BIMRoadmap Session 2 Finith

GLOBAL CONSTRUCTION PRACTICE
CONSTRUCTION
SCHEDULING GAMES –
REVISITED
Session 1
March 2, 2011
Amanda Amadon
Steve Pitaniello
Jim Zack
The Presenters
¾ Amanda Amadon
Associate Director, Navigant
Consulting, Inc.
Coral Gables, Florida
BS, Civil Engineering
Experienced in scheduling, delay
analysis, acceleration, damages &
lost productivity
Worked for owners, contractors,
subcontractors & legal counsel
Projects include buildings, highways, power plants,
radio transmission systems & spent nuclear fuel
facilities
PMP
© Navigant Consulting, Inc. - 2011 2
The Presenters
¾ Stephen Pitaniello
Managing Director, Navigant
Consulting, Inc.
New York & Fairfield, CT
BS, Mechanical Engineering & MS,
Systems Management
Experienced in design, CM, estimating, contract
administration & inspection, delay,
productivity analysis & damages
Worked for owners, design professionals, contractors,
Projects include airports, highway & bridges, sport complexes,
railway, schools & universities
PE (California & Connecticut) & CFCC

The Presenters
¾ James G. Zack, Jr.
Executive Director, Navigant
Construction Forum
9 “The construction industry’s premier resource
for thought leadership and best practices on
avoidance and resolution of construction project
disputes globally”
Nearly 40 years experience in construction
management & dispute analysis & resolution
Involved in more than 5,000 claims throughout U.S., Canada,
Egypt, China, Germany, Kazakhstan, Saudi Arabia, The
Russian Federation & Trinidad & Tobago
Fellow of AACE International & Royal Institution of Chartered
Surveyors
CCM, CFCC & PMP
Introduction to “Revisited Paper”
¾ Original article – 1990
4 page, bullet point memorandum to firm’s CM staff
¾ Published as “Scheduling Games People Play
and Some Suggested Remedies” – 1991
AACE International annual transactions – 18 pages
¾ Published again “Construction Scheduling
Games & Ways to Winʺ – 1995
CMAA annual meeting – 25 pages
¾ It’s time to bring paper into 21st Century!

Introduction to Original Paper
¾ Purpose of construction scheduling
Ensure adequate planning
List all activities required
Apply logic to activities
Assist in coordination between owner, contractor,
subcontractors, suppliers, outside agencies, etc.
Forecast time required to complete
¾ Frequent use of construction schedules
Changes
Claims

Contractors Perform Scheduling
¾ Because it is
Contract requirement
“Condition precedent” to monthly payment
¾ Scheduling to some contractors
Not a project management tool
Not a coordination tool
Not a project control tool
¾ Tool to assist with recovery when seeking
change orders or making claims

Construction Schedule “Risk”
¾ Owners assume risk when require, receive &
review contractor schedules
“Accepted” or “Approved” schedules take on legal
status
Schedule may help document claims & damages
against owner
¾ Some owners contend
Schedules are construction industry’s version of self
incrimination

Construction Schedule “Risk”
¾ Risk of not requiring project schedules?
Little or no planning
No way to measure progress (physical progress vs. time
elapsed)
No way to check on or affect coordination
9 2010 Chartered Institute of Building (CIOB) study concluded
only 14% of U.K. contractors had fully linked CPM schedules
& 54% used only bar charts
9 Australian study concluded only 10% used CPM schedules
¾ Conclusion
Risk of not requiring schedules far outweighs risk of
requiring, reviewing & accepting schedules

Common Scheduling Games & Defenses
¾ Common Scheduling Games
Played with routine frequency
Owners need to guard against schedule gamesmanship
Some games derive from more sophisticated software
¾ Suggested Defenses
First, owners need to plan for such situations
Why?
9 Some defenses must be written into specifications prior to
bidding
9 May require input from legal counsel
Other defense more pragmatic
9 Can be handled by owner & PM/CM if prepare in advance

GAMES & DEFENSES
BASELINE SCHEDULES

Game: Failure to Provide Schedule
¾ No schedule submitted at start of project
Occurs most often when no scheduling specification
Or, when contract reads “Contractor shall submit a
plan for constructing the work.”
¾ Owner unable to detect & demonstrate
contractor’s failure to plan, coordinate & manage
work properly
¾ No project schedule at outset leaves contractor
(& claims consultant) free to build as‐planned
vs. as‐built schedule to “prove” delay claim at
end of project

Defense: Detailed Scheduling Specification
¾ Contractors rarely volunteer to do anything
more than contract requires
Margins too thin
¾ During design, owner & design professional
should craft scheduling specification
Commensurate with how much control &
involvement owner wants
Align specification with size & complexity of project
Amount of time & cost spent will more than pay for
itself in proper planning & coordination during
construction

Defense: Mobilization Payment Based on Submittal &
Approval of Baseline Schedule
¾ Lack of schedules sometimes caused by lack of
financial incentive
Not a pay item
¾ Use Mobilization Payment to “entice” submittal
& approval of Baseline Schedule
Single Mobilization Payment – make contingent upon
submittal & approval of Baseline Schedule
Multiple Mobilization Payments –
9 1st payment – submittal of Baseline Schedule
9 2nd payment – approval of Baseline Schedule
9 3rd payment – submittal & approval of 1st schedule update

Defense: Scheduling Start at Notice of Award
¾ Project scheduling often started too late
Many specifications require schedule submittals within
“x” days after Notice to Proceed
¾ Time between Notice of Award & Notice to
Proceed often not used for planning &
scheduling
Contractors focus on buying out subs & material, etc.
¾ Tie schedule submittals to “x” days after Notice
of Award
Requires contractors to use time to plan & schedule

Defense: Milestone for Baseline Schedule Submittal &Approval
¾ Add contract milestone for Baseline Schedule
submittal & approval
Create financial incentive to perform scheduling
Reinforce with addition of liquidated damages for
failure to achieve milestone
¾ Alternative –Tie milestone to Notice to Proceed
Two step Notice to Proceed process
9 NTP 1 – Proceed with scheduling & mobilization
9 NTP 2 – Proceed with work
“Notice to Proceed with work will not be issued until
“x” days after Baseline Schedule submitted & approved”
¾ Submittal & review process must be clearly
defined in contract
Defense: Pre‐Construction Scheduling Conference
¾ Contractors may not understand importance of
scheduling to owner
¾ May not understand requirements of scheduling
specification
¾ Require Pre‐construction Scheduling
Conference “x” days after Notice of Award
Emphasize criticality of scheduling
Discuss details & requirements of scheduling
specification
¾ Require attendance of Project Manager &
Scheduler

Defense: Preliminary or 90 Day Schedule
¾ Specifications often require Baseline Schedule
within 30 – 45 days after Notice to Proceed
Too little time to develop good schedule
Most often leads to schedule rejection & resubmittal
Both owner & contractor frustrated
¾ Avoid problem
¾ Require schedule for first 90 days of work within
30 days after Notice of Award
Develop “short term” schedule promptly
Require Baseline Schedule within 45 days after 90 day
schedule submitted

Defense: No Work Started Until Baseline Schedule
Submittal
¾ Contractor wants to start work immediately
Eager to start project just won
Needs cash flow
¾ Contractors focus on work, not on scheduling
Especially true if very familiar with project work
“I know what needs to be done.”
¾ Better to delay start of work start to get a good
plan
¾ Require –
“No construction work will be started nor any progress
payments made until the Baseline Schedule is
submitted & approved.”

Game: Inadequate Scheduling
¾ If scheduling specification reads –
“Prior to start of construction Contractor shall submit a
proposed schedule for Engineer’s review.”
¾ Language invites inadequate scheduling
¾ Schedule provide little/no detail
12 line Gantt Chart (Bar Chart) for $20 million of work
¾ Object of game – confuse/hide time related
issues
Makes analysis of delay & impacts very difficult
Denies owner opportunity to perform detailed analysis
to ascertain cause, effect & responsibility for delay

Defense: Detailed Scheduling Specification
¾ Detailed specification defeats inadequate
scheduling
¾ Consider how much scheduling owner needs &
specify it
¾ Project considerations related to scheduling
Size
Duration
Complexity
Interface with other projects
¾ Keep in mind, capability of owner staff to
manage scheduling requirements
Defense: Minimum Number of Activities
¾ Symptom of inadequate scheduling
Too few activities in schedule
9 40 activities for $40 million project
Lacks sufficient detail to be useful
¾ Detailed scheduling specification can require
minimum number of activities
Influences level of schedule detail
Not interfere with “means & methods”
Increases understanding of contractor’s plan

Defense: Maximum Duration Requirement
¾ Specify maximum duration of onsite
construction activities
Exclude submittal, fabrication & delivery activities
¾ May specify
Calendar or work days
Any duration
9 Probably specify no more than reporting period
9 If require monthly schedule submittal, duration no more
than 30 cd’s or 20 wd’s
¾ Not interfere with “means & methods”
¾ Caution – Duration too short (i.e., 10 days)
Needlessly increase number of activities in schedule

Defense: Dedicated Scheduler
¾ Contractors often not employ “scheduler”
Frequently assign work to new Field Engineer
¾ Require dedicated project scheduler in
scheduling specification
Contractor will include cost in bid
Set reasonable minimum experience requirements
Require personal references from previous owners
9 Check references!
¾ Require removal if found incompetent
¾ Require scheduler attend project meetings
When discussing progress, delays, impacts, etc.

Defense: Contractor’s Project Management Involvement
¾ Lack of project management team involvement
in schedule development leads to inadequate
scheduling
Disconnect between schedule & team’s plan for
executing work
¾ Require project management team involvement
in & sign off on Baseline Schedule
Contractor must identify specific individual responsible
Discuss in Pre‐construction Scheduling Conference
¾ Should result in schedule that reflects plan to
construct the project

Defense: Owner’s Scheduler or Scheduling Consultant
¾ Inadequate scheduling also caused by lack of
scheduling expertise on owner’s side
Owner needs qualified scheduling staff – internal or
consultant
¾ Owner’s scheduling staff
Review for contract compliance
Review for adequacy
¾ Owner has shared responsibility for accurate &
adequate schedule
Owner’s responsibility does not stop with specification
issuance

Defense: Scheduling System Requirements
¾ Another reason for inadequate scheduling
Failure to provide appropriate scheduling software
¾ Scheduling specification may require
Specific scheduling software
Match that used by owner
Cost of system software in bid
¾ If owner & contractor use different software
accurate information exchange difficult
Leads to confusion & conflict
¾ Require computer system be located on site

Game: Submittal Review Time
¾ If contract reads –
“Owner will review submittals within reasonable
period of time so as not to delay work progress.”
Term “reasonable period of time” undefined
¾ Contractor may include insufficient submittal
review activity duration in Baseline Schedule
i.e., 5 days
¾ If Baseline Schedule accepted/approved,
“reasonable period of time” now defined!
¾ Any review taking longer sets stage for delay
claim

Defense: Minimum Submittal Review Time
¾ Specify minimum submittal review time
“Unless specified differently elsewhere in contract
documents the owner shall have 30 days from receipt of
submittal to review & respond.”
¾ May specify
Calendar or work days
5, 10, 15, 20 days, etc.
Different time for different submittals
¾ Cautions
If specify too much time, may adversely impact project
delivery
Some submittals (those requiring review by other agencies
or owners) may require much longer review times
9 Note these submittals & specify longer timeframes

Defense: Resubmittals – Same Review Time
¾ Specify – Resubmittals have the same review
time
“Clock starts over again” approach
¾ Equitable risk assignment
Contractor can manage risk by paying more attention
to quality of submittals
¾ Clarifies issue
Owner & engineer do not have single timeframe to
review submittal

Game: Failure to Show Submittal Reviews
¾ Baseline schedule shows no submittal review
activities despite contract requirement
¾ Contractor may assert that owner “waived”
submittal review requirements
¾ More likely, contractor gives notice of delay or
impact whenever submittal review “holds up”
scheduled construction or installation activities
Use ʺdelayed submittal reviewsʺ to justify cumulative
impact claim

Defense: Submittal Reviews in Schedule
¾ Specify all submittals, submittal reviews,
procurement/fabrication & deliveries included
in schedule as activities
Eliminates one line “Submittal & Procurement” activity
Realistic model of how project will actually proceed
¾ Require designer to provide master list of
submittals
Provide to contractor at Pre‐construction Scheduling
Conference

Defense: Submittal Schedule
¾ Require separate schedule for submittals &
submittal reviews
Check to see that all required submittals in schedule
Increases contractor awareness of submittals & when
required
¾ Helps owner & design professional plan own
resources
¾ Assists with project coordination
Review at weekly project meetings
¾ Not an onerous requirement
Not really a separate schedule
If code activities properly, this is breakout of schedule
Defense: Define WBS Code Structure
¾ Specialty schedules easily produced if WBS code
structure properly established at outset
¾ Require WBS code that identifies
Submittals & submittal reviews
Fabrication activities
Delivery activities
Installation activities
¾ Other WBS codes
Area
Trade or subcontractor work
Change order work
Etc.
Game: Delivery Dates for Owner Furnished Items
¾ Not uncommon for owners to provide long lead
items, bulk commodities, etc.
Owner must include in bid documents
¾ Contractor must include delivery dates in
Baseline Schedule
If owner not include dates in bid documents
9 Contractor may include delivery very early
9 May include delivery on or near critical path
¾ If owner accepts schedule & not meet dates
Delays & impacts will be asserted

Defense: Not Earlier Than Delivery Dates
¾ Specify “earliest possible delivery dates” for
owner furnished items
¾ Or, provide written information when issue
Notice of Award
¾ Require dates be included in Baseline Schedule
“Deliveries of owner furnished equipment or materials
shall be shown in the schedule with the dates set forth
in the contract documents or as provided by the owner
or its designated representative.”

Defense: Schedule Windows for Owner Furnished Items
¾ Set forth “not earlier than” and “not later than”
dates for all owner furnished items
Include in contract documents
Or, provided when Notice of Award issued
¾ Require dates be included in Baseline Schedule
Allows better planning & coordination

Game: Failure to Show Procurement Activities
¾ Schedule shows only installation activities
Shows no submittals, reviews, fabrication or delivery
“Star Trek Scheduling”
¾ Any time any installation activity starts “later
than scheduled”
Delays or impacts alleged

Defense: Incorporate Fabrication, Delivery & Installation
Activities
¾ Require fabrication, delivery & installation
activities be included in schedule for “all major
pieces of equipment”
¾ Define, specify or list in contract documents
what items are “all major pieces of equipment”
Assign responsibility for creating list to design
professional
¾ Will improve project planning & coordination

Defense: Equipment Procurement Schedule
¾ Require separate schedule showing submittals,
submittal reviews, fabrication, delivery &
installation for all “major pieces of equipment”
¾ Contract document must list “major pieces of
equipment”
¾ Improves project planning & coordination

Defense: Define WBS Code Structure
¾ Major equipment procurement schedule easily
produced if WBS code structure properly
established at outset
¾ Not onerous requirement
¾ Require WBS code that identifies for all “major
pieces of equipment”
Submittals & submittal reviews
Fabrication activities
Delivery activities
Installation activities
¾ Purpose – Identify & track critical procurement
activities
Game: Failure to Include Schedule Constraints
¾ Owners may impose schedule constraints in
contract documents
Activities that must be complete before others start
Phases of work with milestone dates
Construction sequences to avoid disruption of operations
¾ Contractors rarely understand owner needs
¾ Baseline schedule not include required constraints
¾ If schedule accepted without constraints –
Owner later insists upon maintaining constraints
Contractor argues owner “waived” requirements
Claims “extra” to reimpose constraints

Defense: Constraints & Sequences Listed in
Specifications
¾ During design, owner must identify all specific
constraints & sequences needed
¾ All required constraints & sequences must be
clearly described & included in specifications
¾ If owner does not identify constraints &
sequences at bid time
Not possible for contractor to include in bid
Not included in project planning
Not included in Baseline Schedule development

Defense: Interim Milestone Dates
¾ Owners may influence construction sequences
by establishing interim milestone dates
Assists contractor in planning & coordinating work
Alleviates some delay & impact claims because owner’s
needs identified during bidding
Not interfere with “means & methods” since priced in
bid
¾ Useful in various types of projects
Renovation projects
Projects in “operational environment”
Multiple prime situations
¾ Requires liquidated damages on each milestone
to make enforceable
Defense: Specified Constraints & Sequences
Reflected in Schedule
¾ If constraints & sequences in contract
documents, scheduling specification must
require they be included in Baseline Schedule &
all Schedule Updates
¾ Language such as –
“All contractually required constraints & sequences
shall be included in the Baseline Schedule. If the
Baseline Schedule or any Schedule Update does not
include these constraints & sequences, acceptance of the
schedule will not waive such requirements.”
Or “In event of conflict between accepted schedule &
contract requirements, the requirements of the contract
shall at all times govern.”
QUESTIONS?

End of Session 1
¾ For copy of Construction Scheduling Games –
Revisited paper
¾ Send e‐mail request to –
Amanda Amadon – aamadon@navigantconsulting.com
Steve Pitaniello – spitaniello@navigantconsulting.com
Jim Zack – jim.zack@navigantconsulting.com

CONSTRUCTION
REVISITED
Session 2
March 9, 2011
Amanda Amadon
Steve Pitaniello
Jim Zack
The Presenters
¾ Amanda Amadon
Consulting, Inc.
lost productivity
facilities
PMP
The Presenters
Consulting, Inc.
Systems Management

The Presenters
Construction Forum
Surveyors
CCM, CFCC & PMP
Game: Phony Early Completion Schedules
¾ Many early completion schedules not real
Project not bid on early completion basis
No plan to accelerate work to finish early
¾ Contractor may
Discover after award they do not need full time to complete
work
Bid on basis of using full time of performance, but then
create early completion schedule
¾ Early completion schedule created, submitted &
accepted
¾ Result
“Delayed early completion claim” filed at end of work
“But for actions of owner, I would have finished earlier.”
Defense: Pre‐Bid Project Scheduling
¾ “Unrealistic” project duration
Either too long or too short
Too long
9 Contractor bids more field overhead, equipment rental, etc.
Too short
9 Contractor bids more labor & equipment, overtime pay, etc.
Either adversely influences contractor at time of
bidding
¾ Pre‐bid project scheduling establishes
“reasonable” time of performance
¾ Helps defend against phony early completion
schedules
Defense: Joint Ownership of Float
¾ Resolve issue of who “owns” float in contract
“Float is not for the exclusive use or benefit of either
owner or contractor, but is jointly owned expiring
resource available to both parties as needed to meet
contract milestones & contract completion date.”
¾ If float “jointly owned” by contract, delayed
early completion claims easier to defend against
Does not interfere with contractor’s right to finish early
Protects owner from delayed early completion claims

Defense: Limited Form of No Damages for Delay Clause
¾ Broad form No Damages for Delay clauses often
unenforceable
15 States have prohibited by statute
Other States recognize 4 – 6 exceptions to clause
¾ Limited form of clause, carefully crafted may be
enforceable
“No time extensions will be granted nor delay damages
paid under contract until all available float used &
project work exceeds the adjusted contract completion
date.”
¾ May also modify Differing Site Condition clause
If contractor encounters uncharted utility not owned by
owner, entitled to cost to remove or relocate &
appropriate time extension, but no delay damages
Defense: Reduction of Contract Duration
¾ Include contract clause
If contractor provides Baseline Schedule showing more
than 30 days early completion
Owner may reduce contract duration via change order
to match early completion date at no cost to owner
¾ Restores project balance
Neither party can assess damages against other at
different points in time
¾ One time clause to be used only on Baseline
Schedule
Clause not apply to later schedule updates

Defense: Owner Credit for Field Overhead Associated
with Early Completion
¾ Clause allows owner to issue a deductive change
Based on field office overhead costs saved by contractor
due to early completion
Unless contractor can document they bid on early
completion basis
9 If so, owner has already captured this cost benefit in the bid
¾ Will help defend against phone early completion
schedules
¾ Risky clause
Bid costs may go up because contractor who has good
idea of how to complete early may not employ this
approach
Discourages contractors from scheduling early
completion
Defense: Escrow Bid Documents
¾ Require low bidder to submit all bid
documentation within 48 hours after opening
¾ Specification states –
“Any documents not included in escrow bid documents
not admissible in event of later dispute.”
¾ Bid documentation escrowed in local bank
Only designated personnel may review
Always accompanied by personnel from other side
Only used in event of dispute
Only review portion of documents related to dispute
¾ Escrow bid documents used to prove/disprove
claim of planned early completion when bid
Defense: Banked Float Requirement
¾ Float can be created either by owner or contractor
Easier for owner – return CP submittal early
Contractor – make labor work more productively
¾ Specification provides float “created” by either
party credited to that party
Record & bank float monthly
Delays later caused by parties offset by banked float
¾ Requires owner & contractor to jointly review
schedule updates
Negotiate monthly who created how much float during
update period
Float in schedule to right of data date still jointly owned

Game: Preferential Logic
¾ Activities arranged in such a manner as to create
maximum possible opportunity for owner
interference
¾ Especially effective in multiple prime situations
¾ If owner accepts schedule
Delay or impacts arise whenever owner requests a
different sequence

Game: Sequestering of Float
¾ Schedule created deliberately with little or no
float
¾ May have multiple critical paths or single
critical path with numerous subcritical paths
¾ Methods of sequestering float
Preferential Sequencing – activities performed
sequentially vs. concurrently to hide float
Artificial Activity Durations – Inflate activity durations
to remove float
Zero Float Dates – establish schedule milestones with
zero float dates
¾ Goal – Consume all float, not share float
Defense: Thorough Review of Baseline & Schedule
Updates
¾ Owners need to understand liability associated
with reviewing & accepting schedules
Much legal risk accompanies schedule acceptance
¾ Schedule reviews as critical as review of
technical submittals
¾ Review for –
Compliance with specification requirements
Preferential logic, unusual construction logic
Unrealistic activity durations
Submittal review times
Sequestering of float
Failure to include critical activities & mandatory
constraints
Defense: Subcontractor Sign Off Requirement
¾ Specify all “major subcontractors” required to
review & sign off on Baseline Schedule & all
Schedule Updates
Define “major subcontractor” in specification
Example: Any subcontractor with more than 5% of
contract value
¾ Contractors playing schedule games often do not
involve subcontractors
Why?
Games against owner also likely to harm
subcontractors
¾ Use subcontractors to detect, avoid schedule
games
Defense: Non‐Sequestering of Float Clause
¾ Include Non‐Sequestering of Float clause in
“Pursuant to float sharing requirements … use of float
suppression techniques … are prohibited & float shall
be shared to benefit of owner & contractor.”
¾ Clause provides that float sequestering shall be
cause for rejection of schedule submittal

Defense: Resource Loading of Schedule Activities
¾ Clause requires all onsite construction activities
be resource loaded
Cost
Labor
Equipment
¾ Compare activity resources with activity
durations to determine reasonableness of plan
¾ Use resource histograms to track & trend actual
work performance
¾ Use resource loading information when
analyzing delay & impact claims

Game: Failure to Show Startup/Test Activities
¾ Baseline Schedule shows no time or nominal
time for startup & testing
¾ Delay & impact claims arise when startup &
testing take significantly longer
¾ Especially true if startup & testing required
prior to “mechanical completion” or “substantial
completion”
Claims of “superior knowledge” on part of owner
frequently arise
Remember – Liquidated damages frequently stop at
substantial completion date

Defense: Estimate Startup & Testing
¾ Lack of schedule activities may not be a game
May result from contractor’s lack of knowledge of
whatʹs required
¾ Owners often know more about startup &
testing than contractor
¾ Owners should set forth required activities &
estimate time to perform required startup &
testing
Include list of activities required in specification
Include time estimated in contract documents
Require contractor include “no less than” estimated
time in Baseline Schedule
GAMES & DEFENSES
SCHEDULE UPDATES

Game: No Schedule Updates
¾ If specification states updates only required
when “major changes” occur
What is “major change”?
¾ Schedule updates infrequent, non‐existent
¾ Game – delays, impacts, changes must be
analyzed on basis of as‐planned schedule
As‐Planned vs. Actual delay analysis
¾ Denies owner opportunity to analyze concurrent
delay, pacing delay, contractor problems, etc.

Defense: Scheduling – Pay Item on Schedule of Values
¾ Scheduling rarely paid for directly by owners
¾ To entice contractors to provide schedule
updates, make schedule updates pay item on
schedule of values
¾ Owner may
Establish value in bid for scheduling
Allow fixed % of contract cost for scheduling
Negotiate monthly pay item amount at outset of work
¾ Contractor entitled to bill for schedule update
pay item only after update submitted &
approved

Defense: Pay Off the Schedule Specification
¾ Require all onsite construction activities be cost
loaded
¾ Sum of all cost loaded activities must equal
contract value at all times
¾ Monthly payment calculated from accepted
schedule update
¾ No schedule update submittal, no monthly
billing
No billing, no payment owed!

Defense: Liquidated Damages for Late Schedule
Submittals
¾ May include liquidated damages for late
schedule update submittals
¾ Emphasizes criticality of scheduling to owner
¾ Damages for late schedule updates difficult to
ascertain
Use language similar to that used in liquidated
damages for late completion clause
Base liquidated damages on what it would cost owner
if owner had to take over scheduling
Assuming owner has no in‐house scheduling staff use
daily cost of scheduling consultant as basis for
liquidated damages

Defense: Withholding of Payment for Failure to Submit
Schedule Update
¾ If choose to take this approach –
Contract must state that submittal of schedule update is
a “condition precedent” to making payment
¾ May be enforceable – Check with legal counsel!
But very harsh remedy
¾ However, if using Pay Off the Schedule
specification then both logical & prudent

Game: Inaccurate As‐Built information
¾ Deliberately utilize incorrect start & finish dates
for updated schedule activities
Start dates likely to be earlier than actual
Finish dates likely to be later than actual
¾ Technique slowly “absorbs” float
¾ At times, not a game – scheduler may
Lack documentation of actual dates
Activities statused by % complete
9 Remaining durations based on % complete times original
duration
9 May not be accurate projection
9 Activities in reporting period statused as 100% on day prior
to data date vs. inputting actual dates
Game: Schedule Away Project Delay
¾ If contractor behind schedule but does not want
to show in update
Provide schedule update showing end date has not
slipped
¾ Scheduler may –
Reduce durations of remaining activities
Change logic of remaining activities
9 Activities shown as concurrent vs. finish‐start
¾ Effect of game –
Cover up project delay

Game: Changing Project History
¾ Consume float by changing start & finish dates
of previously completed activities
Run current schedule update based on changed past
activity dates
¾ Influences schedule & consumes float

Game: Changing Project Calendars
¾ Game is unintended consequence of current
scheduling software packages
Newer software allows schedulers to change project
calendar every time schedule is updated
¾ Software enhancement intended for use on daily
or hourly schedules
Not typical construction schedules
¾ Changing project calendars may consume float
slowly with each update
Even though work is proceeding as planned

Defense: Spot Check Project History
¾ Require a Schedule Change Report as part of
each update
Separate report that identifies every change made to
schedule from last update
Includes – logic changes, durations, actual starts &
finishes, activity additions & deletions, calendars, etc.
¾ Carefully review Schedule Change Report to
determine no changes to previously submitted
dates, activities, etc.
¾ May use third party forensic schedule analysis
software to perform review
¾ Carefully review contractor’s schedule update
narrative
Defense: Schedule Away Project Delay
¾ Common ways to schedule away project delay
Delete or Add Activities
9 Changing activities from Baseline Schedule generally poor
scheduling practice
9 Unless owner issued changes requires this
9 Otherwise – indicator scheduler modifying schedule &
should be questioned
Changing Original Durations
9 Changing duration from Baseline Schedule generally poor
scheduling practice
9 Unless owner issued changes requires this
9 Otherwise – indicator scheduler modifying schedule &
should be questioned
9 May be indication of project delay or impact & should be
questioned & must be justified
Defense: Schedule Away Project Delay
Changes in Relationships
9 Deleting or adding relationship way to increase or decrease
time to complete project
9 May be game or may indicate project delay & impact
9 Should be questioned & justified
Use of Leads or Lags
9 Changes relationships, may be way to schedule away delay
9 Should be questioned & justified
Use of Constraints
9 Can interrupt schedule calculations
9 If constraints added – question & get justification
Retained Logic vs. Progress Override
9 Progress Override accelerates schedule, ignores logic ties

Defense: Joint Updating Requirement
¾ Require joint schedule update meetings in
¾ Owner, design professional, contractor & “major
subcontractors”
Work together to review & update schedule monthly
Must identify who is “major subcontractor”
9 Subcontractors act as tripwire vs. schedule games
¾ Enhances communications & coordination
Not interfere with “means & methods”
¾ Reduces likelihood of schedule games
¾ Forum to discuss potential delays & impacts
Work together to resolve issues proactively

Defense: Addition of Activities for Resubmittals
¾ Schedulers may include owner resubmittal
review time in same activity as review of initial
submittal
Gives appearance owner took too long to review
¾ Specification should require scheduler add new
activity for every resubmittal required
¾ Clearly identifies contractor responsibility vs.
owner responsibility
Impacts more visible, better understood
Delay more easily analyzed

Defense: Electronic Schedule Update Submittals
¾ Require electronic schedule update submittals
¾ Require hard copy of Predecessor/Successor
Report
Run same report from electronic submittal
Check to see that two reports identical
If not, something is wrong!
¾ When receive electronic submittal
Schedule checks can be run electronically using built in
or third party schedule analysis software
Games more easily detected

Defense: Recorder of Schedule Requirement
¾ Specification requires that –
Contractor creates Baseline Schedule & submits
Accepted Baseline Schedule entered into owner’s computer
Becomes “Record Schedule”
Owner’s scheduler is “Schedule Recorder” for project
¾ Monthly update process –
Contractor submits list of changes from last update
Schedule Recorder enters changes exactly as submitted
Schedule Recorder submits updated schedule to contractor
for contractor approval
Once contractor approves, owner reviews for acceptance
Most schedule update games prevented
Schedule Recorder must be responsive to contractor’s timing
& needs at all times

Defense: Weekly Progress Reports
¾ Contractors typically use weekly bar charts for
own trade superintendents & foreman
Referred to as “2 or 3 week look aheads”
¾ Highly accurate, detailed information
¾ Specify contractor provide weekly ʺlook aheadʺ
schedules to owner
¾ Accept schedules in same form as provided to
contractor’s own staff & subcontractors
No need for contractor to create more schedules
¾ Use ʺlook aheadʺ schedules to check schedule
update accuracy
Game: Failure to Include Change Orders in
Schedule Updates
¾ Change order work not incorporated into
schedule updates promptly
Especially true if contractor attempting to reserve rights
for delay & delay impact in change order
¾ Or, changes included in such manner as to show
maximum potential impact to project schedule
¾ Object of game – maximize recovery for changes

Defense: Time Impact Analysis Requirement
¾ Require that contractor submit Time Impact
Analysis (TIA) with every change order proposal
Even if contractor not seeking time extension
¾ TIA uses “Fragnets” (fragmentary networks) to
demonstrate impact of change on existing
schedule
Miniature CPM networks showing all activities related
to change, logic, sequence & duration
Fragnet “plugged into” existing schedule to determine
impact, if any, of change on schedule

Defense: Time Impact Analysis Requirement
¾ TIA well recognized schedule delay analysis
technique
Dates back to 1960’s on VA & NASA projects
¾ But, a prospective delay analysis technique
Forward looking only
Take today’s schedule, add change, recalculate schedule,
determine impact
¾ Does not work well when applied retroactively
Backward looking analysis
If changed work completed before delay analysis, TIA
may not work
Does not account for other ongoing activities
May need to specify a different technique for
retrospective delay analysis
Defense: Fee for Change Order Schedule Analysis
¾ Typically, contractors not entitled to payment for
preparing & submitting change order proposals
Owners consider this contractor overhead
¾ To entice contractors to submit delay analysis on
all change orders –
Specify fee paid to contractor for every TIA submitted
Even if shows no impact or change order not issued
Must make fee large enough to entice submittals
¾ Encourages schedule analysis submittals
¾ Enhances change order negotiations
¾ Creates contemporaneous record of impacts
GAMES & DEFENSES
END OF JOB SCHEDULING

Game: After the Job “But For” Schedules
¾ Claim schedule created at completion of work
¾ Typical scheduling techniques at end of job
As‐Planned vs. As‐Built
Impacted As‐Planned
But For Schedule
9 AKA – Collapsed As‐Built Schedule
¾ Often performed by claims consultant
Was not involved in project
Relies solely upon contractor’s records & staff
¾ Frequently, As‐Built Schedule does not resemble
contractor’s schedule updates

Game: After the Job “But For” Schedules
¾ Owner required to “prove” claims schedule not
accurate, not reliable
Factually
Or, in its conclusion
¾ Requires detailed schedule analysis by owner
Very costly

Defense: As‐Built CPM Submittal “Condition Precedent”
to Release of Retainage
¾ Require final schedule update be “certified” by
contractor as accurate representation of how job
was built
Certified by contractor’s Project Manager & Scheduler
¾ Recognize that –
Schedule will have no logic, no critical path
But should be a contemporaneous record of actual start
& finish dates of all activities
Can be used to analyze & challenge claims schedule
¾ Make submittal “condition precedent” to release
of retainage to enforce requirement
To get retained earnings, must submit
Game: Substantial Completion Activity
¾ Substantial Completion –
Typically stops liquidated damages
Owner deemed to have ”benefit of bargain”, can use
project for “intended purpose”
¾ To lessen chances of having liquidated damages
assessed –
Contractors include “substantial completion activity” in
schedule
Place as far forward as possible
¾ Assert any activity past substantial completion
activity not subject to liquidated damages

Defense: Define “Substantial Completion”
¾ Define term “substantial completion” in contract
Each project different
No standard definition
Owner & design professional must craft definition
carefully
Must be done for every project individually
¾ Check Baseline Schedule & schedule updates
Ensure all activities needed to reach substantial
completion
Actually scheduled prior to substantial completion
activity

QUESTIONS?

End of Session 2
Revisited paper

CONSTRUCTION
REVISITED
Session 3
March 16, 2011
Amanda Amadon
Steve Pitaniello
Jim Zack
The Presenters
¾ Amanda Amadon
Consulting, Inc.
lost productivity
facilities
PMP
The Presenters
Consulting, Inc.
Systems Management

The Presenters
Construction Forum
Surveyors
CCM, CFCC & PMP
SCHEDULE REVIEW CHECKLIST

Schedule Review Checklist
¾ Following is schedule review checklist intended
to detect & prevent schedule games
¾ Applicable to Baseline Schedule & Schedule
Updates
¾ Broken down into
Software settings
Dates
Activities
Critical path
Constraints
Calendars

Defense: Software Settings
¾ Retained Logic vs. Progress Override
Progress Override accelerates schedule
May accelerate schedule unrealistically
Ignores logic ties & relationships
Retained Logic typically better choice
If work not proceeding as planned, Progress Override
may give better picture of progress
¾ Continuous Activities
Software typically assume activities performed
continuously
If default setting changed, should be reviewed &
justified
9 If not planned continuously, need multiple activities

Software Settings
¾ Total Float Calculation
Finish date is software default
9 Better reflects relationship between project completion &
float
Changes in setting can cause variations in float
calculations within same schedule
If settings changed, must be justified & documented

Defense: Dates
¾ Start Date
Start date of schedule
Typically NTP or NTP + 1 day
May be earlier date contractor feels should be in
schedule – must justify to owner
Once set in Baseline Schedule, never changes
¾ Data Date
Date from which unfinished work scheduled
Future activities start at beginning of closest work day
after Data Date
Anything else should raise questions, needs justification

Defense: Dates
¾ Schedule Status Through
End of last work day prior to Data Date
“Actual” work recorded & statused through this date
Anything else should raise questions
¾ Must Finish By Date (MFB)
Typically, contract completion or milestone date
Any other activities using this type of date or constraint
must be justified by contractor

Defense: Dates
¾ Calculated Finish Date
Latest calculated early finish (EF) date in schedule
Calculated project completion date
If date exceeds MFB date, negative float results
If occurs, indicates project delay
Examine closely – contractor must justify
¾ Total Calendar Day Duration
Total calendar days (not work days) from start to finish
Compare to Time of Completion clause
More days shown – indicates project delay

Defense: Dates
¾ Calendar Days Remaining
Number of calendar days remaining from Data Date to
completion date
Add time expended to calculation & compare to Time
of Completion clause
Anything longer indicates project delay
¾ Percentage Calendar Days Expended
% calendar days expended to Data Date
Compare % to estimated % of work completed to see if
correlation exists
If substantially different, may indicate project delay or
impact (i.e., lost productivity)

Defense: Dates
¾ Calendar Days Remaining to MFB Date
% calendar days remaining from Data Date to
completion date
Compare % to estimated % work completed to see if
there is correlation
If substantially differs, may indicate project delay or
impact
¾ MFB/EF Variance
Difference in calendar days between MFB date &
completion date
Negative value indicates project will not complete on
time

Defense: Dates
¾ New Actual Starts
Number of activities statused with actual start date
Does not include previous updates
¾ Changed Actual Starts
Number of previous actual start dates changed in
update
May indicate changing project history
Must be justified by contractor
¾ New Actual Finishes
Number of activities statused with actual finish date
Does not include previous updates

Defense: Dates
¾ Changed Actual Finishes
Number of previous actual finish dates changed in
update
May indicate changing project history
Must be justified by contractor
¾ Actual Start Dates Data Date
Data Date begins at start of Data Date workday
Starting point for all remaining activities
Actual starts & finishes should be “as of” work day
prior to Data Date
Actual dates on or beyond Data Date
9 Poor scheduling practice, not how schedule calculates

Defense: Dates
¾ Actual Finish Dates Data Date
Data Date begins at start of Data Date workday
Starting point for all remaining activities
Actual starts & finishes should be “as of” work day
prior to Data Date
Actual dates on or beyond Data Date
9 Poor scheduling practice, not how schedule calculates

Defense: Activities
¾ Number of Activities
Total number of activities in schedule
Activities added to /deleted from Baseline Schedule
must be submitted for review & approval
Identified & discussed in Update Narrative Report
¾ Net Increase or Decrease
Increase or decrease of number of schedule activities
Number of activities should remain constant unless –
9 Work scope changed
9 Plan for performing work changed
9 Impacts incorporated into schedule
Identified & discussed in Update Narrative Report

Defense: Activities
¾ Number of Relationships
Number of relationships should remain constant after
Baseline Schedule accepted
Changes should be submitted for review & approval
¾ Net Increase or Decrease
Increase or decrease in number of relationships
¾ Relationship/Activity Ratio
Ratio of relationships to activities
Always more than 1.0
Ratio of 1.2 to 1.5 average
Higher than 1.5 may indicate logically constrained
schedule
Defense: Activities
¾ Started
Number of activities started during update period
Indicator of continued progress of work
Fewer activity starts than previous period may indicate
project delay or impact
¾ Completed
Number of activities completed during update period
Indicator of continued progress of work
Fewer activity completions than previous period may
indicate project delay or impact

Defense: Activities
¾ In Progress
Activities in progress during update period
Increase in number of activities indicates more work
being accomplished
Decrease in number of activities indicates less work
being accomplished – may indicate project delay/impact
Number usually increases until near end of job
¾ Not Started
Number should decline as work progresses
If new activities added, may not decline
9 Should be reviewed for potential schedule problems
If number constant for 2 or more updates, indicates
project delay or impact
Defense: Activities
¾ Percentage of Activities Completed
% should increase with each update
If number declines or remains constant indicates stalled
progress, shut down period or delay & impact
¾ Activities Deleted
Total number of activities deleted in update
Deleting activities after Baseline Schedule accepted
poor scheduling practice
If work or work plan changes significantly enough to
warrant this, may need to rebaseline schedule

Defense: Activities
¾ Activities Added
Total number of activities added in update
Many valid reasons for adding new activities
All should be submitted for approval in Update
Schedule Narrative
¾ Original Durations Changes
Original durations from Baseline Schedule should not
change unless approved
Changing durations (shortening) may be indicator of
changing project history, scheduling away project delay
If durations increase, may be indicator of delay or
impact

Defense: Activities
¾ Activity Descriptions Edited/Changed
Descriptions in Baseline Schedule should not change
Difficult to compare progressed schedule to Baseline
Schedule when activity descriptions/titles changed
Should be submitted for review & approval
¾ Number of Deleted Relationships
Total number of activities deleted in update
Deleting relationships after Baseline Schedule accepted

Defense: Activities
¾ Number of Added Relationships
Total number of activities added in update
Adding relationships after Baseline Schedule accepted
¾ Activities with Lags
Lags represent “hidden activities”
9 Similar to “dummies” in I‐J networks
Lags often justified but should be submitted for review
& approval in Baseline Schedule
Lags more than 15 days should be defined as activities
& included in schedule for better visibility
Defense: Activities
¾ Activities with Negative Lag
Negative lag often prohibited in scheduling
specifications
Negative lags identified, justified in schedule narrative
¾ Relationship Lags Changes
Any changes in previously submitted value should be
submitted for review & approval in schedule narrative
¾ Activities with No Predecessors
Only one activity should have no predecessor – start of
schedule
Others with no predecessor must be fixed
Missing relationships can produce unrealistic dates &
float values
Defense: Activities
¾ Activities with No Successors
Only one activity should have no successor – finish of
schedule
Others with no successor must be fixed
Missing relationships can produce unrealistic dates &
float values
¾ Activities Working Out of Sequence
Out of sequence progress common in construction
Indicates project not being built as planned
Scheduling specifications often require out of sequence
work progress be resolved with each update
Progress Override ignores logic, accelerates schedule,
reduces impact of out of sequence work
9 May accelerate schedule unrealistically
Defense: Activities
¾ Constraints Added
Constraints interrupt schedule calculations
All constraints, changes to constraints identified in
Schedule Narrative for review & approval
¾ Constraints Deleted
¾ Existing Constraints Changes

Defense: Activities
¾ Activities That Should Have Started
When activities do not start when planned, may
indicate progress not keeping up with plan
May indicate project delay or impact
Examine carefully
¾ Activities That Should Have Finished
When activities do not finish when planned, may
indicate progress not keeping up with plan
May indicate project delay or impact
Examine carefully

Defense: Activities
¾ Number of Activities Percent Complete Reduced
On in‐progress activity, percent complete should
increase from update to update
If percent complete decreases, indicates negative
progress for update period or schedule games
Examine carefully

Defense: Critical Path
¾ Lowest Total Float
Shows lowest total float on project
Ideal = zero float
Positive float indicates early completion
Negative float indicates late completion
¾ Activities on Critical Path
Number of activities on CP in each update
If number increases from month to month, may
indicate near critical activities becoming critical &
project slipping
Increase may indicate project delay or impact

Defense: Constraints
¾ Number of Constraints
Total number of constraints in schedule
Many scheduling specifications require only milestones
be used as constraints
All constraints should be submitted for review &
approval in Schedule Narrative
¾ Number of Zero Total Float Constraints
Zero Total Float Constraint makes an activity appear to
be critical
May indicate poor scheduling practice or schedule
games

Defense: Constraints
¾ Number of Mandatory Constraints
Mandatory constraints force activity to start or finish on
exact date
Reality in construction, activity may start/finish earlier
or later
Date rarely mandatory
Mandatory constraints often misused

Defense: Calendars
¾ Calendars
Number of calendars used in schedule increases
schedule complexity
High number of calendars used may indicate
9 Overly complex schedule
9 Scheduling games
¾ Calendars without Holidays
One purpose of calendars in schedule, define non‐work
days so activities not scheduled on those days
No holidays in schedule could add as much as 10 work
days/year to schedule – unrealistic!

Defense: Calendars
¾ Untitled Calendars
Indication of poor scheduling practice
All calendars should be titled so scheduler & schedule
reviewer understand what calendar is
¾ Number of Calendars on Critical Path
Multiple calendars on CP can result in interruption of
float values on CP or longest path
Should be submitted for review & approval as to
purpose & justification

Defense: Calendars
¾ Number of Calendar Changes
Calendar assignments should not change from update
to update
Changes to calendars should be submitted & justified
in Schedule Update Narrative

Schedule Review Checklist Wrap Up
¾ These are checks schedule reviewer should
make with every review
¾ Schedule analysis software make checking
easier
¾ Schedule reviewer ought to –
Create spreadsheet with each check on vertical access &
Baseline Schedule & Schedule Updates on horizontal
access
Creates pictorial view of updates
Review can compare numbers, update to update
Determine what needs more thorough review or
justification
Conclusion
¾ Intended purpose of scheduling to provide
proper planning, coordination & management of
project
¾ Schedules frequently used for other purposes
¾ Schedule games often played
¾ Means & methods available to defend against
schedule gamesmanship
Restore schedule to status of planning, coordination &
management tool

QUESTIONS?

End of Session 3
Revisited paper

BIMRoadmap Session 2 Finith

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

BIMRoadmap Session 2 Finith

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

GLOBAL CONSTRUCTION PRACTICE

© Navigant Consulting, Inc. - 2011 3

© Navigant Consulting, Inc. - 2011 5

© Navigant Consulting, Inc. - 2011 6

© Navigant Consulting, Inc. - 2011 7

© Navigant Consulting, Inc. - 2011 8

© Navigant Consulting, Inc. - 2011 9

© Navigant Consulting, Inc. - 2011 10

© Navigant Consulting, Inc. - 2011 11

© Navigant Consulting, Inc. - 2011 12

© Navigant Consulting, Inc. - 2011 13

© Navigant Consulting, Inc. - 2011 14

© Navigant Consulting, Inc. - 2011 15

© Navigant Consulting, Inc. - 2011 17

© Navigant Consulting, Inc. - 2011 18

© Navigant Consulting, Inc. - 2011 19

© Navigant Consulting, Inc. - 2011 20

© Navigant Consulting, Inc. - 2011 22

© Navigant Consulting, Inc. - 2011 23

© Navigant Consulting, Inc. - 2011 24

© Navigant Consulting, Inc. - 2011 25

© Navigant Consulting, Inc. - 2011 26

© Navigant Consulting, Inc. - 2011 27

© Navigant Consulting, Inc. - 2011 28

© Navigant Consulting, Inc. - 2011 29

© Navigant Consulting, Inc. - 2011 30

© Navigant Consulting, Inc. - 2011 31

© Navigant Consulting, Inc. - 2011 32

© Navigant Consulting, Inc. - 2011 35

© Navigant Consulting, Inc. - 2011 36

© Navigant Consulting, Inc. - 2011 37

© Navigant Consulting, Inc. - 2011 38

© Navigant Consulting, Inc. - 2011 39

© Navigant Consulting, Inc. - 2011 40

© Navigant Consulting, Inc. - 2011 42

© Navigant Consulting, Inc. - 2011 43

© Navigant Consulting, Inc. - 2011 46

© Navigant Consulting, Inc. - 2011 47

© Navigant Consulting, Inc. - 2011 50

© Navigant Consulting, Inc. - 2011 54

© Navigant Consulting, Inc. - 2011 56

© Navigant Consulting, Inc. - 2011 59

© Navigant Consulting, Inc. - 2011 60

© Navigant Consulting, Inc. - 2011 64

© Navigant Consulting, Inc. - 2011 65

© Navigant Consulting, Inc. - 2011 66

© Navigant Consulting, Inc. - 2011 68

© Navigant Consulting, Inc. - 2011 69

© Navigant Consulting, Inc. - 2011 70

© Navigant Consulting, Inc. - 2011 71

© Navigant Consulting, Inc. - 2011 72

© Navigant Consulting, Inc. - 2011 73

© Navigant Consulting, Inc. - 2011 75

© Navigant Consulting, Inc. - 2011 76

© Navigant Consulting, Inc. - 2011 77

© Navigant Consulting, Inc. - 2011 80

© Navigant Consulting, Inc. - 2011 81

© Navigant Consulting, Inc. - 2011 82

© Navigant Consulting, Inc. - 2011 83

© Navigant Consulting, Inc. - 2011 84

© Navigant Consulting, Inc. - 2011 86

© Navigant Consulting, Inc. - 2011 87

© Navigant Consulting, Inc. - 2011 90