Giving the programme contract-document status binds the contractor to follow it to the letter and removes the flexibility to reprogramme, and where events outside the contractor's own default make compliance impossible the courts are likely to treat the departure as a variation carrying additional payment, so the status is generally unwise for the employer

Giving a programme or method statement the status of a contract document binds the contractor to follow it to the letter and removes the flexibility to reprogramme, which is why the step is usually unwise for the employer. The standard forms require a programme to be produced, but most keep it out of the contract documents; GC/Works/1 is an exception, with a warranty as to the programme in condition 33(1). Where an incorporated document cannot be followed through no default of the contractor, the courts treat the departure as a variation carrying payment. In Yorkshire Water Authority v Sir Alfred McAlpine and Son (Northern) Ltd an incorporated method statement that proved impossible to follow entitled the contractor to a variation and payment, and in Havant Borough Council v South Coast Shipping Company Ltd a departure forced by a noise injunction was likewise a variation. The precise wording still governs: in English Industrial Estates Corporation v Kier Construction Ltd the incorporated method statement left the contractor free to choose which arisings to crush, import or export. There is generally no sanction for failing to produce a programme, save under the Engineering and Construction Contract, which withholds 75 per cent of payment until the programme is provided.