Engine + 8 industry packs
Schedule Quality Analyser
Progress Measurement System
NEC4 Compliance Tracker

Schedule Quality

£149

The natural pair

All 14 DCMA checks
Is the schedule built properly?
Different question to 31.2
Most planners need both

See the Analyser

Questions

Is the 25% retention real?

Yes. NEC4 clause 50.5: where the Contractor has not submitted a first programme for acceptance, the Project Manager withholds one quarter of the Price for Work Done to Date from payment. It is released once a programme is submitted showing what clause 31.2 requires. It does not depend on the PM agreeing with the plan.

So the money turns on content, not quality?

Exactly, and that is the useful part. If the programme was issued and shows the required information, the retention should not be taken even if the PM thinks the plan is wrong. That makes it a checklist problem, which is a solvable problem.

How is this different from your Schedule Quality Analyser?

Different question entirely. The Analyser asks "is this schedule built properly?" using the DCMA 14-point checks. This asks "does this programme contain what the contract demands?" A programme can pass DCMA and still be rejected under 31.2, and vice versa. Most planners need both.

What can it not do?

It cannot judge whether your plans are practicable or realistic. Grounds 1 and 3, which stay matters of engineering judgement. It closes ground 2, which is what most rejections actually rely on and the only one the retention turns on. It is not legal advice.

Why is there a Building Safety Act sheet in it?

Because gateway approvals are acceptances from Others, and clause 31.2 requires those on the programme. Gateway 2 has been running at a 43-week median with roughly a quarter not approved first time. A programme showing 12 weeks for it is not a programme, it is a hope.

Does it work for NEC3?

Largely. The clause numbering differs and NEC3 has no direct equivalent of the 50.5 retention, but the 31.2 content requirements are close enough that the checklist still applies.