I modified this week’s topic slightly after reading these articles. These 9 articles cover three distinct steps in scheduling work during construction: update schedule, submit to the owner for approval, and review conducted by the owner. The concept of baseline schedule plays a very important role in this process. Unfortunately none of these articles covers all aspects of this process. I am having a hard time deciding which would be the required reading. Article 4 would be a good choice because schedule updating is one of the contractor’s essential tasks. Some of you with architecture background may find Article 2 interesting because it is from the owner’s perspective. The title of Article 1 may be misleading. It is a pretty thorough description of the owner’s schedule review process, just like Article 2. However, very little in this article is about “automating”.
This is the solution I came up with. Choose between Article 2 and 4. You may read either one as the required article. You may find the example schedule in Article 4 challenging if you don’t have any background in scheduling.
Article 5 and 6 are about the timeline issue with getting baseline schedule approved by the owner at the beginning of the project. Article 3 is a short blurp on schedule review from a neutral stand point. Article 9 on the other hand is a long article on recommended practices for the entire process of updating and review, but unfortunately in the context of Engineering Procurement and Construction (EPC) projects. Most of you would find it less relevant. Article 8 is about the specific issue of constructability and its role in schedule review.
Article 7 is a unique piece about baseline schedule. It gives us at least one of the reasons why the “big dig” project in Boston was so messed up.
- Automating the Schedule Review Process, John R. Knoke, PE; Jhan Schmitz, AACE Transactions, 1992
- Owner's Reviews of Schedules - How Far Should They Go?, Donald J. Fredlund, Jr.; Fred King, AACE Transactions, 1992
- Schedule Review Basics, Craig L. Olsen, AACE International Transactions, 2000
- The Necessity of Project Schedule Updating/Monitoring/Statusing, Jeffrey D. Kursave, CCC, Cost Engineering , 2003
- Contractor's Schedule Submittal: Catch-22, Earl T. Glenwright Jr., AACE International Transactions, 2004
- Construction Baseline Schedule Review and Submittal Timeframe, Win G. Li, PE CCE PSP; David J. Carter, Cost Engineering, 2005
- A Continuously Changing As-Planned Baseline, John C Livengood; Mark I Anderson, AACE International Transactions; 2005
- Schedule Constructability Review, Edward E. Douglas, CCC, PSP, AACE International Transactions, 2008
- AACE International Recommended Practice No. 53R-06 Schedule Update Review, 2008
Part 1
ReplyDeleteI read article #2, Owner’s Review of Schedules - How Far Should They Go? By Donald J. Fredlund, Jr. and Fred King definitely covers a lot of information. It reminded me of the different AIA contracts I had to read and had to familiarize myself with for the Architectural Registration exams (ARE) and Construction Documentation Technologist (CDT) exam. It became clear that to me that there are many technical and legal issues that one needs to comprehend but from my experience these are mainly handled at upper management levels as they should be, leaving lower level employees in the dark. With this said, it is easy to read this article and say, “I know what I need to do” but when you are faced with some of these issues in real life, it sometimes is another story. The ARE and CDT seem to focus in on perfect situations that seldom occur and my criticism of this article seems to be for these types of scenarios. I feel one needs to spend considerable time with scheduling, contracts, etc. to become very fluid in your decision making skills in order in to come close to perfect. Perfect does not seem possible in construction?
I do agree with early open communication between owner and contractor can be very beneficial. It creates a more comfortable situation where everyone has the goal of on-time (final) completion. The author’s emphasis on team reviews with all or many parties involved can be conducted as a value engineering exercise makes sense. They sum this up nicely in paragraph #3 on page D.5.3. This reminds me of a check set that would hypothetically be done in an architectural office prior to bid (or permit) set release. It is similar to crossing all your t’s and dotting your I’s but again only really see this done 50% of the time, because of crisis mode that usually happens at the tail end of a project.
The owner checking to make sure the contractor has covered all of the physical scope is an interesting area of discussion. The owner or his employees must be savvy to be able to do this even though it is worthwhile. The author’s state if the schedule is resource loaded with costs and quantities than it is much easier to verify. The owner needs to tread carefully not to irritate the contractor by making him think his schedule is being second guessed or scrutinized excessively?
They spend a considerably amount of time discussing shop drawings and submittals and rightfully so. This is the last time you have to make sure all dimensions, notes, material selections etc. are correct before purchase, fabrication, and installation occur. I have heard in some firms I have worked in, “Oh we’ll catch that in shop drawings” is not the best way of doing things and probably would increase the owner’s chance of getting an ulcer. They provide four basic approaches, second paragraph from bottom on page D5.4. C or D they say are more commonly used. I have read in the AIA contracts that 14 days is the typical time frame to review and sign off on the shop drawings, and that is what I have usually encountered in different firms when I have been given that duty. Maybe this changes when projects are enormous, times are slow, i.e. recession, where the firm can turn things around more quickly? The seven bullet items on page D5.5 are helpful.
DS
Part 2
ReplyDeleteWhat I found most interesting is the early completion discussion and who owns the float from April 1 to July 1? The clarification of duration time for portion of work, substantial completion, and final completion was refreshing because I typically am not dealing with that, even though when I have done CA on my own it has been a great learning experience. The arguments for both parties on page D5.6 and if the contractor meets the four bullet points on the same page, will typically favor the contractor in case law is not surprising. How often do both parties end up in mediation, arbitration or litigation over early completion issues? I am assuming that 20 years after this article was written, contracts must clearly stipulate this by now? There was one principal in a larger firm I worked at briefly who solely dealt with contracts and seemingly nothing else. The authors do provide one possible answer, sequestering of float which I have not come across before which adjusts the CPM so it ends more closely to the owners finish date.
Using as-planned vs. Updated/revised schedules dilemma based on the two documents may or will possess different remaining activities and logic seems to indicate that the owner really needs to be savvy when it comes to construction and scheduling. With minimal experience in this area I am reluctant to wholeheartedly agree with the authors stating that contractors prefer using the updated/revised schedule and owners prefer the updated as-planned? In any case I wonder, who makes the changes to the schedule, the PM, superintendent, project coordinator, or recent college graduate newbie back in the home office?
In conclusion there is a lot to chew on in this article and I feel that like so many other things I have read or studied for, always reading about construction activities and not being out in the field are two very different things when someone is looking at you to make an intelligent decision. However, in tough economic times the owner needs to be ever more vigilant and knowledgeable about schedules and cost so they are not taken for a ride and are able to ‘go toe-to-toe’ with the contractor on impact changes or delay issues.
DS
I read Article #8, Schedule Constructability Review by Edward E. Douglas III that provides a great look at many of the items that go into constructability. They are reasonableness of work, sequence, comprehensive and completion of construction planning, coordination and interface among various craft trades and engineering disciplines adequacy of lead time… (Douglas 2008).
ReplyDeleteThe Construction Industry Institute and the ACEEI define constructability as the optimum use of construction knowledge and experience in planning, design/engineering, procurement and field operation to achieve overall objectives (Douglas 2008).
His statement that a cross check of CDs, specifications, system design etc. is done to satisfy the constructability review, as I stated in the previous blog for Topic 5 reminds me of the check set that should be going on in an architectural office prior to bid (or permit) set release. This checklist in the article is more detailed most likely because more liability is on the contractor than the architect. More risk, equals greater reward or loss?
The evolution of the checklist is described clearly under design and execution phase sections. My question as I was reading this is with a contractor is performing a constructability during the design stages of design for the owner, is this most likely a private, negotiated contract vs. a publicly bid project. If this is a publicly bid project I would assume this contractor, if it is a contractor doing the review, would have to excuse himself from bidding on the project because it would be deemed unfair or a conflict of interest based on the other bidders are only seeing the documents for the first time after the invitation for bid goes out? (The author does mention some info pertaining to this in paragraph 3 on page PS 16.3 but I would appreciate further clarification, if anyone has anything to add?)
The execution phase description reminded me of the due diligence checklist that was covered in the Land Development course. It almost seems like it is up to the individual how deep they want to dig into all of this?
The bullet items on page PS.16.4 was a good review and I never thought about his last one: The construction schedule should not be a duplication of the project submittal register, nor the project completion punch list. Those are separate project management documents.
Douglas’ description of site planning development covers many items one would need to handle, and again shows how many there are to be aware of. Access points, temporary facilities, laydown areas, site lighting etc. are key, which as an architect when you are focusing on documenting the building really one does not pay attention to because of other items you are focused on. This goes to show you how much goes into making a project successful.
Could someone provide further clarification on “hot work” 5th bullet on page PS.16.5?
His checklist starting on PS.16.5 and running to PS.16.6 is quite good and seems applicable to a number of project types. It reminds me of something the professor said in the estimating class I am currently taking, “buildings work because of items we do not see.” Being an architect, I realize I focus, or am made to focus on items we all see and have a tendency to focus less or ignore what really is required to complete the items we do not see. These items are not sexy and lack the wow factor. Not like you are ever going to see photos of footings, trenching, and sewer pipes in an Architecture magazine.
This article seems to have more references and recommended reading items than previous articles I have read for this class. I guess this shows the importance of schedule constructability review.
DS
Owner’s Reviews of Schedules – How Far Should they Go?, By David J. Fedlundand Fred King
ReplyDeleteThis article brought up some very interesting points to consider.
1. Team review of the contractors schedule submittal.
2. “Who owns he float?”
3. Early finish forecast.
4. Submittal / Shop drawing review.
5. As-Planned vs. Updated-revised.
I have been in the industry for a long time and have never heard of the as an approach for the review of required construction schedule submittal. This would seem to provide a great deal of benefits to the review process, if it is considered as a “VE” exercise. The process of having the contractor present his schedule to the review team would instill confidence in the comprehensiveness of the schedule. And help the design team understand the logic of the schedule. During the discussion of logic and definition of the critical path the sequence of the critical submittals would become known to the team. This may have a beneficial effect on the submittal review turnaround times. Submittal review time, in my experience, has always had an effect on the schedule to one degree or another.
Another issue the article raises, which I have never given any thought, is the effects and impacts of an early finish schedule. The reasons for setting up an early finish schedule given in the article seem to be walking a very fine line between good construction scheduling and setting up the owner for delay claims. Included in the early finish schedule is the concept of “who owns the flat?” The owner would want to consider any changes to the completion date carefully. Unless the time allowed in the contract documents was erroneous, this practice would be counterproductive to the concept of repeat clients where more profits can be achieved. “Who owns the flat?” would be an interesting topic to investigate.
The use of the “as-planned” or the “updated-revised” schedule could have a great impact on the outcome of a request for delay claim. Did the owner provide timely decisions? Did the contractor pursue the work diligently? Did the contractor rework the logic? If so, why? I think a careful comparison between the two would render insight as to the validity of the claim.
This article provides a great deal to think about. It is worthwhile reading for all parties to a construction contract. Each would have their own reasons for reading it but it is definitely worth the time to read and consider the ideas and concents.
“Schedule Constructability review”, by Edward E. Douglas III
ReplyDeleteThis article discusses the review process for a construction schedule. It provides good information on the thought process when reviewing the schedule for completeness and logic review. Most of the article is taken up in lists of items to be considered when preforming a review. A good definition of constructability is given “The Construction Industry institute and the AACE International define constructability, the optimum use of construction knowledge and experience in the planning, design/engineering, procurement and field operations to achieve overall project objectives.” When reviewing a schedule this same knowledge and experience is to be used. The author uses the word experience a great deal which leads me to believe younger less experienced staff are not to be the ones performing this review. It would be advantageous to have them in the room during the review to observe the discussions.
The Necessity of Schedule Updating/Monitoring/Statusing: This article exposes one of the weaknesses of my small contracting company. To me, schedule updating is in essence a “maintenance” function, which like most maintenance functions, even though proven to be cost effective, tend to be largely ignored until the problem is front and center. As a small contractor (no other staff), I do spend quite a bit of time on the initial plan and schedule. However, once construction starts, updating, checking, and revising the status of the “plan” falls to the wayside. Even though I know it would be financially advantages to systematically update and adjust, it only makes the priority cut if a large problem is encountered.
ReplyDeleteThe author talks about three approaches to project updating:
• No project updating – the project is just measured by how far off schedule it drifts
• As needed – this is my normal approach. Nothing is updated unless something is obviously off the mark and needs attention – then a revision is done.
• Pre-determined periodic updates – obviously the best approach. Essentially a systematic approach where the critical path is looked at in regular intervals to assess and modify the schedule. When problems arise, all affected parties are consulted and revised time lines agreed to which then go back into the schedule to maintain a realistic timeline for the construction process. This is of course the most expensive, but in theory also the most cost effective, in terms of bottom line.
The author advocates the pre-determined, periodic updating CPM for maximizing both efficiency and the bottom line. By scheduling the periodic assessments of precedent activities, material requirements, workforce requirements, level of construction detail, and level of supervision or lack thereof, all parties involved can contribute and have a realistic “real time” project schedule that adapts to the realities of the job site. In larger jobs, with good software and all parties properly trained in its use, I would have to agree with Mr Kursave. As the jobs become less complex, and/or software and its users have less competence, I would argue that it becomes less and less cost effective.
The Contractor’s Schedule Submittal: Catch-22: Although this was an interesting article with a few good points on the pitfalls and common problems of creating a well formulated construction schedule, I must disagree with the authors basic premise of the contractor having no scheduling framework until after the job is awarded. To me this is ridiculous. The project cannot be accurately bid without taking the schedule variables into consideration. Mr. Glenwright Jr.’s words are “preparation of a realistic and valid construction plan and schedule is a major effort that requires a thorough understanding of the construction work to be done, how it will be done, and what sub-contractors will be utilized”. If you don’t have this understanding, how in the hell are you going to do an accurate bid? I would agree that, the schedule may not be to the level of detail which the owners require, but the contractor had better have a pretty close approximation, or the bid will have little chance of being accurate.
ReplyDeleteHe goes on to talk about issues which he feels are very important to a proper schedule. He talks about three phases to a scheduling process and assigns a percentage of importance to them: Planning (60%), Development (25%), and Management (15%). He believes the planning to be the most important part but also to be the area that generally gets inadequate attention or no effort at all. He talks about the eleven things that must be done in the planning stage (very nice list – anyone detect sarcasm).
Again, this guy says the most critical part (60% of importance) of scheduling is done poorly or not at all – NOBODY should be completing ANY construction jobs on budget or on time if one believes his statement! Blah, blah, blah for his development and management lists as well as his “proposed solution” to this problem. This guy has no business writing published papers in any type of professional journal. I’m sorry but I’m kind of tired, and blowhards who masquerade as “experts” tend to piss me off in this state.
Construction Baseline Schedule Review:
ReplyDeleteOverall I found this article to be quite enlightening on several areas of scheduling that I have not had the opportunity to experience. The author clearly defined several issues dealing with critical paths in schedules. The first was to me an ethics issue dealing with the creating of artificial critical paths by the contractor. This was achieved by lengthening activity durations, manipulations of predecessors/successors and altering construction sequences. The reason contractors at times set schedules up with these parameters is to allow for the potential change orders according to the author. I personally have never created or been asked to create such a schedule in attempts to “pad” the contractors plan and enable them to make claims for compensation. I made this sound as if schedulers are stealing from the blind. If there is more to this that makes its legitimate please feel free to correct me. Is it a morally accepted practice in scheduling???
The second issue was with who actually owns the float on a project. The author stated that in certain project contracts the owner of the float may or may not be specified. If the owner owns the float the contractor assumes all the risk and is basically at the mercy of the owner’s decision. The next scenario is if the float is owned by the project which basically allows the float to be consumed by whoever needs it first. The downfall to this is activities that occur first can use the float and make successor activities become the critical path with no float. I can’t believe that anybody would agree to either one of these conditions in a contract. I personally after reading this article will carefully examine the specifications dealing with schedules on my next project. The final scenario being float distribution without a doubt is most fair way to go about to assigning float. Each activity is assigned a certain amount of float based on its duration. In doing so each activity has some “wiggle room” and will not be held to a zero float do to its predecessors alone. Now there are situations where activity logic is too complex and other methods need to be used. I can honestly say that I haven’t heard of float distribution or had float assignment prioritized. According to the author allowing the owner to own the float should be avoiding. Can anyone suggest if at all when the owner should own the float??? Certain kind of scenario maybe no???
Owner’s Review of Schedules:
ReplyDeleteI found this article to be very informative and refreshing being I haven’t dealt with these issues for some while now. I can recall the first scheduling assignment I had scheduling a shutdown for a paper mill plant. The feat at hand was at times overwhelming but as the author stated a team concept of reviewing schedules is very beneficial to all the parties involved. The input from several different sources and knowledgeable people dealing with the project allowed me to minimize the redundant and maximize the pertinent information of the project. Even though at times I seemed to be just wasting time by having to redo all my logic looking back it served as valuable learning tool. This advantage of “Team Review” not only relates to the beginning scheduler but can benefit the more experienced scheduler as well.
Another issue that I have had the opportunity to deal with is the protocol for reviewing submittals/shop drawings. The experiences that I’ve encountered with submittals/shop drawings have been extensive ones. I previously worked at an engineering firm where the design of the entire project was conducted in-house. My job was to coordinate submittals/shop drawings between the engineers and the owner’s agent/contractors. In doing so, I realized the amount of work required by all parties involved to be able to effectively respond to the ever changing complexities of the project. In most cases decisions were made and drawings revised based on trial and error alone. With that in mind the author mentions that certain submittals/shop drawings may bear different levels of complexity and therefore require more time in creating workable solutions. This could not be closer to the truth.
The informative information that I obtained from this article was in the area of early completion forecast by the contractor. I have always thought that “why put off what you can do today until tomorrow?” In a perfect world that is a simple concept. Its seems that early completion of task can be a bad idea if not thoroughly thought out and at times can somewhat of a pitfall to the owner and a safety net for the contractor. By completing a task early a contractor can claim the owner is causing a delay that holds up the contractor and therefore request compensation. I have never thought of and early finish of any activity in that way and I am sure there is more.
Now in obtaining compensation for delays I was not aware that courts seem to use two types of schedules to decide if the claim is legitimate. As-planned and updated/revised schedules can be used to justify compensation. Which one is used depends on the validity and/or upkeep of the schedule itself. Each type of schedule serves its own purpose and is chosen based on the circumstances of the particular project.