Dealing With A Schedule That Cannot Be Approved - AACE 2012 Meeting

1,295 views
1,153 views

Published on

Ideally all projects would have schedules submitted and approved, but sometimes the quality of the schedule prevents approval. This presentation suggests ways to deal with this situation, as well as ways to encourage approvable schedules.

0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,295
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
56
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
110
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Dealing With A Schedule That Cannot Be Approved - AACE 2012 Meeting

  1. 1. Dealing with Schedules That  Cannot be Approved Chris Carson, PSP, CCM, PMPCorporate Director of Project Controls, Alpha Corporation Chris.carson@alphacorporation.com 757-342-5524 1
  2. 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 controlsSomething you do not know about me: I’m Irish-American so I’ve likely told everything to everyone (my wife can vouch) 2
  3. 3. 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
  4. 4. • 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
  5. 5. • 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. 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 6
  7. 7. • 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. 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 8
  9. 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) 9
  10. 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 10
  11. 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 11
  12. 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 12
  13. 13. • Feedback from preliminary schedule 13
  14. 14. • Risk Workshop – jointly with Owner and Contractor 14
  15. 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 15
  16. 16. • List of discrepancies – clear, succinct 16
  17. 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 17
  18. 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 18
  19. 19. DSAB Prepared in a Forensic Mode• Daily Specific As‐Built in As‐Planned vs. As‐Built Schedule Analysis » Cost Engineering Vol. 50/No. 3 March 2008 By Svetlana Lyasko 19
  20. 20. AB Forensic Schedule Development• Retrospective As‐Built Schedule Development – 2005 AACE International Transactions CDR.12 by Dr. Anamaria Popescu and Andrew Avalon 20
  21. 21. DSAB Performed during Project • Daily Specific As‐Built schedule development – Significantly easier than in forensic application 21
  22. 22. DSAB Procedure• DSAB development – capture daily data into spreadsheet  – Each line item is a 1 day resource 22
  23. 23. DSAB Procedure • DSAB – identify field data for each line item, align with schedule  • These “activity codes” allow for filtering, sorting 23
  24. 24. DSAB Procedure• DSAB – develop all data for codes, then import into schedule 24
  25. 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 25
  26. 26. Resource Analysis – Compare Plan/Actual • Resource analysis 26
  27. 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 27
  28. 28. As‐Built Longest Path • As‐Built Longest Path (ABLP) presentation 2004 2005 2006 Location Work Description A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D Mobilization SBW 5 Clearing and Grubbing Demolition, Asphalt Placement, Erosion SBW 4 and Sediment Control 38 CD B603 Electrical Conduit, Demolition Demolition, Formwork, Rebar, Deck 13 CD B601 Concrete Placement 19 CD Formwork, Rebar, Deck Concrete B602 Placement 37 CD Formwork, Rebar, Footer & Wingwall Placement, Precast Concrete Wall 99 CD SBW 5 Erection, Asphalt Placement, Guardrail 90 CD Installation SBW 6 Precast Concrete Wall Erection 361 CD Electrical, Clearing & Grubbing, SBW 5 Excavation & Backfill 20 CD Excavation & Backfill, Asphalt Placement, SBW 6 Guardrail Installation 11 CD B602 Concrete decks, Curb and Gutter 39 CD B601 Demolition, Demobilization 3 CD Concrete sidewalk placement, Demolition, 4 CD B603 Demobilization 27 CD 28
  29. 29. Cumulative Delay Discussion• Schedule Log to generate cumulative delay chart Chron Activity Critical Update Window Project Duration Remain. Time File Name Start Date Data Date Early Finish Cum Delay Notes Order Count Activities Size (cd) (cd) (cd) 6-Jul-09 15-Apr-09 15-Apr-09 26-Jul-10 578 29 0 N/A 467 467 baseline DC 2003 580 83 0 N/A 6-Jul-09 15-Apr-09 15-Apr-09 26-Jul-10 467 467 revised baseline DC Hodges 03 578 61 92 16-Jul-08 15-Apr-09 16-Jul-09 10-Aug-10 10 482 390 Revised baseline (Zero Progress) 9-Mar-09 50 0 N/A 15-Apr-09 15-Apr-09 26-Jul-10 571 467 467 Baseline Revisions DC 03 50 0 N/A 1 15-Apr-09 15-Apr-09 15-Apr-09 26-Jul-10 571 467 467 Baseline Final #VALUE! 16 DESIGN 15-Apr-09 1-May-09 N/A 8 8 #VALUE! Design Issues Schedule 19-Oct-09 19-Oct-09 29-Sep-10 112 65 171 2 15-Apr-09 571 532 345 Update October 19, 2009 4-Dec-09 4-Dec-09 91 46 3 15-Apr-09 25-Oct-10 571 133 558 325 Update December 04, 2009 4-Dec-09 15-Apr-09 4-Dec-09 9-Dec-10 571 221 136 0 603 370 Update December 04, 2009, with Glenwood 3 21-Jan-10 21-Jan-10 15-Dec-10 212 142 48 4 15-Apr-09 571 609 328 January Update 2010 154 41 5 3-Mar-10 15-Apr-09 3-Mar-10 27-Dec-10 571 213 621 299 February Update 2010 154 77 6 19-May-10 15-Apr-09 19-May-10 27-Dec-10 571 127 621 222 May update 2010 133 44 7 2-Jul-10 15-Apr-09 2-Jul-10 6-Dec-10 571 134 600 157 June Update 2010 144 26 8 28-Jul-10 15-Apr-09 28-Jul-10 17-Dec-10 571 185 611 142 July Update 2010 172 0 IT 15-Apr-09 28-Jul-10 14-Jan-11 577 185 639 170 IT Claim with July Update 199 65 9 1-Oct-10 15-Apr-09 1-Oct-10 10-Feb-11 571 113 534 266 September Update 2010 227 2 TANK 15-Apr-09 3-Oct-10 10-Mar-11 576 114 694 158 Day Tank Claim with Sept Update 213 31 10 3-Nov-10 15-Apr-09 3-Nov-10 24-Feb-11 571 82 680 113 October Update 2010 219 37 11 10-Dec-10 15-Apr-09 10-Dec-10 2-Mar-11 571 62 686 82 November Update 2010 210 67 12 15-Feb-11 15-Apr-09 15-Feb-11 21-Feb-11 571 18 677 6 January Update 2011 256 31 15-Apr-09 571 723 21 13 18-Mar-11 18-Mar-11 8-Apr-11 6 295 39 29 February Update 2011 14 26-Apr-11 15-Apr-09 26-Apr-11 17-May-11 571 6 762 21 March/April Update 2011
  30. 30. Cumulative Delay Discussion• Chart Cumulative Delays directly from Schedule Log 30
  31. 31. Cumulative Delay Discussion• Chart Cumulative Delays – Overlay known delay event timeframes 31
  32. 32. Cumulative Delay Discussion• Chart Cumulative Delays – Label known delay timeframes 32
  33. 33. Cumulative Delay Discussion• Chart Cumulative Delays Period of possible concurrent submittal problems 33
  34. 34. 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
  35. 35. Cumulative Delay Discussion• Chart Cumulative Delays – Identify specific delay  or acceleration  concerns No overall delay due to IT design 35
  36. 36. Cumulative Delay Discussion• Chart Cumulative Delays – Identify specific delay or acceleration  concerns Period of possible concurrent production problems 36
  37. 37. Cumulative Delay Discussion• Annotate Cumulative Delays Period of possible concurrent production problems No overall delay due to IT design Period of possible concurrent submittal problems Shows two schedules with same data date & different EF dates 37
  38. 38. Cumulative Delay Discussion • Annotated Cumulative Delay Chart 38
  39. 39. Actual/Original Duration • TPR ‐ Time Performance Ratio – AD/OD – Shows performance slips 39
  40. 40. TPR/Resource Analysis • Show Activity Duration impact on delays 40
  41. 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 41
  42. 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 42
  43. 43. As‐Planned • Show As‐Planned differences 43
  44. 44. Present Resource Plan • Planned Resource Histogram 44
  45. 45. Present Resource Plan • Resources – Daily Plan 45
  46. 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 46
  47. 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 47
  48. 48. Dealing with Schedules That Cannot be Approved Questions? Comments? Chris Carson, PSP, CCM, PMP Corporate Director of Project Controls, Alpha Corporation Chris.carson@alphacorporation.com 757-342-5524 48
  49. 49. Separator Page 49

×