Civil Engineering March 2021 | Vol 29 No 2

Civil Engineering March 2021 69 Civillain by Jonah Ptak: Taking off the Training Wheels For more engineering humour, please visit “Unreal Bridges” on Facebook and “@TheUnrealBridge” on Twitter. require user familiarity with the specified package which could be problematic as the construction industry is renowned for being resistant to change. The engi- neers deeming duty where no software package is expressed is problematic and must be treated with vigilance during contract drafting. Programme content This subsection focused on the informa- tion that should be in the programme. Respondents agreed that prescribed inclu- sion of the commencement date and time for completion will support improved pro- grammes. Respondents also unanimously agreed that the inclusion of the right of access will impact the programme. This is a material issue in the execution of the construction work and assists all parties to plan their work. The inclusion of review periods in the programme for submissions by the con- tractor to the engineer is viewed as a posi- tive by all respondents. The requirement for programmes to use logical activity linking and scheduling concepts of early and late starts and finishes for activities is also a positive development. The inclusion of public holidays in the programme, with recognised days of rest, was confirmed to be an industry norm. The respondents’ view on whether the prescribed inclusion of the holidays would affect programme administration was even, without a clear consensus. Obligations of the parties Here, the survey focused on the proce- dural obligations of the parties on the programme. The 28-day period for the contractor to submit the initial programme was accepted as attainable by 68% of respon- dents. The 21-day period for the engineer to review the programme was also viewed as fair. The duty of reviewing the pro- gramme by the engineer was considered in the light of the defined term for review. Respondents indicate that this will affect how the engineer reviews the programme due to the implied liability associated with the review duty. The deemed approval of the programme where the engineer does not respond or comment on the compli- ance of the programme does appear to affect the way in which the programme is agreed upon. The 14-day period for the contractor to resubmit a noncompliant programme will only marginally not af- fect the programme drafting process. CONCLUSIONS The changes to programme clause appear to offer greater clarity and guidance on how the programme should be drafted. They also offer guidance on the actions the contractor and engineer should take to agree on the programme. The revised programme clause in the 2017 Red Book guides the contract parties through a pro- cess that will, in theory, yield an effective time management tool. REFERENCE Briggs, S. (2013). Time Management : Under­ standing and Managing Time. Leicester­ shire: The Society of Construction Law.