Acceleration Claims in Construction Contracts
Acceleration Claims in Construction Contracts: South African Law, Entitlement and Proof
Acceleration Claims in Construction Contracts arise where a contractor incurs additional time-related, labour, plant, supervision or other costs because it is required, instructed or effectively compelled to complete construction work more quickly than the programme would otherwise require.
In practical terms, acceleration usually involves increasing resources or changing the method or sequence of construction to achieve an earlier completion date, recover lost time, or maintain an existing contractual completion date despite a delaying event.
Acceleration can involve additional labour, overtime, double shifts, weekend working, increased supervision, additional plant, additional subcontractors, premium procurement, expedited deliveries, resequencing of work, overlapping activities that were originally intended to be sequential, or other measures designed to shorten the remaining construction period.
The central legal question is not simply whether the contractor worked faster or spent more money. It is whether the employer was contractually responsible for the acceleration and whether the contractor has a legal and contractual basis for recovering the resulting additional cost.
In South Africa, Acceleration Claims in Construction Contracts depend heavily on the wording of the particular agreement. There is no general statutory rule automatically entitling a contractor to payment whenever it increases resources to meet a completion date. The contractor must identify the contractual instruction, variation, employer conduct, compensable event or other legal basis giving rise to the claim.
This distinction is particularly important under standard-form agreements such as JBCC, FIDIC, GCC and NEC. The contract may regulate extensions of time, variations, compensation events, instructions, claims procedures and authority differently. Particular Conditions and project-specific amendments may also materially alter the standard position.
Relevant long-tail concepts include construction acceleration claim South Africa, JBCC acceleration claim, FIDIC acceleration claim, constructive acceleration South Africa, acceleration costs construction contract, contractor overtime claim, extension of time acceleration, acceleration agreement construction, critical path acceleration and variation order acceleration.
Why Acceleration Claims in Construction Contracts Arise
Construction programmes are frequently disrupted by events beyond the contractor’s original planning assumptions.
Information may be issued late. Access may be delayed. Variations may be instructed. Design changes may affect procurement. Other contractors may interfere with planned sequencing. Unexpected physical conditions may be encountered. The employer may nevertheless require the original completion date to be maintained because occupation, commissioning, production, tenant commitments or downstream project milestones cannot be moved.
The contractor may then be required to achieve in ten months what the revised programme would reasonably require twelve months to complete.
That compression has a cost.
Additional crews may need to be employed. Existing employees may work overtime. More supervisors may be required. Additional cranes or other plant may be introduced. Materials may be purchased from more expensive suppliers to obtain earlier delivery. Activities previously intended to occur sequentially may be performed simultaneously, increasing congestion and reducing productivity.
A contractor cannot safely assume that all such expenditure will be reimbursed.
The first enquiry in Acceleration Claims in Construction Contracts is therefore whether the contractor was legally obliged to incur the additional cost and who bears that risk under the contract.
A useful distinction must be drawn between contractor recovery of its own delay, voluntary acceleration for commercial reasons, instructed acceleration and what is sometimes called constructive acceleration.
Those categories may look similar on site but have fundamentally different legal consequences.
What Counts as Acceleration Claims in Construction Contracts?
Acceleration is best understood by comparing the programme that would reasonably have applied without acceleration with the programme implemented after acceleration measures were introduced.
If a contractor is contractually required to complete by 30 November and is progressing too slowly because of its own poor mobilisation, increasing the workforce to recover its own delay will ordinarily not create an employer-funded acceleration claim. The contractor is simply taking steps to perform its existing contractual obligation.
The position may differ where an employer-risk event has delayed completion and the contractor has a valid entitlement to an extension of time.
Assume that an employer-caused event produces 30 days of critical delay. The contractor submits a proper extension-of-time claim demonstrating that practical completion should move from 30 November to 30 December. The employer nevertheless requires practical completion by 30 November.
Achieving the original date now requires the contractor to compress the remaining programme by 30 days.
That is an acceleration scenario.
The legal consequences depend upon how the requirement was communicated, the contractual authority of the person issuing it, whether the contract permits such an instruction, whether the parties agreed the acceleration measures and price, and whether the contractor complied with applicable notice and claims provisions.
A further complication arises where no express instruction to accelerate is given. The employer or contract administrator may simply refuse a legitimate extension-of-time claim while insisting that the contractor meet the original date. Contractors sometimes characterise the resulting additional work as constructive acceleration.
South African contractors should approach such claims carefully. Constructive acceleration is a recognised concept in some international construction-law systems, but it should not be assumed to constitute an independent, universally recognised South African cause of action. The claim must still be connected to the applicable contractual provisions and ordinary South African contractual principles.
Instructed Acceleration Claims in Construction Contracts
The clearest acceleration case occurs where an authorised person expressly instructs or agrees with the contractor that the work must be accelerated.
An instruction might require the contractor to introduce a second shift, work extended hours, increase labour, procure additional plant, change sequencing, increase fabrication capacity or complete a particular milestone earlier.
However, the existence of an instruction is only the beginning of the analysis.
The contractor must determine whether the person issuing the instruction had authority to do so and whether acceleration falls within the scope of instructions permitted by the contract.
This is particularly important under JBCC.
JBCC has issued an advisory note specifically addressing acceleration. Its guidance indicates that the listed matters in respect of which the principal agent may issue contract instructions do not include a general power simply to instruct acceleration. JBCC describes acceleration as an arrangement external to the ordinary contractual machinery where the agreement does not itself provide an acceleration mechanism.
That point has considerable practical significance.
If the employer wants the contractor to achieve an earlier date or recover employer-caused delay, the parties should preferably conclude a properly documented acceleration agreement rather than relying on an ambiguous site instruction.
The agreement should establish the required completion or milestone date, the acceleration measures contemplated, the additional payment mechanism, programme assumptions, responsibility for further delays, treatment of existing EOT claims and the effect of subsequent events.
Failure to establish those matters creates fertile ground for disputes.
The contractor may contend that it incurred substantial overtime and plant costs pursuant to an instruction. The employer may argue that it merely reminded the contractor of its existing contractual completion obligation.
Contemporaneous documentation often determines which characterisation prevails.
Constructive Acceleration Claims in Construction Contracts
Constructive acceleration generally describes circumstances where the contractor is not expressly instructed to accelerate but is effectively required to do so because a legitimate extension of time is denied or not determined while the employer continues to insist upon the existing completion date.
A typical scenario involves four elements.
First, an employer-risk event causes critical delay.
Second, the contractor has a contractual basis to seek an extension of time and submits the required notice and claim.
Third, the extension is refused, inadequately granted or not determined within the required period.
Fourth, the employer or contract administrator nevertheless insists that the original or insufficiently extended completion date must be achieved, causing the contractor to incur additional expenditure to recover the excusable delay.
The expression “constructive acceleration” may be commercially useful in describing the factual situation. It should, however, not replace legal analysis.
The South African claim still needs a contractual foundation.
Depending on the agreement and facts, the contractor might rely upon a variation mechanism, breach of contract, an instruction, interference with contractual rights, a compensable employer-risk event or another recognised contractual entitlement.
The contractor must also prove that it was genuinely entitled to additional time. If the underlying EOT claim fails, the constructive-acceleration argument may fail with it.
For example, if the contractor alleges that late drawings caused 20 days of delay but the affected activity had 30 days of available float, there may have been no critical delay to contractual completion. The employer’s insistence on the existing completion date would then not necessarily compel acceleration.
The programme analysis is therefore fundamental.
Constructive acceleration claims are particularly vulnerable where the contractor never submitted the required EOT notice or failed to demonstrate the delay to practical completion. A contractor cannot ordinarily convert a weak or time-barred delay claim into a strong acceleration claim merely by spending more money.
Acceleration Claims in Construction Contracts Under JBCC
The JBCC position requires particular attention because acceleration is often misunderstood during building projects.
JBCC’s published guidance on extension-of-time claims states that a contractor claiming a revision to the date for practical completion must take reasonable practical steps to avoid or reduce delay. Importantly, JBCC expressly clarifies that this obligation does not mean that the contractor is required to “make up time” or accelerate.
This distinction is critical.
Mitigation means taking reasonable steps to avoid unnecessary consequences of delay. Acceleration means deliberately compressing the construction programme or increasing resources to achieve completion earlier than would otherwise be reasonably achievable.
They are not interchangeable concepts.
Under JBCC Edition 6 guidance, where a relevant delaying circumstance arises, the contractor is expected to give the prescribed notice and subsequently submit a claim demonstrating the cause and effect of the delay upon practical completion. JBCC’s published material refers to a 20-working-day notice period and a claim submitted within 40 working days from when the contractor is able to quantify the delay, subject to the wording and applicable edition of the contract.
The actual executed agreement must always be checked because amendments may alter those periods.
Where the contractor is entitled to a revised date for practical completion but the employer wishes to retain an earlier date, the commercial solution should ideally be a written acceleration arrangement.
The importance of an actual acceleration instruction is illustrated by Brookhaven Projects CC v Mike Buyskes Construction (Pty) Limited and Another. The reported material records a JBCC subcontract dispute in which the underlying determination expressly noted that no adjustment would be made for acceleration because no instruction to accelerate had been given. The case should be treated carefully because the court proceedings concerned the dispute-resolution setting in which that determination arose, but it remains a useful warning against assuming that additional expenditure automatically constitutes compensable acceleration.
The contractor should therefore secure clarity before committing substantial additional resources wherever commercially possible.
Acceleration Claims in Construction Contracts Under FIDIC, GCC and NEC
Other standard-form contracts approach accelerated performance through different contractual mechanisms.
Under FIDIC, the correct analysis depends upon the edition and Particular Conditions. Claims for additional time or payment are regulated through detailed contractual procedures, and the contractor must identify the clause giving rise to entitlement and comply with the applicable notice provisions.
FIDIC’s published claims material emphasises the importance of timely notification, detailed substantiation and contemporary records in claims for extensions of time and additional payment. Earlier editions using clause 20.1, for example, imposed a 28-day notification mechanism for contractor claims. The precise requirements of the executed edition must be checked rather than assuming that the requirements of one FIDIC edition automatically apply to another.
Under GCC-based contracts, the engineer’s contractual authority may include directing progress or requiring expedition in circumstances defined by the agreement. Enviroserv Waste Management v Hawkins Hawkins and Osborne South (Pty) Ltd concerned a civil engineering contract in which the engineer’s contractual powers included variations, extensions of time and calling upon the contractor to expedite the works. The case demonstrates why the scope of the engineer’s powers must be determined from the actual contract.
NEC contracts employ their own compensation-event and programme machinery. What might colloquially be called acceleration may therefore need to be analysed through the specific NEC contractual mechanism rather than through terminology borrowed from JBCC or FIDIC.
The principle is straightforward: do not transfer the legal mechanics of one standard form into another.
Each contract uses its own allocation of authority, procedure, programme management and compensation.
Particular Conditions deserve equal attention. An employer may have inserted bespoke provisions expressly authorising acceleration or excluding certain costs. Those amendments can substantially change the standard risk allocation.
Mitigation Is Not the Same as Acceleration
One of the most common disputes concerns an employer’s allegation that the contractor was merely mitigating delay rather than accelerating.
The distinction can be commercially substantial.
Suppose an employer-caused event delays a critical activity by four weeks. The contractor can reasonably resequence some unaffected activities and reduce the overall delay to three weeks without material additional expenditure. That may constitute ordinary mitigation.
Suppose instead that the employer requires all four weeks to be recovered. The contractor employs an additional crew, introduces night shifts, hires a second crane and pays premium freight to secure earlier delivery.
Those measures go materially beyond ordinary avoidance of unnecessary delay and may constitute acceleration.
JBCC’s advisory material expressly reinforces the distinction by stating that the contractor’s obligation to take reasonable practical steps to avoid or reduce delay does not require it to “make up time” or accelerate.
The factual boundary nevertheless depends upon the circumstances.
Contractors should document their normal planned resources before acceleration occurs. Without a reliable baseline, it may be difficult to prove that an additional crew, additional shift or additional plant item was genuinely incremental rather than something required under the original programme.
Employers should likewise avoid using general mitigation obligations as a means of imposing unpriced acceleration.
If accelerated completion is commercially important, the parties should address it directly.
Proving Time and Cost in an Acceleration Claim
A successful acceleration claim ordinarily requires proof of both the accelerated programme and the additional cost caused by implementing it.
The contractor should first establish the programme position immediately before acceleration.
What was the contractual completion date? What was the current accepted programme? What delaying events had occurred? What extension of time was claimed or granted? What was the forecast completion date before acceleration measures were introduced?
The contractor should then identify the required accelerated date.
The difference between those two programme positions demonstrates the period that had to be recovered.
The next question concerns methodology.
If the contractor proposed to recover 20 days, the records should explain how. Additional shifts may have been introduced. Work may have been resequenced. Additional resources may have been deployed to specific critical activities. Procurement may have been expedited.
The measures should correspond logically with the critical path.
Adding ten labourers to an activity containing substantial float does not prove acceleration of project completion.
Cost proof should then establish the incremental expenditure.
Payroll records can establish overtime. Plant records can demonstrate additional equipment. Supplier quotations and invoices may establish premium freight. Subcontractor records can show additional crews. Site establishment records may identify additional supervision or temporary facilities.
The contractor must distinguish additional cost from ordinary expenditure already included in the contract price.
This is particularly important where productivity is reduced by congestion. Acceleration may require multiple trades to work simultaneously in confined areas, reducing efficiency. A contractor claiming such productivity loss requires a credible methodology connecting the loss to acceleration rather than merely comparing tendered and actual costs.
Contemporary records remain central.
FIDIC claims guidance specifically emphasises contemporary records as supporting evidence for time and monetary claims.
The better the project records, the less dependent the claim becomes on retrospective recollection.
Notices, Authority and Variation Procedures
Three procedural questions should be addressed immediately when acceleration is contemplated.
The first is who has authority to require accelerated performance.
A project manager, principal agent, engineer, quantity surveyor or employer representative may have different powers under the contract. A person with authority to administer one aspect of the works does not necessarily possess authority to amend the contractual completion date or commit the employer to substantial additional expenditure.
Under JBCC, contract instructions are required to comply with the contractual instruction machinery, and JBCC guidance emphasises written instructions.
The second question is what contractual mechanism gives rise to additional payment.
Depending upon the contract, the acceleration arrangement may constitute a variation, compensation event, change to the scope, separate agreement or other contractual adjustment.
Enviroserv Waste Management v Hawkins Hawkins and Osborne South (Pty) Ltd illustrates the importance of complying with construction-contract notification mechanisms. The court held that a notice need not mechanically reproduce contractual wording, but it had to communicate the relevant circumstances and additional work with sufficient clarity to enable the engineer to exercise the contractual powers available to it.
The third question is whether a claims notice is separately required.
An instruction to accelerate does not necessarily remove the contractor’s obligation to notify its resulting claim.
A prudent contractor should therefore avoid relying solely on the fact that the employer “knew” acceleration was occurring.
The written notice should identify the instruction or circumstance, state the contractor’s position regarding entitlement, record that additional cost and programme consequences are expected, and reserve rights under the relevant contract.
Where an acceleration agreement can be concluded before the expenditure is incurred, it should address price or the method by which the price will be calculated.
That approach is much safer than accelerating first and debating entitlement months later.
Risk Allocation and Practical Management of Acceleration
Employers and contractors can substantially reduce acceleration disputes through disciplined contract administration.
The employer should first determine whether retaining the existing completion date is genuinely worth the cost of acceleration.
In some projects, acceleration is commercially rational because delayed production, tenant occupation, commissioning or revenue generation would cost more than the acceleration payment.
Where acceleration is required, the employer should identify the contractual authority for it and obtain an acceleration proposal.
The contractor’s proposal should describe the programme impact, resources required, assumptions, exclusions, price and effect on existing claims.
The parties should specifically address what happens if further employer delays occur during the accelerated period.
They should also determine whether the agreed accelerated date becomes a new contractual completion date or merely a target.
This distinction can affect penalties.
If an acceleration agreement simply requires reasonable efforts to achieve a target date, failure to reach that target may have very different consequences from formal amendment of the contractual date for practical completion.
The parties should also preserve existing EOT entitlements unless their settlement intentionally resolves them.
An acceleration agreement containing broad wording such as “full and final settlement of all delay claims” may unintentionally compromise substantial existing claims.
From the contractor’s perspective, the greatest risks are accelerating without authority, failing to issue notices, failing to prove the underlying EOT entitlement and failing to separate ordinary costs from incremental acceleration costs.
From the employer’s perspective, the risks include informal instructions by project personnel, allowing acceleration to proceed without price clarity, rejecting legitimate EOT claims while simultaneously demanding the original completion date and failing to document whether increased resources were genuinely necessary.
Acceleration should therefore be administered as a deliberate contractual event rather than an informal project-management instruction.
Conclusion
Acceleration Claims in Construction Contracts are fundamentally claims about contractual risk allocation.
Working faster does not automatically create an entitlement to additional payment.
The contractor must establish why acceleration became necessary, whether the employer was legally responsible for that need, who authorised the accelerated performance, which contractual mechanism supports payment and what additional cost was actually caused.
The distinction between mitigation and acceleration is particularly important. Under JBCC guidance, taking reasonable steps to avoid or reduce delay does not itself require the contractor to make up lost time through acceleration.
Instructed acceleration should ideally be recorded in a written agreement defining the revised programme, additional resources, price, existing EOT position and consequences of further delays.
Constructive acceleration demands even greater care. Where no express instruction exists, the contractor must establish the underlying entitlement to time and identify a sustainable contractual or common-law basis for recovering the cost of being compelled to maintain an earlier completion date.
Programme records, notices, payroll information, plant records, correspondence and contemporaneous cost documentation should be preserved from the outset.
For both employer and contractor, the safest approach is to resolve acceleration commercially and contractually before extraordinary resources are deployed.
Frequently Asked Questions About Acceleration Claims in Construction Contracts
What Are Acceleration Claims in Construction Contracts?
Acceleration Claims in Construction Contracts are claims for additional compensation arising from measures taken to shorten the construction period, recover delay or achieve a completion date earlier than would otherwise reasonably be achievable.
Typical acceleration measures include overtime, additional shifts, increased labour, additional plant, expedited procurement and resequencing.
The existence of such measures does not itself prove entitlement. The contractor must still establish the contractual basis for payment.
What Is Instructed Acceleration?
Instructed acceleration occurs where an authorised employer representative or contract administrator expressly requires accelerated performance.
The legal consequences depend on the contract.
Where the standard form does not authorise unilateral acceleration, the parties may need to conclude a separate acceleration agreement.
This is particularly significant under JBCC, whose published guidance indicates that ordinary contract-instruction provisions do not themselves provide a general acceleration power.
What Is Constructive Acceleration?
Constructive acceleration describes a situation where the contractor is effectively compelled to accelerate even though no express acceleration instruction has been issued.
This commonly occurs where the contractor believes it is entitled to an extension of time, the extension is refused or inadequately determined, and the employer nevertheless insists upon the original completion date.
In South Africa, contractors should not assume that the label creates an independent cause of action. The claim must be grounded in the contract and applicable South African legal principles.
Does a Contractor Have to Accelerate to Mitigate Delay?
Not necessarily.
A contractual obligation to take reasonable steps to avoid or reduce delay does not automatically require the contractor to incur extraordinary expenditure to recover all lost time.
JBCC guidance expressly states that its mitigation requirement does not mean that the contractor is required to “make up time” or accelerate.
Whether particular measures amount to reasonable mitigation or acceleration will depend upon their nature, cost and project circumstances.
Can a Principal Agent Instruct Acceleration under JBCC?
JBCC’s acceleration guidance indicates that its ordinary list of contract instructions does not include a general instruction requiring acceleration. JBCC treats acceleration as an external arrangement where the standard agreement does not provide for it.
Accordingly, parties using JBCC should consider a properly documented acceleration agreement rather than assuming that the principal agent may unilaterally order potentially substantial additional expenditure.
The executed agreement and amendments must nevertheless always be checked.
Can a Contractor Claim Overtime as an Acceleration Cost?
Yes, where the overtime is genuinely additional, was reasonably incurred for compensable acceleration and is supported by the contractual entitlement.
Payroll records, timesheets and programme evidence should show which employees worked additional hours, when they worked those hours, what activities were accelerated and the additional amount paid.
Overtime that would have been incurred because the contractor was recovering its own delay will ordinarily present a different entitlement question.
What Evidence Is Needed for an Acceleration Claim?
A strong claim should include the executed contract, programme before acceleration, accelerated programme, instructions, notices, EOT submissions, correspondence, labour records, payroll information, plant records, subcontractor invoices, procurement records, progress reports and relevant site diaries.
The documents should collectively demonstrate why acceleration was necessary, what was done differently and what additional cost resulted.
FIDIC claims guidance similarly stresses the importance of contemporary records in supporting construction claims.
Can an Employer Require a Contractor to Recover Its Own Delay?
Ordinarily, a contractor remains responsible for meeting its contractual completion obligation where the delay is attributable to its own default.
The contractor may therefore need to increase resources at its own cost to recover contractor-caused delay.
That situation should be distinguished from employer-funded acceleration required to recover delay for which the contractor would otherwise have been contractually entitled to additional time.
Should an Acceleration Agreement Be in Writing?
A written agreement is strongly preferable and may be contractually essential.
The document should identify the accelerated completion date, additional resources, agreed price or valuation method, programme assumptions, existing EOT claims, treatment of subsequent delays and authority of the persons concluding the agreement.
Written documentation reduces later disputes about whether the employer instructed acceleration or merely required ordinary contractual performance.
Can Acceleration Be Treated as a Variation?
Potentially, depending upon the wording of the contract and the nature of the instruction.
An acceleration instruction may change the method, sequence, resources or timing required for performance and could engage variation or compensation mechanisms under the applicable agreement.
However, parties should not assume that every acceleration measure automatically constitutes a variation. The particular contract must be interpreted and applied.
What Happens If There Was No Acceleration Instruction?
The absence of an express instruction makes recovery more difficult but does not automatically determine every case.
The contractor may contend that employer conduct effectively compelled acceleration or that another contractual entitlement applies.
However, the contractor will need to demonstrate a clear legal basis.
The Brookhaven Projects matter provides a useful practical warning because the dispute record reflected a determination that no adjustment would be made for acceleration where no acceleration instruction had been issued.
Can a Contractor Claim Both an Extension of Time and Acceleration Costs?
Potentially.
The rights perform different functions.
An extension of time adjusts the contractual completion date because of a qualifying delaying event. An acceleration claim seeks compensation for additional expenditure incurred in compressing the programme.
The interaction between the two must nevertheless be analysed carefully. An acceleration agreement may preserve, modify or settle an existing EOT claim, depending upon its wording.
References
| Legal authority | Substance | Importance |
|---|---|---|
| Brookhaven Projects CC v Mike Buyskes Construction (Pty) Limited and Another (28384/14) [2015] ZAGPJHC 84 | The matter arose from a JBCC subcontract dispute. The reported record included a determination that no adjustment would be made for alleged acceleration because no instruction to accelerate had been issued. | The matter is useful as a practical illustration of the evidential and contractual importance of establishing an acceleration instruction. It should not be overstated as creating a universal substantive rule because the High Court proceedings arose in the context of the underlying dispute-resolution process. |
| Enviroserv Waste Management v Hawkins Hawkins and Osborne South (Pty) Ltd (CA95/2006) [2007] ZAECHC 56 | The case concerned administration of a civil engineering contract, including contractual notice requirements, variations and the engineer’s powers. The contract included authority to grant extensions of time and call on the contractor to expedite progress. | It illustrates the importance of determining an engineer’s exact contractual powers and complying with claims and notice procedures. It also demonstrates that substance, clarity and contractual purpose are important when assessing construction notices. |
| Group Five Construction (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Water Affairs and Forestry (39161/05) [2010] ZAGPPHC 36 | The dispute involved construction claims arising from instructed suspension, testing and additional time-related expenditure under a major works contract. | The case illustrates the contractual separation between instructions, additional work, time-related expenditure and entitlement to additional payment. Acceleration claims similarly require identification of the contractual mechanism producing compensation. |
| Maykent (Pty) Ltd v Trackstar Trading 20 (Pty) Ltd (1036/2013) [2015] ZASCA 14 | The SCA considered a construction agreement and payment disputes in circumstances where the completion date had been extended because variations caused delay. | The decision illustrates the interaction between variations and completion dates. It is relevant because acceleration commonly arises after compensable variations or other employer-risk events have changed the programme. |
| Framatome v Eskom Holdings SOC Limited (43535/2019) [2020] ZAGPJHC 239; 2021 (2) SA 494 (GJ) | The case concerned NEC contractual mechanisms, compensation events, project-manager decisions and adjudication. | The matter demonstrates that standard-form construction claims must be analysed through the particular contractual machinery selected by the parties. Concepts taken from another contract form should not simply be transplanted into NEC. |
| JBCC Principal Building Agreement Edition 6.2 and JBCC Advisory Note on Acceleration | JBCC’s published guidance states that the normal contractual-instruction provisions do not provide a general mechanism for acceleration and describes acceleration as an external arrangement where the standard agreement does not make provision for it. | This is particularly important for South African building projects. Employers and contractors should not assume that an ordinary principal-agent instruction automatically creates a valid acceleration mechanism or payment entitlement. |
| JBCC Advisory Note on Extension of Time | JBCC requires the contractor to take reasonable practical steps to avoid or reduce qualifying delay but expressly states that this does not require the contractor to make up time or accelerate. Its published guidance also addresses notices, claims and critical-path substantiation. | This is central to distinguishing ordinary mitigation from compensable acceleration under a JBCC project. |
| Applicable FIDIC Conditions and Particular Conditions | FIDIC forms regulate extensions of time, additional payment, notices, contemporary records and contractual claims through detailed procedures that vary between editions. | A contractor pursuing a FIDIC acceleration claim must connect the alleged acceleration to the actual contractual entitlement and comply with the claims machinery in the executed edition. |
| Applicable GCC or NEC conditions and project-specific amendments | GCC and NEC use their own mechanisms governing instructions, programme obligations, variations or compensation events and additional payment. | The correct classification and valuation of acceleration cannot be determined without reading the actual form and amendments incorporated into the project contract. South African case law demonstrates the importance of applying the agreed contractual machinery. |
Useful Links
JBCC Advisory Notes provide official guidance on the interpretation and administration of JBCC agreements, including extension-of-time and acceleration issues. They are particularly useful for employers, contractors, principal agents and quantity surveyors administering South African building contracts.
Southern African Legal Information Institute provides free access to South African judgments, including construction-contract decisions dealing with claims, contractual interpretation, payment, variations and dispute resolution.
FIDIC publishes material concerning FIDIC standard-form contracts, claims and contract administration. It is useful where a South African construction project incorporates a FIDIC form, although the executed contract and its Particular Conditions remain decisive.
If you would like to know more about construction tenders click here.
If you would like to know more about bid disqualification risks click here
If you would like to know more about certificates of completion click here.
If you would like to know more about retention amounts, click here.
If you would like to know more about how to prevent subcontractor disputes click here.
This article is a general information sheet and should not be used or relied on as legal or other professional advice. No liability can be accepted for errors, omissions, loss, or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Don’t hesitate to contact Meyer and Partners Attorneys Incorporated if you require further information or specific and detailed advice. Errors and omissions excepted (E&OE).