McDONOUGH BOLYARD PECKCONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING

SUCCESSFUL STRATEGIESFOR SCHEDULING PROJECTS

TO FINISH ON TIME

Presented by

Christopher J. Payne, PE, CCM

McDonough Bolyard Peck

2

• Projects are frequently late

• Delays are contentious

• Schedules are contentious– Not used properly– Difficult to manage

BACKDROP

3

• CPM is the best tool out there

• Highly defined requirements will encourage contractor compliance

• Schedules don’t build jobs, people do

WHAT WE ALL KNOW …or think we know

4

How do we use the schedule successfully to ensure the project is completed on time?

So…

5

• Specifications

• Building the Schedule– Partnering– Sub Buy-in– Cost Loading– Resource Loading

• Updating the Schedule

• Resolving Problems with the Schedule

AGENDA

6

Building the Schedule

7

BUILDING THE SCHEDULE

UNLESS…– Specifications have too many rules

WHAT WORKS– Clear Specifications

8

• Good– Activity Code Structure– Maximum durations– How time will be extended– Use for Payment

• Bad– Minimum activity requirements– Numbering rules– Restrictions on relationships– Onerous reports

BUILDING THE SCHEDULE

9

BUILDING THE SCHEDULE

UNLESS…– People don’t partner

WHAT WORKS– Partnering the Schedule

10

• Good– Jointly working on schedule– Making sure subs are present– Understanding philosophy of how job will be built– Making a complete schedule (all activities)

• Bad– Dictatorial review comments– Contractor creating a submittal to fulfill a

requirement– Pre-claim posturing– Mismatched subcontractor input

BUILDING THE SCHEDULE

11

• How to intelligently involve subs?– Subs not on board at beginning– G.C.’s practicing “mushroom” philosophy– G.C.’s running two schedules

• One Solution…– Keep schedule on the table at all meetings

with subs

CHALLENGE

12

BUILDING THE SCHEDULE

UNLESS…– It becomes an unwieldy mess

WHAT WORKS– Cost-loading the Schedule

13

CHALLENGE

How do you get the Schedule of Values to agree with the CPM? – Build together

– It takes work

– Don’t duplicate work

BUILDING THE SCHEDULE

14

BUILDING THE SCHEDULE

UNLESS…– The purpose isn’t clear

WHAT WORKS– Resource-loading the Schedule

15

• Good– Resource loading to identify manpower

needs, smooth peaks, corroborate with bid

• Bad– Hard to get real data– Is it necessary to update?– Sub reluctance– Use as a weapon

BUILDING THE SCHEDULE

16

Updating the Schedule

17

UNLESS…– Still waiting for/arguing over baseline– Schedule is unwieldy/lack of contractor help

in updating

UPDATING THE SCHEDULE

WHAT WORKS– Update at the date of the pay requisition

18

• Accurate Updates– Get into a rhythm

– Have a substantive but informal review meeting

– Agree on progress first, acknowledge status

– Understand implications and deal with later

– Two-part process

STRATEGIES

19

Resolving Problems with the Schedule

20

• Delay is inevitable.

• Disagreement is inevitable.

• Communication and resolution are

not inevitable.

OBSERVATIONS

21

UNLESS…– Process gets behind

– Process is unwieldy

– Disagreement over impacts

RESOLVING PROBLEMS WITH THE SCHEDULE

WHAT WORKS– Time Impact Analysis

22

• Develop fragnet of impact

• Run schedule before impact

• Run schedule with impact

PITFALLS– Too many changes

– Requires time to develop

– How to address an ongoing change

TIME IMPACT ANALYSIS APPROACH

23

• Can you agree on an impact without agreeing on entitlement?

• Forward-looking mindset vs.

backward-looking

• Typical scenario may take 2-3 months to resolve…what to do about project in the meantime?

TIME IMPACT PITFALLS – DISCUSSION

24

TYPICAL SCENARIO

TIA 1

TIA 2

DELAY

…Owner worried

about this…

TIME

$

…

…but not ready to

agree on this

DD

PLANPROJECTION

25

• Acknowledge Delay Quickly

• Do TIA’s but pick milestones to cut off analysis and assess globally

• Tolerate negative float (for a while)

• Continue to insist on performance

• Allow (but discuss) minor logic changes

TIME IMPACT STRATEGIES

26

Two-year project, $40 million• Baseline schedule submitted 4 weeks after NTP• Owner comments 7 weeks after NTP• Resubmit 10 weeks after NTP• Approval 12 weeks after NTP

1st update 14 weeks after NTP, shows

project 6 weeks behind

SAMPLE SITUATION

27

Contractor’s narrative:– We were delayed by bad weather, late

approval of drilling plan, late availability of east access.

– We anticipate recovering time by working six-day drilling schedule and in later work.

SAMPLE SITUATION

28

What should Owner do?1. Schedule unacceptable. All delays are

contractor’s. Resubmit with recovery plan.

2. Acknowledge receipt of schedule, but do nothing else.

3. Dialogue, discussion, concession, analysis…

EXAMPLE

29

Outcome No. 1:

– Contractor disagrees, asserts right to file a

claim, brings up constructive acceleration…

– Schedule is now a “claims football”…but is no

longer useful as a communication tool on the

project.

EXAMPLE

30

Outcome No. 2:

– Contractor submits the next update, now nine

weeks late. Cites more vague causes of

delay…

– Claims are brewing…– Job tracking late…

EXAMPLE

31

Outcome No. 3:

– Grant 5-day EOT for late pile approval.

– Pay limited acceleration cost to overcome

delay.

– Cite lack of progress on other paths.

– Job in good shape going forward.

EXAMPLE

32

• Schedule is a necessary tool too often overlooked.

• Cost implications are huge.

• Proper use of tool limits intimidation

and ignorance.

SUMMARY

33

Schedule should be a communication tool, not a communication barrier

SUMMARY