Offer by a tenderer to complete early

Atenderer may state in his offer that his prices are dependent on being permitted to complete the works in a shorter time than the period for completion stated in the contract documents. This offer must be looked at with care because it implies that other separate contracts the employer may have let for supply of plant to be incorporated in the works must be speeded up also. Similarly any nominated sub-contractors must deliver earlier, and the engineer must be able to provide all outstanding design details according to the shorter programme. It is, of course, a benefit to an employer to have his works completed earlier: it can reduce his capital borrowing charges and enable him to gain an income from the works output earlier – though he must be able to accelerate his payments to the contractor.
The question that arises, however, is whether the contractor’s shorter time period
should be substituted for the period for completion stated in the contract.
It is true that speedy construction can maximize a contractor’s profit or permit him to offer a lower price, but this need not be his only motive. A contractor may say he can complete a project 3 months early if he suspects the job is so liable to delay by other contractors, nominated sub-contractors, extras, incompleteness of designs or unforeseen conditions, that he runs little risk of having to abide by his promise and indeed may be able to claim extra payment for any delay caused to him.
Therefore adoption of the contractor’s time as the contract period for completion needs careful consideration and the position must be resolved clearly before award of the contract. The contractor might have second thoughts about his offer because he would become liable to liquidated damages if he did not complete in the time he offered.