Chris Carson, PSP, CCM, PMPCorporate Director of Project Controls, Alpha Corporation

Chris.carson@alphacorporation.com757-342-5524

Dealing with Schedules That Cannot be Approved

1

2

Chris CarsonCorporate Director of Project Controls, Alpha Corporation

• Responsible for standards, processes, and procedures for a team of schedulers, analysts, and project managers in multiple office locations, as well as analysis, work product, testimony, and marketing

• Developed and manages the in-house project controls training program at Alpha

• Certifications: PSP, CCM, PMP• University: University of Virginia, Mechanical Engineering, 1968-1972• Professional Field: 38 years of experience in Construction Management Services

specializing in Scheduling, Schedule Analysis, Estimating, Claims• Active in AACE (Association for the Advancement of Cost Estimating International)

• Author & reviewer of Recommended Practices in Scheduling & Forensic Schedule Analysis RP• Active in PMI (Project Management Institute) Scheduling Community of Practice

• Managing Director for SEI (Scheduling Excellence Initiative) writing Best Practices and Guidelines for Scheduling and Schedule Impact Analysis

• Active in CMAA (Construction Management Association of America)• Served on committee revising Time Management Chapter • Chosen as one of National CCM Trainers

• Active in Planning Planet & the International Guild of Project Controls• Chief Editor for US, developing accreditations for project controls

Something you do not know about me: I’m Irish-American so I’ve likely told everything to everyone (my wife can vouch)

Unapprovable Schedules

• It is in best interests of the project to get an approvable schedule in place early

• Necessary for:– Planning– Management– Analysis– Documentation

• As‐planned portion must model Contractor’s means and methods

• As‐built portion must accurately represent history• Schedule should represent reasonable approach for all 

tasks that could affect the project

3

• If schedule does not support these goals, likely does not meet industry practices

• Owner will likely be taking on risks from the schedule• Schedule Review

– Process designed to improve quality of schedule– Protects Owner from illegitimate EoT requests– Protects Contractor by “proving” entitlement to EoT– But be reasonable!

4

• Too many projects start without approved schedules– Increases risks to Owner and Contractor– However, if risks of approval are greater than risks of 

rejection, rejection is better option• This session should: 

– Offer suggestions as to ways to increase ability to approve schedules

– Provide guidance for what to do if schedule cannot be approved

5

6

• Outline– Risks of approval of “bad” schedule– Reasons why schedules cannot be approved– Suggestions for scheduling requirements to increase ability 

to approve schedule– Project controls actions when schedules cannot be 

approved– General project actions that can be taken to increase 

opportunities to approve schedules– General industry actions that can be taken to increase 

opportunities to approve schedules

• Risks of approval of “bad” schedule

– Owner• Opportunities for claims positioning from manipulation• Reduced ability to analyze delay • Reduced ability to predict completion• Could commit Owner to high resource need for submittals and 

paperwork• Poor logic makes Total float values less meaningful• Increased chances that trades and spaces will overload near end of 

project– Risk of delay and disruption– Risk of reduced quality (Dick Faris – Q x S = T x C)

7

8

• Risks of approval of “bad” schedule

– Contractor• No approved basis from which to measure delays• Owner has not accepted Owner‐responsible work integration into the 

schedule• inability to prove Owner caused delays or disruption• Planning is probably not sufficient• Subcontractor input probably not sufficient• Total Float values not legitimate or useful

– No early warning of problems– No ability to correct course before wasting money

9

• Reasons why baseline or as‐planned schedules cannot be approved– Incomplete schedule– Poor modeling of scope and plan– Misalignment between schedule and narrative (plan not 

evident in schedule)– Missing narrative– Missing scope of work– Uneven development of trade scope– Inappropriate Critical Paths– Problems with logic relationships– Failure to plan for resources– Schedule component problems (lags, constraints, calendars, 

dangling or open activities, cost loading)

10

• Reasons why update schedules cannot be approved– Poor continuing modeling of scope and plan– Unexplained revisions– Missing narrative (to explain revisions)– Out of sequence work (affecting Critical Path)– Inappropriate Critical Paths– Addition of delay events not approved by Owner– Inaccurate as‐built data– Inadequate resource planning– Cost loading errors

11

• Suggestions for scheduling requirements to increase ability to approve schedule– Require bid or tender schedule to qualify for award– Time for planning – Contract should precede NTP– Specify scheduler requirements (PSP, experience)– Use two stage schedule submission

• Preliminary or Initial – short interim planning• Detailed or Initial – full schedule

– Clarification of level of detail requirements– Elaboration of written narrative requirement– Requirement for crew resource loading– Higher retainage costs for submission of approvable 

schedule

12

• Suggestions for scheduling meetings to increase ability to approve schedule:– Preliminary schedule review feedback– Risk workshop– Scheduling planning presentation meeting– Presentation of Time Impact Analyses for EoTs– Presentation of disputed issue analyses

13

• Feedback from preliminary schedule

14

• Risk Workshop – jointly with Owner and Contractor

15

• Project controls actions when schedules cannot be approved– Identification of major discrepancies– Careful documentation of all discrepancies

• Point out reason for discrepancies• Summarized list

– Separate impacts absorbed into the schedule/project from those that are not• Absorbed impacts require a forensic analysis• Impacts not yet absorbed require a Prospective TIA

16

• List of discrepancies – clear, succinct

17

• Project controls actions when schedules cannot be approved– Project requires a much higher level of documentation of 

as‐built data• Daily recordkeeping is necessary

– Deal with as‐built portion of the schedule separately from as‐planned• Similar to impact analysis

– As‐built has absorbed delays– As‐planned has not absorbed delays

18

• As‐Built Documentation– When schedule discrepancies are severe, develop 

Daily Specific As‐Built (DSAB) Schedule to document actual conditions

– Document actual resources, ideally crews/equipment– Perform resource analysis to validate what drove 

schedule performance– Perform identification of As‐Built Longest Path (or 

ABCP as noted in AACE International’s FSA RP)– Maintain cumulative delay chart from revised 

schedules, annotate delay chart with impacts/low productivity – Schedule Log (RP upcoming)

– Capture Time Performance Ratio or Missed S/F

• Daily Specific As‐Built in As‐Planned vs. As‐Built Schedule Analysis» Cost Engineering Vol. 50/No. 3 March 2008 By Svetlana Lyasko

DSAB Prepared in a Forensic Mode

19

• Retrospective As‐Built Schedule Development– 2005 AACE International Transactions CDR.12 by Dr. Anamaria Popescu and Andrew Avalon

AB Forensic Schedule Development

20

21

DSAB Performed during Project• Daily Specific As‐Built schedule development

– Significantly easier than in forensic application

22

DSAB Procedure• DSAB development – capture daily data into spreadsheet 

– Each line item is a 1 day resource

23

DSAB Procedure

• DSAB – identify field data for each line item, align with schedule • These “activity codes” allow for filtering, sorting

24

DSAB Procedure

• DSAB – develop all data for codes, then import into schedule

25

Actual Resource Collection – by Crews

• Resource collection by crews – Show planned crew loads (from contractor’s schedules to make a point)– Collect count of actual crews

26

Resource Analysis – Compare Plan/Actual

• Resource analysis

27

Identify ABLP for Negotiations

• Presentation of ABLP analysis – alone or as AP vs. AB– Use resource analysis to help establish ABLP– Use ABLP to confirm validity of corrected schedules

2004 2005 2006

Mobilization

SBW 5 Clearing and Grubbing

SBW 4 Demolition, Asphalt Placement, Erosion and Sediment Control

B603 Electrical Conduit, Demolition

B601 Demolition, Formwork, Rebar, Deck Concrete Placement

B602 Formwork, Rebar, Deck Concrete Placement

SBW 5

Formwork, Rebar, Footer & Wingwall Placement, Precast Concrete Wall Erection, Asphalt Placement, Guardrail Installation

SBW 6 Precast Concrete Wall Erection

SBW 5 Electrical, Clearing & Grubbing, Excavation & Backfill

SBW 6 Excavation & Backfill, Asphalt Placement, Guardrail Installation

B602 Concrete decks, Curb and Gutter

B601 Demolition, Demobilization

B603 Concrete sidewalk placement, Demolition, Demobilization

Work DescriptionLocation J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D A M J J A S O N D

As‐Built Longest Path

38 CD13 CD19 CD

37 CD99 CD

90 CD

361 CD20 CD

11 CD

3 CD4 CD

39 CD

27 CD

• As‐Built Longest Path (ABLP) presentation

28

Cumulative Delay Discussion

• Schedule Log to generate cumulative delay chart

29

Chron Order File Name Start Date Data Date Early Finish Activity

CountCritical

Activities Cum Delay Update Window Size (cd)

Project Duration (cd)

Remain. Time (cd) Notes

6-Jul-09 15-Apr-09 15-Apr-09 26-Jul-10 578 29 0 N/A 467 467 baseline DC 2003

6-Jul-09 15-Apr-09 15-Apr-09 26-Jul-10 580 83 0 N/A 467 467 revised baseline DC Hodges 03

16-Jul-08 15-Apr-09 16-Jul-09 10-Aug-10 578 61 10 92 482 390 Revised baseline (Zero Progress)

9-Mar-09 15-Apr-09 15-Apr-09 26-Jul-10 571 50 0 N/A 467 467 Baseline Revisions DC 03

1 15-Apr-09 15-Apr-09 15-Apr-09 26-Jul-10 571 50 0 N/A 467 467 Baseline Final

DESIGN 15-Apr-09 1-May-09 N/A 8 8#VALUE! 16 #VALUE! Design Issues Schedule

219-Oct-09 15-Apr-09 19-Oct-09 29-Sep-10 571 112 65 171 532 345 Update October 19, 2009

34-Dec-09 15-Apr-09 4-Dec-09

25-Oct-10 571 13391 46 558 325 Update December 04, 2009

34-Dec-09 15-Apr-09 4-Dec-09 9-Dec-10 571 221 136 0 603 370 Update December 04, 2009, with Glenwood

421-Jan-10 15-Apr-09 21-Jan-10 15-Dec-10 571 212 142 48 609 328 January Update 2010

5 3-Mar-10 15-Apr-09 3-Mar-10 27-Dec-10 571 213154 41 621 299 February Update 2010

6 19-May-10 15-Apr-09 19-May-10 27-Dec-10 571 127154 77 621 222 May update 2010

7 2-Jul-10 15-Apr-09 2-Jul-10 6-Dec-10 571 134133 44 600 157 June Update 2010

8 28-Jul-10 15-Apr-09 28-Jul-10 17-Dec-10 571 185144 26 611 142 July Update 2010

IT 15-Apr-09 28-Jul-10 14-Jan-11 577 185172 0 639 170 IT Claim with July Update

9 1-Oct-10 15-Apr-09 1-Oct-10 10-Feb-11 571 113199 65 534 266 September Update 2010

TANK 15-Apr-09 3-Oct-10 10-Mar-11 576 114227 2 694 158 Day Tank Claim with Sept Update

10 3-Nov-10 15-Apr-09 3-Nov-10 24-Feb-11 571 82213 31 680 113 October Update 2010

11 10-Dec-10 15-Apr-09 10-Dec-10 2-Mar-11 571 62219 37 686 82 November Update 2010

12 15-Feb-11 15-Apr-09 15-Feb-11 21-Feb-11 571 18210 67 677 6 January Update 2011

13 18-Mar-11 15-Apr-09 18-Mar-11 8-Apr-11 571 6256 31 723 21 February Update 2011

14 26-Apr-11 15-Apr-09 26-Apr-11 17-May-11 571 6295 39 762 21 March/April Update 2011

Cumulative Delay Discussion

• Chart Cumulative Delays directly from Schedule Log

30

Cumulative Delay Discussion

• Chart Cumulative Delays – Overlay known delay event timeframes

31

Cumulative Delay Discussion

• Chart Cumulative Delays – Label known delay timeframes

32

Cumulative Delay Discussion

• Chart Cumulative Delays

Period of possible concurrent submittal problems

33

Cumulative Delay Discussion

• Chart Cumulative Delays – Note any delays/production issues

Shows two schedules with same data date & different EF dates

Could be acceleration or mistake, but worthy of investigation during triage?

34

Cumulative Delay Discussion

• Chart Cumulative Delays – Identify specific delay  or acceleration concerns

No overall delay due to IT design

35

Cumulative Delay Discussion

• Chart Cumulative Delays – Identify specific delay or acceleration concerns

Period of possible concurrent production problems

36

Cumulative Delay Discussion

• Annotate Cumulative Delays

Shows two schedules with same data date & different EF dates

No overall delay due to IT design

Period of possible concurrent submittal problems

Period of possible concurrent production problems

37

38

Cumulative Delay Discussion

• Annotated Cumulative Delay Chart

39

Actual/Original Duration

• TPR ‐ Time Performance Ratio – AD/OD

– Shows performance slips

40

TPR/Resource Analysis

• Show Activity Duration impact on delays

41

As‐Built 

• As‐Built documentation

– This provides solid documentation of what happened

– Collected from project records – validated– Documented in form for use in meeting with contractor

• Next step – As‐Planned documentation

42

As‐Planned

• As‐Planned documentation– Create separate set of schedules incorporating revisions to 

correct discrepancies• Document how discrepancies are incorporated

– Identify analysis differences between submitted schedules and revised schedules

– Analyze resource (crew) needs for next period work• Review for reasonableness (compare to actual)

– Compare that ASLP/CP to the previous period revised analysis, record differences, and analyze

– Generally it should align fairly well – while the contractor’s schedule will not

– Meet with Contractor – present results of ABLP/CP, resource analysis• Intent is to show how revised analysis (incorporating discrepancy revisions aligns with actual project data in DSAB/ABLP

43

As‐Planned

• Show As‐Planned differences

44

Present Resource Plan

• Planned Resource Histogram

45

Present Resource Plan

• Resources – Daily Plan

46

Conclusions

• These steps will put the Owner in a strong position even without approvable schedules

• The goal is to use the data to meet with the Contractor

– Convince them to cooperate and fix schedules

– Convince them that documentation rebut loose/inaccurate claims

– Convince them that the Owner’s analysis process is accurate and convincing

• Ideally this process will influence the Contractor to raise the quality of their schedules

• Bingo; approvable schedules

47

Other Opportunities

• General industry actions that can be taken to increase opportunities to approve schedules– Providing free training in the industry to improve the quality 

of schedules– Refer contractors to quality scheduling consultants– Industry involvement to define and raise the level of good 

practices for scheduling– Helping the Owner to develop a schedule‐driven culture

– Conference participation:• ConstructionCPM• AACE International• PMI SCoP• CMAA

Chris Carson, PSP, CCM, PMPCorporate Director of Project Controls, Alpha Corporation

Chris.carson@alphacorporation.com757-342-5524

Dealing with Schedules That Cannot be Approved

48

Questions? Comments?

49

Separator Page