We have a total of 9 articles available this week. I checked these articles again and decided Article 7, Scheduling Specifications: A Lump Sum Contractor's Perspective, is a better choice as the required article, although Article 8 is worth reading too. Article 1 is a chapter from an old book I found on EBay. In 1927 scheduling was just one chapter in a book on "construction methods". It gives us a historical perspective on the subject. Article 2 is also from a while ago. Compare it with Article 8. Some of the articles may be on the technical side (Article 5, 6). Try the best you can.
- Chapter 14, Construction Schedule, in Standard Construction Methods, by G. Underwood, 1927
- Scheduling Specifications for the 80's, Dr. Gui Ponce de Leon, PE, AACE Transactions , 1983
- Practical Specifications For Project Scheduling, John R. Clark, PE, Cost Engineering , 1990
- Contrasting Cost-Loaded CPM Scheduling Specifications, Dr. Gui Ponce de Leon, PE; Michael J. Mix; Philip Spittler, AACE Transactions, 1994
- Selecting Planning and Scheduling Specifications, Leaf A. Ballast; Calin M. Popescu, AACE International Transactions, 2001
- Contract Requirements for Construction Schedule, Win G. Li, PE CCE, AACE International Transactions, 2003
- Scheduling Specifications: A Lump Sum Contractor's Perspective, Martin J. Bradley, CCC, AACE International Transactions, 2005
- Scheduling Specifications for the 21st Century, Paul Levin, AACE International Transactions, 2006
- Schedule Specifications - Handle with Care, Stephen P. Warhoe, AACE International Transactions, 2009
The article Scheduling Specifications: A Lump Sum Contractor’s Perspective by Martin J. Bradley, CCC discusses some interesting topics and raises some questions. He discusses scheduling specifications throughout and I am unclear what he specifically is referring to? At the end of the article he states, “owners need to write specifications that don’t tie the hands of the contractor but also are not so vague as to give him free reign to do anything (or nothing) as he chooses.” Is he referring to the architectural, structural, PME specifications that typical list in three parts, Part I - General, Part 2 – Products, and Part 3 - Execution in the Project Manual or Master format Division 00 - Procurement and Contracting Requirements and Division 01 – General Requirements also found in Project Manual or AIA A101 Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner/Contractor Where The Basis of Payment is a Stipulated Sum?
ReplyDeleteI am unclear why owners do not want to have ‘working activities’ run over 30-days? However, I agree that schedules need to make sense from a activity description, duration standpoint and logic sequence which touch base on some of Topic 1 articles.
I find it interesting the comment about fancy computer and slick software, which provide ‘more form than substance’. If many in the industry feel this way who or why does the industry allow these software companies to push all these products onto them?
I was surprised that for some government projects that sign-off is required for contractors and subs with over ½% total value. It sounds like a good idea but why is the percentage so low? I guess for a hypothetical $100,000,000 total value project x .005 = $500,000 payment.
I do not totally grasp the Cost Loading example that discusses front loading of the 50 items and the concrete cost the owner $1800/CY and later only $400/CY? Can anyone shed any light on this?
Separating the price aspect of changes from the time impact portion is important. How do an owner and contractor typical want to handle these changes? Does he/she want the G.C. to call everything a change order and them go back and work out finance and time issues or to classify them as change orders, change directives, or minor changes (changes simply done by sketch)? The Project Resource Manual from the CSI that I read through 4+ years ago to take the Construction Documentation Technologist (CDT) exam explains this but more so applies to perfect world situations.
DS
Standard Construction Methods by G. Underwood presents an interesting example of scheduling from a less complex time, 1927, in regards to construction. He mentions Start-Finish activities but does digress into S-S, F-F except for his comments on the remarks section. Were they prevalent then as they are now? It seems that only outlining a schedule a week or two before any work on the contract is actually started is very minimal? Nowadays, and with some of the articles we have read more emphasis has been placed on pre-planning, planning etc. On page 381 the authors seems to be against further subdividing work. Would this mean that work break down structures etc. were not created or in use at this time, where today WBS is considered the bare minimum?
ReplyDeleteThe author indicates a(n) (experienced) superintendent is creating the schedule versus a P3 mechanic right out of college nowadays which is kind of ironic. The projects have grown more complicated over time and a lot of these articles seem to be expressing frustration or concern that inexperienced schedulers are providing ‘more form than substance’ as stated in Scheduling Specifications: A Lump Sum Contractor’s Perspective. Even in 1927, if there was a doubt about output of a man in a day the estimate should be consulted. Does this happen all the time today?
Scheduling Specifications for the 21st Century written by Paul Levin, PSP is the opposite of the 1927 article because it almost seems to me anyway, that to many cooks are in the kitchen now stirring the pot. The author indicate this on PS.18.1, “As a result of these various roles and applications, scheduling specification advancements over the years has been extremely uneven, resulting in contacts with schedule provisions ranging from two sentences to two dozen pages.”
It seems that specialization has become prominent? Maybe, I should say it seems job sectors exist with a wider range of experience today based on easy access to computer software, which has grown in prominence. The groups that have a hand in constructions include schedulers, estimators, construction project managers, superintendent, project coordinators, project engineers, lawyers, risk analysis management etc. This has allowed for the unevenness to occur but the AACEI and PMICO have been working on standard best practice documentation to alleviate this. This actual seems like a worthwhile endeavor based on the four sections he highlights, Section 1 – General, Section 2-Administratitive, Section 3 – Technical, and Section 4 – Time Analysis.
This article started to clear up what schedule specifications are from my question associated with the required article, Scheduling Specifications: A Lump Sum Contractor’s Perspective. Reading the difference between open and closed specifications was interesting. It sounds quite similar to performance based versus proprietary based specifications that I have put together in architecture firms.
Even if the 4-part scheduling specification moves forward with technological advancements in 4-D and 5-D scheduling may re-create some of the problems that were fixed under this initial recommendation. Almost seems like it has become impossible to keep up with all the tech advances.
Scheduling Specifications: A Lump Sum Contractor's Perspective: My experience as a residential contractor (mostly residential single family homes) only utilizes this concept in its most distilled sense. Here is a section of my contract which deals with this – “If building construction (post building permit) can begin by June 2, 2009, the builder agrees to deliver the finished home by about December 9, 2009 or as soon as practical subject to the availability of labor, weather conditions, and supplies in accordance with the plans and specifications of this contract”. Also in contract is this “Delay Penalties: If builder fails to complete home within above terms he agrees to pay buyer a penalty of $40/day. If failure to complete job on schedule is due to actions on the part of buyer such as change orders, failure to make timely decisions, or delays in financing approval, buyer agrees to waive builder penalty”. It is in reality very vague and leaves a lot of wiggle room. For instance, we will track adverse weather and determine whether one day of rain may have more than one day of delay associated with it (or none). If specified custom products cause delay, we log that as well. When change orders are written, we have a line item for number of days the change adds to construction, if it applies. We will give our clients an initial planned schedule, but explain that it may often run out of sequence depending on circumstances. The only date that carries any weight is the final completion date, and there are allowances to push it back. We put a modest penalty in to let client know we also have a vested interest in finishing on time (and also to limit our liability), but overall, this is a much simpler model than the commercial applications of this article.
ReplyDeletePersonally, on a lump sum commercial project, the scheduling specifications could be terrifying. As the author talks about, the contractor would need to have someone very experienced people involved in the process. As the complexity increases, the schedule can become a double edged sword. You must find the right balance of not overly burdensome scheduling requirements for a particular job but must encompass enough detail to keep the project meeting the scope of contact understanding. If it’s too vague, problems of interpretation between parties is a certainty, yet if they are too specific, the compliance cost could be disastrous. Furthermore, if the owner is given too much control in the process, the micromanaging itself could create burdensome costs which are very detrimental to any kind of lump sum contract.
Scheduling Specifications: A lump Sum Contractor’s Perspective:
ReplyDeleteI have recently completed a lump sum public project, a dorm renovation on a university campus. A cost loaded CLCPM was required. The two main reasons for this requirement were: 1) to guard against front loading the project and 2) to review the progress of the work against previous similar project on campus. Dorm projects are required to be completed in mid-July to ensure the project will be ready for occupancy of the students in mid-August. There may be 200 – 300 students being planned to occupy the building in 30 days. The owner also needs time to install furniture, materials and staff.
The CPM is used each month to ensure the progress of the work is on schedule as much to protect the contractor as the owner. It may seem at times when the owner is telling the contractor he is behind schedule that he is using the schedule to brow beat him but I don’t believe that is the case. He is judging the progress of the work against his experience on similar projects. Neither party wants an issue in June. It is best to notice the problem in January when there is still time to make corrections and adjustments to the logic or resources. Early adjustments also allow for the inevitable unforeseen condition which may have a major impact on the logic or resources.
There are liability concerns from the designers’ perspective on front end cost loading. When the designer certifies the application for payment by signing it and handing it to the owner, he is stating the value of the work in place is accurate to the invoice being requested. The contractor may think the designer is being unreasonable and doesn’t understand his responsibilities when it comes to certifying an application for payment. The value of the work must be in accordance with the work in place and the stored materials.
Having an accurate and reliable CLCPM is imperative to projects with a hard completion date. All of the considerations mentioned at the end of the article are valuable for the owner, designers and the contractor to remember. For the most part all parties want a successful project without unnecessary complications.
David, Scheduling Specifications: A lump Sum Contractor’s Perspective:
ReplyDeleteI believe the author is referring to the scheduling requirements within a project wherever they may occur. I, as you, am accustomed to the CSI Master Spec format for project manuals and specifications.
Placing concrete entails a certain amount of work; man power, forming, placement time, finishing time, cubic yards of concrete, etc. In the example, the effort was similar for the early concrete and the later concrete. If the difficulty of the work is similar, why would the cost per cubic yard be so different? Was a pump needed? Did the concrete need to be placed by a crane? Was it during entirely different weather conditions? Was it a special concrete? Was the finishing similar? Were there energized utilities to work around? The answer to questions like these my lead to the answer or it may be the contractor inflating the value to get working capital. Which leads to a whole different set of concerns?
The project I am working on where I have a CM@R, everything is treated as though it will become a change order. Some of the ASI’s (Architect’s Supplemental instructions) may generate a cost and/or time request to the contract but some may be a no cost change and/or zero delay, I believe it is best to document everything as though it has a cost or time impact to the contract. At the end of the project, someone may need to reconstruct the project and it best to have everything documented.
I agree with your question concerning the value of contractor sign-off of the schedule. ½ percent seems very low on project of the size in your example.
Contract Requirements for Construction Schedule: The first sentence of the second paragraph of this author’s paper “Well-defined schedule requirements can eliminate potential problems” made me doubt the overall competency of this paper. Nothing can ELIMINATE potential problems in a construction project. I have no idea who the author is other than his name and credentials, but I am guessing he has very little actual experience in the construction process. His methodology seems sound and is well thought out and would seem to be good practice, however he seems to have the impression that if you have a good plan, the job will go as scheduled! Hopefully he is not working for an owner and crucifying some poor contractor who may not be savvy enough to realize the trap he is walking into.
ReplyDeleteAnother example of this naivety is his statement “Any deviations to the requirements can be identified by the schedule review”. I think the author truly believes that any contingency can be thought of and planned for in the real world of construction. Perhaps you can get close, but at a cost that makes the project completely uncompetitive.
He goes on and illustrates some task codes for a public school project and a very impressive set of requirements for a large transportation project which includes extensive statistical data on the schedule including very specific charts and graphs. These tools may prove to be very helpful, but the basic premise is flawed. You cannot create a schedule which will negate all of the normal construction variables which will occur on the typical construction job. You must have experienced people who can use the schedule as a working framework and adapt to the situation at hand to complete the project in the timeliest and most cost effective manner, based on the real world situation.
Practical Specifications for Project Scheduling:
ReplyDeleteI am a little confused by the statement “he contractor produces one schedule for its own forces and one for the required submittal to the owner.” Why would this be necessary? Is the author talking about a completely separate schedule or the 2 -3 week look ahead necessary to focus the work on the site? This seems to be counterproductive and contrary to the intent of the schedule requirement. The schedule submitted is supposed to illustrate the critical path to completing the project on time. If there is a separate schedule what assurance does he owner have as to the accuracy of the submitted schedule? Is it produced in order to placate the schedule requirement without actually being the critical path? It seems this would be a dangerous practice if the project went into litigation. How closely aligned are the two schedules?
The author discusses disputes concerning the status of the project. If the contractor is using a separate schedule and not the one submitted, it will be very likely there will be disputes about the status of the project and the application for payment.
“Why can’t the contractor schedule A/E review and approval for 3 calendar days?” With a public project, the A/E is required to list a minimum of 3 manufacturers and products that are approved for use in the project. This is to promote competitive bidding. The A/E has a product he has designed around known as the Basis of Design (BOD) and he is not sure which product will be used in the project and inevitably the BOD is most often not the one submitted. The submitted product has to be reviewed carefully to ensure it meets the requirements of the project and does not change the designed details, space allocations and clearances, finishes and colors, etc. On large complex project there may be 1000 or more submittals that require this kind of review. The review cannot be completed in 3 days when the project took 2 years to design and prepare contract documents. This leads back to the project being planned and scheduled by experienced people.
I think the most important statement in this article is “the single most important scheduling element is the people who execute, supervise, and monitor the work”. The importance of personnel experience is consistent with the discussion we had last week.
Dan, you are absolutely correct in stating the “The only date that carries any weight is the final completion date.” The rest can be worked around with changes in logic or accelerated resources.
ReplyDeleteThe need for liquidated damages (ld’s = penalty for not meeting a completion date) is very difficult to get right. I recently had a dorm renovation project for a state university where the beneficial occupancy (substantial completion) was nearly missed and the university would not have been allowed to place students in the building. The LD’s were $1500.00 per day but this was nowhere close to actual costs that would have been incurred by the owner if the dorm was not completed on schedule. Finding lodging for 200 students would have been extremely costly, additional construction administration costs for the design team, accelerated furniture move in costs, accelerated construction quality (reduction), etc. If the actual impact to the owner were included in the contract requirements, no one would have bid the project. This al leads back to the need for accurate scheduling and updating. Most of the issues that caused the above could have been corrected months before if the contractor had a project manager with the necessary experience. I must say it again, I think the most important statement in this article is “the single most important scheduling element is the people who execute, supervise, and monitor the work.”
Dan, the residential contract does seem much vaguer than a commercial one. In your opinion does $40/day delay penalty seem fair if the builder does not complete the home on time? I thought it might be low and give the contractor more incentive to rush to finish if it is only $40/day.
ReplyDeleteGordon thanks for answering some of my questions. In your opinion how common do you think front loading is?
Anyone have projects that you are able to discuss that might have gone to mediation or litigation?
Is CM@R becoming the preferred choice?
Scheduling Specifications Lump Sum Contractor Perspective:
ReplyDeleteUpon reading this article I found that the author in his introduction gives the reader clarification of the two environments that schedules exist in the construction industry. The one that is hoped for and the one actually obtained. Having been involved with a few schedules in my career this could not be closer to the truth. Scheduling in its entirety demands an extensive amount of team work, planning, and agreeing to disagree among all parties involved. Coordination between the various parties ideally meets in the middle due to specifications set forth in earlier phases of a project. Then there is the reality that the parties don’t meet at all. Some of the specifications are legitimate while others can be ridiculous and an obvious attempt to pad the fall for the unknown.
In order to shed light on the effectiveness of scheduling specifications from a
lump sum perspective the author explains what the outcomes for the owner and
contractor is when the specifications are too strict or lenient. By going in-depth on this
particular matter several pitfalls have been brought to my attention in areas such as
cost loading, resource loading, time impacts and schedule extensions. By vicariously
being able to experience and gain knowledge of the pitfalls in certain areas of scheduling
this article has been very enlightening. In a way this article can be perceived as
hindsight.
Practical Specifications for Project Scheduling:
ReplyDeleteIn response to this article the author does a thorough job of breaking down exact criteria that makes project specifications effective. Basic guidelines were mentioned on how to manage, coordinate and structure the schedule process among owners and contractors. By defining what pertinent information an owner needs from a schedule helps the contractor design the schedule accordingly. Looking back at the schedules I have developed over the years on most occasions I would have one that was for the owner and one that was for the field. This was largely in part to the owner requesting that dollar figures be tied directly to the schedule for cash flow projections while the subcontractors’ only requirement would be that of updated predecessors and successors. With all due respect too much information for subcontractors can at times make them less productive.
My rule of the thumb for the field was K.I.S.S (Keep It Short & Simple) to avoid any extra-curricular thinking or confusion which, in most cases lead to decreased productivity. Personally I couldn’t agree more with the author’s statement that “initiative and creativity show ups as increased productivity while mistakes, lack of coordination and poor quality shows up as a missed finished date.” People at times of controversy tend to want to point the finger elsewhere but in the scheduling world and with the advancements in technology most of the time it is human error. The author made a valid point “people control project cost and schedules not systems.” Basically all parties involved have to effectively and efficiently communicate their needs and expectations.
Scheduling Specifications: A lump Sum Contractor’s Perspective:
ReplyDeleteI agree with Dan's comments about this article, especially since I am also a member of a large residential construction company, also known as a high-production homebuilder. Our firm is a bit different from Dan's in that we do not allow any modifications to the contract or the hose once we have started construction. There are many factors for this reasoning:
The construction cycle time / schedule is usually very short and concise. Any changes to the house after the construction has started will have severe impacts to our construction schedule, the loan process, and the contracts that have been established with our trade contractors and vendors.
The article describes different aspects of a successful schedule - resource loading, cost loading, periodic updates, and time impacts / schedule extensions. Most of these items are not relevant to our high production home building operations. When a customer signs our agreement to purchase a home from us, we establish a preliminary date for the finish and closing of the transaction. The only point that this article has that is applicable is that of schedule extension. That only applies up to the time we start the drywall operations. It is at that time that we commit to an actual date for the closing. This is critical for us because we also have to commit to other specifics in the transaction.
The other commitments include loan commitments such as mortgage locks and closing dates, customers’ plans for closing existing homes, obtaining capital for their transactions, and moving logistics. It is a very rare occurrence that we cannot perform to our schedules with so many other interested parties, and the customers’ expectations, in jeopardy. The other important reason to ensure our completion is this is the time we receive our revenue from the customer – we begin construction with less than 5% down from the customer and do not receive additional funds until the house is completed to the customers’ 100& satisfaction.
David
ReplyDeleteWhen working with the schedule of Values which establishes the cost of the line item. As the work is installed, the contractor is allowed to invoice against the line item and the percent complete is judged by the contractor, designer and owner. Having said all that, in my experience, front end loading is not common.
Steve:
ReplyDeleteCommercial construction is vastly different than the scenario you describe. On my latest projects, I have had a change orders that added a $7 million dollar building, $500,000 anechoic chamber, a supersonic wind tunnel, etc. There are always changes in to the design for many reasons (bed rock encountered, unknown or unidentified utilities, product availability, owner changes, major site work revisions due to future planned projects, the construction doesn’t work as anticipated by the designer, etc. It would be nice to not allow any changes, but in my work, that is not possible.
I came across this article on a green pre-fab home that is trying to incorporate great design with sophisticated software.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.forbes.com/sites/toddwoody/2011/08/30/blu-homes-apple-approach-to-building-green-prefab-houses/
"The company aims to mass-produce environmentally friendly homes like Priuses, taking the cost and hassle out of custom home building" (Woody, 2011).
Thought about how scheduling would be altered for this method vs stick built and know Dan and Steve are in the residential sector, and wondered if they do any pre-fab?
DS