Em projetos de constru\u00e7\u00e3o e infraestrutura, atrasos s\u00e3o eventos recorrentes e frequentemente originam disputas sobre extens\u00e3o de prazo e reembolso de custos adicionais. Entre as diversas quest\u00f5es que surgem nesses cen\u00e1rios, uma das mais relevantes diz respeito \u00e0s situa\u00e7\u00f5es em que o contratado decide \u2013 ou \u00e9 levado a decidir \u2013 acelerar os trabalhos para cumprir ou recuperar o cronograma do projeto.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A acelera\u00e7\u00e3o pode representar uma resposta necess\u00e1ria para lidar com atrasos, mas tamb\u00e9m costuma implicar custos adicionais relevantes, decorrentes, dentre outros, da mobiliza\u00e7\u00e3o adicional, do aumento de jornadas de trabalho ou da reorganiza\u00e7\u00e3o da sequ\u00eancia de execu\u00e7\u00e3o das atividades. Comumente, portanto, surge controv\u00e9rsia quanto ao dever de reembolso pelo dono da obra ao contratado.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Nesse contexto, a Recommended Practice 29R-03 da AACE International (\u201cRP 29R-03\u201d) tornou-se uma refer\u00eancia t\u00e9cnica importante em an\u00e1lises de atraso e em disputas de constru\u00e7\u00e3o, especialmente em per\u00edcias forenses e arbitragens internacionais de constru\u00e7\u00e3o. O protocolo prop\u00f5e uma distin\u00e7\u00e3o conceitual entre diferentes formas de acelera\u00e7\u00e3o e medidas de gest\u00e3o de atrasos, com implica\u00e7\u00f5es diretas para a an\u00e1lise do direito \u00e0 compensa\u00e7\u00e3o financeira.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
1. A conceitua\u00e7\u00e3o na RP 29R-03 da AACE<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n A RP 29R-03 da AACE estrutura uma distin\u00e7\u00e3o entre acelera\u00e7\u00e3o determinada (directed acceleration<\/em>), acelera\u00e7\u00e3o construtiva (constructive acceleration<\/em>) e mitiga\u00e7\u00e3o de atraso (delay mitigation<\/em>), estabelecendo que cada um desses institutos produz consequ\u00eancias jur\u00eddicas e econ\u00f4micas distintas<\/strong>, sobretudo no que se refere ao direito ao reembolso de custos adicionais<\/strong>.[1]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n O ponto de partida \u00e9 o reconhecimento de que, em contratos de constru\u00e7\u00e3o, atrasos podem decorrer de m\u00faltiplas causas, como as imput\u00e1veis ao dono da obra, ao contratado, a eventos de for\u00e7a maior ou a combina\u00e7\u00f5es concorrentes desses fatores. Diante de atrasos efetivos ou projetados, surgem tr\u00eas respostas poss\u00edveis:<\/p>\n\n\n\n A RP 29R-03 procura diferenciar quando essas respostas geram direito \u00e0 compensa\u00e7\u00e3o financeira<\/strong> e quando constituem \u00f4nus ordin\u00e1rio da execu\u00e7\u00e3o contratual a partir da classifica\u00e7\u00e3o em acelera\u00e7\u00e3o determinada (directed acceleration), acelera\u00e7\u00e3o construtiva (constructive acceleration) ou mitiga\u00e7\u00e3o de atraso (delay mitigation).[2]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n 1. Acelera\u00e7\u00e3o determinada (directed acceleration)<\/strong>[3]<\/strong><\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n A acelera\u00e7\u00e3o determinada ocorre quando o dono da obra emite uma instru\u00e7\u00e3o formal determinando que o contratado:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Essa instru\u00e7\u00e3o pode, inclusive, envolver medidas de mitiga\u00e7\u00e3o que normalmente n\u00e3o teriam custo, mas que, por for\u00e7a da ordem do dono da obra, passam a ser exigidas dentro de um prazo comprimido.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Quanto ao regime de reembolso de custo, a RP 29R-03 prev\u00ea que a acelera\u00e7\u00e3o determinada \u00e9 sempre compens\u00e1vel ao contratado<\/strong>, independentemente se a acelera\u00e7\u00e3o visa recuperar atraso por for\u00e7a maior ou atraso causado pelo dono da obra.[4]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n 4. Acelera\u00e7\u00e3o construtiva (constructive acceleration)[5]<\/strong><\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n A acelera\u00e7\u00e3o construtiva ocorre quando, sem ordem expressa e formal<\/strong>, o comportamento do dono da obra obriga o contratado a acelerar<\/strong>, sob pena de sofrer consequ\u00eancias contratuais (como multas por atraso). Segundo a RP 29R-03, a acelera\u00e7\u00e3o construtiva geralmente exige a presen\u00e7a cumulativa de 6 elementos:<\/p>\n\n\n\n N\u00e3o \u00e9 necess\u00e1rio provar ordem expressa. Basta demonstrar a recusa indevida de prazo<\/strong> aliada \u00e0 exig\u00eancia de cumprimento do cronograma original.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A RP 29R-03 ainda identifica quatro grandes categorias de custos associados \u00e0 acelera\u00e7\u00e3o:[12]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Dentre esses, o custo de m\u00e3o de obra<\/strong> \u00e9, geralmente, o mais significativo. Como o escopo de trabalho costuma permanecer inalterado, o aumento de custos decorre de:[13]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Quanto maior a disrup\u00e7\u00e3o causada pela acelera\u00e7\u00e3o, maior o dano indeniz\u00e1vel.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 5. Mitiga\u00e7\u00e3o de atraso (delay mitigation)[14]<\/strong><\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n A mitiga\u00e7\u00e3o de atraso consiste em esfor\u00e7os do contratado ou do dono da obra para reduzir os efeitos de atrasos j\u00e1 ocorridos ou previstos, normalmente sem impacto material no escopo, custo ou qualidade do projeto. Exemplos comuns:<\/p>\n\n\n\n A mitiga\u00e7\u00e3o de atraso \u00e9, em regra, n\u00e3o compens\u00e1vel. A RP 29R-03 entende que a mitiga\u00e7\u00e3o faz parte da gest\u00e3o eficiente do contrato; seus custos s\u00e3o m\u00ednimos ou inexistentes; e quando existentes, integram os custos normais de administra\u00e7\u00e3o do projeto. Assim, n\u00e3o h\u00e1 direito a reembolso, salvo se a mitiga\u00e7\u00e3o evoluir para uma situa\u00e7\u00e3o de acelera\u00e7\u00e3o (determinada ou construtiva).<\/p>\n\n\n\n [1]<\/a> AACE International, Recommended Practice No. 29R-03: Forensic Schedule Analysis<\/em>, 2011, p. 123.<\/p>\n\n\n\n [2]<\/a> \u201cIn 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 \u2013 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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 (\u2026)\u201d (AACE International, Recommended Practice No. 29R-03: Forensic Schedule Analysis<\/em>, 2011, p. 124).<\/p>\n\n\n\n [3]<\/a> \u201cDirected Acceleration: Formal instruction by the owner<\/strong> 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\u201d (AACE International, Recommended Practice No. 29R-03: Forensic Schedule Analysis<\/em>, 2011, p. 123, destacou-se).<\/p>\n\n\n\n [4]<\/a> \u201cDirected acceleration is always compensable to the contractor<\/strong>, 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<\/strong>. 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.\u201d (AACE International, Recommended Practice No. 29R-03: Forensic Schedule Analysis<\/em>, 2011, p. 125, destacou-se).<\/p>\n\n\n\n [5]<\/a> \u201cConstructive Acceleration: (1) A contractor\u2019s acceleration efforts to maintain scheduled completion date(s) undertaken as a result of an owner\u2019s action or inaction and failure to make a specific direction to accelerate; (2) Constructive acceleration generally<\/strong> 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<\/strong>. (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<\/strong>. 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.<\/strong> (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\u2019s denial of a valid request for an EOT or by the employer\u2019s late granting of an EOT<\/strong>. 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<\/strong>\u201d (AACE International, Recommended Practice No. 29R-03: Forensic Schedule Analysis<\/em>, 2011, p. 123, destacou-se).<\/p>\n\n\n\n [6]<\/a> \u201cC. Elements of Constructive Acceleration<\/p>\n\n\n\n 1. Contractor Entitlement to an Excusable Delay<\/p>\n\n\n\n The contractor must establish entitlement to an excusable delay<\/strong>. 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\u201d (AACE International, Recommended Practice No. 29R-03: Forensic Schedule Analysis<\/em>, 2011, pp. 125 e 126, destacou-se).<\/p>\n\n\n\n [7]<\/a> \u201cC. Elements of Constructive Acceleration<\/p>\n\n\n\n [\u2026] 2. Contractor Requests and Establishes Entitlement to a Time Extension<\/p>\n\n\n\n The contractor must ask for a time extension associated with the owner\u2019s action or the force majeure event<\/strong>. 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\u2019s 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 \u201cestablished\u201d 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\u201d (AACE International, Recommended Practice No. 29R-03: Forensic Schedule Analysis<\/em>, 2011, p. 126, destacou-se).<\/p>\n\n\n\n [8]<\/a> \u201cC. Elements of Constructive Acceleration<\/p>\n\n\n\n [\u2026] 3. Owner Failure to Grant a Timely Time Extension<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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\u2019s decision not to grant a time extension where the contractor has shown entitlement must be unreasonable\u201d (AACE International, Recommended Practice No. 29R-03: Forensic Schedule Analysis<\/em>, 2011, p. 126).<\/p>\n\n\n\n [9]<\/a> \u201cC. Elements of Constructive Acceleration<\/p>\n\n\n\n [\u2026] 4. Implied Order by the Owner to Complete More Quickly<\/p>\n\n\n\n The owner must also, by implication or direction, require the contractor to accelerate<\/strong>. There are several different factual alternatives possible. First, a simple denial of a legitimate time extension, by implication, requires timely completion and thus acceleration.<\/strong> 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<\/strong>. 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\u2019s 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<\/strong>. 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\u2019s failure to timely decide, functions as a denial\u201d (AACE International, Recommended Practice No. 29R-03: Forensic Schedule Analysis<\/em>, 2011, p. 126, destacou-se).<\/p>\n\n\n\n [10]<\/a> \u201cC. Elements of Constructive Acceleration<\/p>\n\n\n\n [\u2026] 5. Contractor Notice of Acceleration<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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. <\/strong>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\u201d (AACE International, Recommended Practice No. 29R-03: Forensic Schedule Analysis<\/em>, 2011, pp. 126 e 127, destacou-se).<\/p>\n\n\n\n [11]<\/a> \u201cC. Elements of Constructive Acceleration<\/p>\n\n\n\n [\u2026] 6. Proof of Damages<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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<\/strong>. A valid contractor effort to accelerate, supported by contemporaneous records, is sufficient to establish constructive <\/strong>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\u201d (AACE International, Recommended Practice No. 29R-03: Forensic Schedule Analysis<\/em>, 2011, p. 127, destacou-se).<\/p>\n\n\n\n [12]<\/a> \u201cA contractor\u2019s 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\u201d (AACE International, Recommended Practice No. 29R-03: Forensic Schedule Analysis<\/em>, 2011, p. 125).<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n\n\n\n