Acceleration of construction works
Acceleration is the process of speeding up the work of a contractor so that a particular activity, or the project as a whole, can be completed before the date required under the contract.
Generally, it is the client that requires the acceleration of construction work. A client might require that a building is handed over earlier than is set out in the contract or, where the contractor has been allowed an extension of time, may require completion earlier than the revised completion date. This is referred to as 'directed acceleration'.
Where the contractor incurs additional costs as a result of this sort of acceleration, it can result in a claim against the client. Typically, the contractor does not have to prove the works were actually completed more quickly than originally agreed, just that they made a reasonable attempt to do so and that the attempt resulted in additional costs.
Acceleration of the works may also be undertaken by the contractor voluntarily, if, for example, they wish to move on to another project, mitigate inefficiencies and delays that may have been incurred, or to save on costs. They may also be motivated by bonuses awarded for early completion. However, if acceleration is undertaken voluntarily, the contractor will not be able to claim additional costs from the client.
There are several techniques available for accelerating work:
- Working overtime.
- Adding new shifts.
- Providing additional labour.
- Additional supervision.
- Providing additional resources, such as plant and equipment.
- Re-sequencing work activities (also known as project crashing or fast tracking).
- Adopting alternative construction methods, such as off-site manufacturing.
- Changing the design or specification.
- Reducing the scope of the works (for example transferring responsibility for some works from the contractor to the client), and
- Early procurement of key items.
These techniques are likely to result in additional costs and may not guarantee early completion. While the same number of tasks need to be performed, they are condensed into a shorter period, and so are likely to require more resources. In addition, purchasing costs may be higher due to time pressures, incomplete information and the complexity of managing the interfaces between elements. A greater number of variations are also likely than on a traditional contract.
Options such as working overtime typically result in employees being paid at a higher rate (typically 1.5-2 times the regular rate).
Acceleration is also likely to result in additional risks. If resources are focused on critical-path activities, there is the possibility that non-critical-path activities will be affected. Quality, safety and compliance can be affected, and acceleration can result in an overall loss of productivity, perhaps due to tiredness on the part of workers being required to do overtime, or unfamiliarity of the site and the project on the part of additional workers being brought in.
It is recommended that acceleration agreements are prepared prior to the implementation of acceleration measures to clarify the position regarding factors such as cost, reward and risk.
For more information, see Agreement for the acceleration of construction works.
[edit] Related articles on Designing Buildings Wiki
- Activity schedule.
- Agreement for the acceleration of construction works.
- Benchmark
- Critical path method.
- Expidite.
- Extension of time EOT.
- Fast track construction.
- How to prepare a claim for an extension of time.
- Milestones.
- Project benchmarking.
- Project crashing.
- Resource leveling.
- Resource management.
- Scheduling construction activities.
- Time-location chart.
- Time management of construction projects.
- Variations.
Featured articles and news
Twas the site before Christmas...
A rhyme for the industry and a thankyou to our supporters.
Plumbing and heating systems in schools
New apprentice pay rates coming into effect in the new year
Addressing the impact of recent national minimum wage changes.
EBSSA support for the new industry competence structure
The Engineering and Building Services Skills Authority, in working group 2.
Notes from BSRIA Sustainable Futures briefing
From carbon down to the all important customer: Redefining Retrofit for Net Zero Living.
Principal Designer: A New Opportunity for Architects
ACA launches a Principal Designer Register for architects.
A new government plan for housing and nature recovery
Exploring a new housing and infrastructure nature recovery framework.
Leveraging technology to enhance prospects for students
A case study on the significance of the Autodesk Revit certification.
Fundamental Review of Building Regulations Guidance
Announced during commons debate on the Grenfell Inquiry Phase 2 report.
CIAT responds to the updated National Planning Policy Framework
With key changes in the revised NPPF outlined.
Councils and communities highlighted for delivery of common-sense housing in planning overhaul
As government follows up with mandatory housing targets.
CIOB photographic competition final images revealed
Art of Building produces stunning images for another year.
HSE prosecutes company for putting workers at risk
Roofing company fined and its director sentenced.
Strategic restructure to transform industry competence
EBSSA becomes part of a new industry competence structure.
Major overhaul of planning committees proposed by government
Planning decisions set to be fast-tracked to tackle the housing crisis.
Industry Competence Steering Group restructure
ICSG transitions to the Industry Competence Committee (ICC) under the Building Safety Regulator (BSR).
Principal Contractor Competency Certification Scheme
CIOB PCCCS competence framework for Principal Contractors.
The CIAT Principal Designer register
Issues explained via a series of FAQs.