Uma distinção importante da AACE RP 29R-03
Em projetos de construção e infraestrutura, atrasos são eventos recorrentes e frequentemente originam disputas sobre extensão de prazo e reembolso de custos adicionais. Entre as diversas questões que surgem nesses cenários, uma das mais relevantes diz respeito às situações em que o contratado decide – ou é levado a decidir – acelerar os trabalhos para cumprir ou recuperar o cronograma do projeto.
A aceleração pode representar uma resposta necessária para lidar com atrasos, mas também costuma implicar custos adicionais relevantes, decorrentes, dentre outros, da mobilização adicional, do aumento de jornadas de trabalho ou da reorganização da sequência de execução das atividades. Comumente, portanto, surge controvérsia quanto ao dever de reembolso pelo dono da obra ao contratado.
Nesse contexto, a Recommended Practice 29R-03 da AACE International (“RP 29R-03”) tornou-se uma referência técnica importante em análises de atraso e em disputas de construção, especialmente em perícias forenses e arbitragens internacionais de construção. O protocolo propõe uma distinção conceitual entre diferentes formas de aceleração e medidas de gestão de atrasos, com implicações diretas para a análise do direito à compensação financeira.
1. A conceituação na RP 29R-03 da AACE
A RP 29R-03 da AACE estrutura uma distinção entre aceleração determinada (directed acceleration), aceleração construtiva (constructive acceleration) e mitigação de atraso (delay mitigation), estabelecendo que cada um desses institutos produz consequências jurídicas e econômicas distintas, sobretudo no que se refere ao direito ao reembolso de custos adicionais.[1]
O ponto de partida é o reconhecimento de que, em contratos de construção, atrasos podem decorrer de múltiplas causas, como as imputáveis ao dono da obra, ao contratado, a eventos de força maior ou a combinações concorrentes desses fatores. Diante de atrasos efetivos ou projetados, surgem três respostas possíveis:
- Acelerar os trabalhos;
- Mitigar os efeitos do atraso; ou
- Aceitar o impacto temporal, com eventual prorrogação de prazo.
A RP 29R-03 procura diferenciar quando essas respostas geram direito à compensação financeira e quando constituem ônus ordinário da execução contratual a partir da classificação em aceleração determinada (directed acceleration), aceleração construtiva (constructive acceleration) ou mitigação de atraso (delay mitigation).[2]
1. Aceleração determinada (directed acceleration)[3]
A aceleração determinada ocorre quando o dono da obra emite uma instrução formal determinando que o contratado:
- Conclua o trabalho antes do previsto;
- Execute trabalho adicional; ou
- Adote medidas específicas para cumprir o prazo originalmente contratado, apesar de eventos que, não fosse a ordem, levariam ao atraso.
Essa instrução pode, inclusive, envolver medidas de mitigação que normalmente não teriam custo, mas que, por força da ordem do dono da obra, passam a ser exigidas dentro de um prazo comprimido.
Quanto ao regime de reembolso de custo, a RP 29R-03 prevê que a aceleração determinada é sempre compensável ao contratado, independentemente se a aceleração visa recuperar atraso por força maior ou atraso causado pelo dono da obra.[4]
4. Aceleração construtiva (constructive acceleration)[5]
A aceleração construtiva ocorre quando, sem ordem expressa e formal, o comportamento do dono da obra obriga o contratado a acelerar, sob pena de sofrer consequências contratuais (como multas por atraso). Segundo a RP 29R-03, a aceleração construtiva geralmente exige a presença cumulativa de 6 elementos:
- O contratado tem direito a uma prorrogação de prazo escusável;[6]
- O contratado solicita formalmente essa prorrogação;[7]
- O dono da obra nega ou deixa de conceder tempestivamente a extensão;[8]
- O dono da obra exige, expressa ou implicitamente, o cumprimento do prazo original;[9]
- O contratado notifica o dono da obra de sua intenção de acelerar os trabalhos e/ou que já está efetivamente acelerando a execução;[10]
- O contratado comprova os prejuízos efetivamente sofridos.[11]
Não é necessário provar ordem expressa. Basta demonstrar a recusa indevida de prazo aliada à exigência de cumprimento do cronograma original.
A RP 29R-03 ainda identifica quatro grandes categorias de custos associados à aceleração:[12]
- Aumento de recursos gerenciais;
- Maior utilização de equipamentos;
- Incremento no fornecimento de materiais; e
- Aumento de mão de obra.
Dentre esses, o custo de mão de obra é, geralmente, o mais significativo. Como o escopo de trabalho costuma permanecer inalterado, o aumento de custos decorre de:[13]
- Redução da produtividade;
- Pagamento de horas extras;
- Desorganização da sequência planejada; e
- Sobreposição excessiva de frentes de trabalho (stacking of trades).
Quanto maior a disrupção causada pela aceleração, maior o dano indenizável.
5. Mitigação de atraso (delay mitigation)[14]
A mitigação de atraso consiste em esforços do contratado ou do dono da obra para reduzir os efeitos de atrasos já ocorridos ou previstos, normalmente sem impacto material no escopo, custo ou qualidade do projeto. Exemplos comuns:
- Replanejamento lógico do cronograma;
- Reordenação de atividades não críticas; e
- Ajustes pontuais de sequência.
A mitigação de atraso é, em regra, não compensável. A RP 29R-03 entende que a mitigação faz parte da gestão eficiente do contrato; seus custos são mínimos ou inexistentes; e quando existentes, integram os custos normais de administração do projeto. Assim, não há direito a reembolso, salvo se a mitigação evoluir para uma situação de aceleração (determinada ou construtiva).
[1] AACE International, Recommended Practice No. 29R-03: Forensic Schedule Analysis, 2011, p. 123.
[2] “In practice, there are subtle distinctions between directed acceleration, constructive acceleration, and delay mitigation. For example, directed acceleration cost implies additional expenditure or money for recovery of either incurred or projected delay, as well as efforts to complete early – all at the direction of the owner. The term constructive acceleration applies to expenditure of money for efforts to recover either incurred or projected delay caused by the owner and without specific direction to do so. Delay mitigation generally refers to no-cost recovery efforts for incurred or projected delay.
In the case of acceleration, constructive acceleration, and delay mitigation, affected activities are usually on the projected critical path; thus, the objective of most acceleration or mitigation is to recover from anticipated delay to project completion. However, acceleration, constructive acceleration, and mitigation can occur with regard to activities that are not on the critical path. For example, an owner might insist that a certain portion of the work be made available prior to the scheduled date for completion of that activity. The contractor may mitigate non-critical delay by resequencing a series of non-critical activities to increase the available float.
There are circumstances in which acceleration measures are used in an attempt to complete the project earlier than planned. Those circumstances are usually classified as: (a) directed acceleration where the owner directs such acceleration and usually pays for the associated additional cost; or (b) voluntary acceleration in which the contractor implements the plan on its own initiative in the hope of earning an early completion bonus (…)” (AACE International, Recommended Practice No. 29R-03: Forensic Schedule Analysis, 2011, p. 124).
[3] “Directed Acceleration: Formal instruction by the owner directing the contractor to: (1) complete all or a portion of the work earlier than currently scheduled; (2) undertake additional work; or, (3) perform other actions to complete all, or a portion, of the contract scope of work in the previously scheduled timeframe that otherwise would have been delayed. This could include mitigation efforts that usually have no costs associated with them” (AACE International, Recommended Practice No. 29R-03: Forensic Schedule Analysis, 2011, p. 123, destacou-se).
[4] “Directed acceleration is always compensable to the contractor, although the parties may disagree on quantum. This is true regardless of whether the contractor is accelerating to overcome an owner-caused delay, or to recover from a force majeure event. Constructive acceleration follows this same pattern. If entitlement to constructive acceleration is established, the contractor may recover for a delay caused by the owner that the owner has refused to acknowledge and also for a force majeure event.” (AACE International, Recommended Practice No. 29R-03: Forensic Schedule Analysis, 2011, p. 125, destacou-se).
[5] “Constructive Acceleration: (1) A contractor’s acceleration efforts to maintain scheduled completion date(s) undertaken as a result of an owner’s action or inaction and failure to make a specific direction to accelerate; (2) Constructive acceleration generally occurs when five criteria are met: (a) the contractor is entitled to an excusable delay; (b) the contractor requests and establishes entitlement to a time extension; (c) the owner fails to grant a timely time extension; (d) the owner or its agent specifically orders or clearly implies completion within a shorter time period than is associated with the requested time extension; and, (e) the contractor provides notice to the owner or its agent that the contractor considers this action an acceleration order. (3) Acceleration is said to have been constructive when the contractor claims a time extension but the owner denies the request and affirmatively requires completion within the original contract duration, and it is later determined that the contractor was entitled to the extension. The time extension can be for either additional work or delayed original work. (4) Constructive acceleration occurs when the owner forces the contractor to complete all or a portion of its work ahead of a properly adjusted progress schedule. This may mean the contractor suffers an excusable delay, but is not granted a time extension for the delay. If ordered to complete performance within the originally specified completion period, the contractor is forced to complete the work in a shorter period either than required or to which it is entitled. Thus, the contractor is forced to accelerate the work. (5) Acceleration following failure by the employer to recognize that the contractor has encountered employer delay for which it is entitled to an EOT (extension of time) and which failure required the contractor to accelerate its progress in order to complete the works by the prevailing contract completion date may be brought about by the employer’s denial of a valid request for an EOT or by the employer’s late granting of an EOT. This is not (currently) a recognized concept under English law. (6) Constructive acceleration is caused by an owner failing to promptly grant a time extension for excusable delay and the contractor accelerating to avoid liquidated/stipulated damages” (AACE International, Recommended Practice No. 29R-03: Forensic Schedule Analysis, 2011, p. 123, destacou-se).
[6] “C. Elements of Constructive Acceleration
1. Contractor Entitlement to an Excusable Delay
The contractor must establish entitlement to an excusable delay. The delay can be caused by an action or inaction on the part of the owner that results in delay or it can be a force majeure event. In theory, a contractor can recover for constructive acceleration for work yet to be done. In this situation the owner takes some action that will result in the contractor expending acceleration costs to recover from the delay. The contractor could assert its entitlement even though the actual acceleration has yet to occur and the actual acceleration costs have yet to occur. In practice, since constructive acceleration occurs after the owner has denied a time extension, it is almost always resolved after the acceleration is complete and the contactor usually is arguing that it was actually accelerated” (AACE International, Recommended Practice No. 29R-03: Forensic Schedule Analysis, 2011, pp. 125 e 126, destacou-se).
[7] “C. Elements of Constructive Acceleration
[…] 2. Contractor Requests and Establishes Entitlement to a Time Extension
The contractor must ask for a time extension associated with the owner’s action or the force majeure event. In that request, or associated with that request, the contractor must establish entitlement to a time extension. The owner must have the opportunity to review the contractor’s request and act upon it. If the contractor fails to submit proof of entitlement to a time extension, the owner is able to argue that the opportunity was never given to properly decide between granting a time extension and ordering acceleration. The level of proof required to be submitted must in the end be sufficient to convince the eventual trier of fact that the contractor “established” entitlement. In certain situations, it is possible that actions of the owner may negate the requirement for the contractor to request a time extension or to establish entitlement. In this situation, the theory is that the owner has made clear that a time extension will absolutely not be granted. Such cases are difficult to establish” (AACE International, Recommended Practice No. 29R-03: Forensic Schedule Analysis, 2011, p. 126, destacou-se).
[8] “C. Elements of Constructive Acceleration
[…] 3. Owner Failure to Grant a Timely Time Extension
The owner must unreasonably fail to grant a time extension. This is closely related to the requirement that the contractor establish entitlement to a time extension. If the owner reasonably denies a request for time, as eventually decided by the trier of fact, then by definition the contractor has failed to prove entitlement. Therefore, the owner’s decision not to grant a time extension where the contractor has shown entitlement must be unreasonable” (AACE International, Recommended Practice No. 29R-03: Forensic Schedule Analysis, 2011, p. 126).
[9] “C. Elements of Constructive Acceleration
[…] 4. Implied Order by the Owner to Complete More Quickly
The owner must also, by implication or direction, require the contractor to accelerate. There are several different factual alternatives possible. First, a simple denial of a legitimate time extension, by implication, requires timely completion and thus acceleration. If this denial is timely given, the contractor can proceed. However, the best proof for the contractor is a statement or action by the owner that specifically orders the contactor meet a date that requires acceleration. Second, the owner could deny the time extension request and remind the contractor that it needs to complete on time. This is better than the first alternative above, but not as strong as the next alternative. Third, the owner could deny the time extension request and advise the contractor that any acceleration is the contractor’s responsibility. This is probably the best proof for this aspect of constructive acceleration. All three of these options meet the test for an owner having constructively ordered acceleration. Examples of owner actions that meet this requirement include: (1) a letter from the owner informing the contractor that it must meet a completion date that is accelerated; (2) an owner demand for a schedule that recovers the delay; or (3) the owner threatening to access liquidated/stipulated damages unless the completion date is maintained. The fourth alternative arises when the owner is presented with a request for a time extension but fails to respond. The contractor is faced with either assuming that the time extension will be granted, or accelerating. Under this alternative, the owner’s failure to timely decide, functions as a denial” (AACE International, Recommended Practice No. 29R-03: Forensic Schedule Analysis, 2011, p. 126, destacou-se).
[10] “C. Elements of Constructive Acceleration
[…] 5. Contractor Notice of Acceleration
The contractor must provide notice of acceleration. As with any contract claim for damages, the owner must be provided notice of the claim. Even though the contractor has requested and supported the application for a time extension, the contractor must still notify the owner of its intent to accelerate or be actually experiencing ongoing acceleration. This is so that the owner can decide if it actually desired acceleration to occur, or, instead, the owner may decide to grant a time extension” (AACE International, Recommended Practice No. 29R-03: Forensic Schedule Analysis, 2011, pp. 126 e 127, destacou-se).
[11] “C. Elements of Constructive Acceleration
[…] 6. Proof of Damages
The contractor must establish its damages. For loss of productivity claims, the contractor is faced with developing convincing proof of decreased productivity. Actual acceleration is not required. A valid contractor effort to accelerate, supported by contemporaneous records, is sufficient to establish constructive acceleration. It is quite common that contractors accelerate to overcome delays but continue to be impacted and delayed by additional events and impacts that actually result in further delay to the project” (AACE International, Recommended Practice No. 29R-03: Forensic Schedule Analysis, 2011, p. 127, destacou-se).
[12] “A contractor’s cost for acceleration, whether directed or constructive, is generally associated with the effort to engage more resources to perform the work during a unit of time than planned. These increased resources fall into the following major categories: (1) increased management resources; (2) increased equipment usage; (3) increased material supply; and (4) increased labor. The greatest cost associated with acceleration is usually increased labor” (AACE International, Recommended Practice No. 29R-03: Forensic Schedule Analysis, 2011, p. 125).
[13] “[…] The greatest cost associated with acceleration is usually increased labor. Since the amount of actual work remains unchanged in most acceleration efforts (assuming the planned scope of work has not increased), the increase in labor cost is a result of a decrease in labor productivity or the increase in the amount of overtime labor. Decreased labor productivity is caused by disruption to the planned sequence and pace of the labor. The greater the disruption to the work, the greater the inefficiency. Disruption can be the result of having more people working in the planned area during a specific time, or loss of productivity associated with individual workers working more hours than planned” (AACE International, Recommended Practice No. 29R-03: Forensic Schedule Analysis, 2011, p. 125).
[14] “Delay Mitigation: A contractor’s or owner’s efforts to reduce the effect of delays already incurred or anticipated to occur to activities or groups of activities. Mitigation often includes revising the project’s scope, budget, schedule, or quality, preferably without material impact on the project’s objectives, in order to reduce possible delay. Mitigation usually has no or very minimal associated costs” (AACE International, Recommended Practice No. 29R-03: Forensic Schedule Analysis, 2011, p. 124, destacou-se).