1.
Dealing with Schedules That
Cannot be Approved
Chris Carson, PSP, CCM, PMP
Corporate Director of Project Controls, Alpha Corporation
Chris.carson@alphacorporation.com
757-342-5524
1

2.
Chris Carson
Corporate Director of Project Controls, Alpha Corporation
• Responsible for standards, processes, and procedures for a team of schedulers, analysts, and project
managers in multiple office locations, as well as analysis, work product, testimony, and marketing
• Developed and manages the in-house project controls training program at Alpha
• Certifications: PSP, CCM, PMP
• University: University of Virginia, Mechanical Engineering, 1968-1972
• Professional Field: 38 years of experience in Construction Management Services
specializing in Scheduling, Schedule Analysis, Estimating, Claims
• Active in AACE (Association for the Advancement of Cost Estimating International)
• Author & reviewer of Recommended Practices in Scheduling & Forensic Schedule Analysis RP
• Active in PMI (Project Management Institute) Scheduling Community of Practice
• Managing Director for SEI (Scheduling Excellence Initiative) writing Best Practices and Guidelines for
Scheduling and Schedule Impact Analysis
• Active in CMAA (Construction Management Association of America)
• Served on committee revising Time Management Chapter
• Chosen as one of National CCM Trainers
• Active in Planning Planet & the International Guild of Project Controls
• Chief Editor for US, developing accreditations for project controls
Something you do not know about me:
I’m Irish-American so I’ve likely told everything to everyone (my wife can vouch)
2

3.
Unapprovable Schedules
• It is in best interests of the project to get an approvable
schedule in place early
• Necessary for:
– Planning
– Management
– Analysis
– Documentation
• As‐planned portion must model Contractor’s means and
methods
• As‐built portion must accurately represent history
• Schedule should represent reasonable approach for all
tasks that could affect the project
3

4.
• If schedule does not support these goals, likely does not
meet industry practices
• Owner will likely be taking on risks from the schedule
• Schedule Review
– Process designed to improve quality of schedule
– Protects Owner from illegitimate EoT requests
– Protects Contractor by “proving” entitlement to EoT
– But be reasonable!
4

5.
• Too many projects start without approved schedules
– Increases risks to Owner and Contractor
– However, if risks of approval are greater than risks of
rejection, rejection is better option
• This session should:
– Offer suggestions as to ways to increase ability to approve
schedules
– Provide guidance for what to do if schedule cannot be
approved
5

6.
• Outline
– Risks of approval of “bad” schedule
– Reasons why schedules cannot be approved
– Suggestions for scheduling requirements to increase ability
to approve schedule
– Project controls actions when schedules cannot be
approved
– General project actions that can be taken to increase
opportunities to approve schedules
– General industry actions that can be taken to increase
opportunities to approve schedules
6

7.
• Risks of approval of “bad” schedule
– Owner
• Opportunities for claims positioning from manipulation
• Reduced ability to analyze delay
• Reduced ability to predict completion
• Could commit Owner to high resource need for submittals and
paperwork
• Poor logic makes Total float values less meaningful
• Increased chances that trades and spaces will overload near end of
project
– Risk of delay and disruption
– Risk of reduced quality (Dick Faris – Q x S = T x C)
7

8.
• Risks of approval of “bad” schedule
– Contractor
• No approved basis from which to measure delays
• Owner has not accepted Owner‐responsible work integration into the
schedule
• inability to prove Owner caused delays or disruption
• Planning is probably not sufficient
• Subcontractor input probably not sufficient
• Total Float values not legitimate or useful
– No early warning of problems
– No ability to correct course before wasting money
8

9.
• Reasons why baseline or as‐planned schedules
cannot be approved
– Incomplete schedule
– Poor modeling of scope and plan
– Misalignment between schedule and narrative (plan not
evident in schedule)
– Missing narrative
– Missing scope of work
– Uneven development of trade scope
– Inappropriate Critical Paths
– Problems with logic relationships
– Failure to plan for resources
– Schedule component problems (lags, constraints, calendars,
dangling or open activities, cost loading)
9

10.
• Reasons why update schedules cannot be approved
– Poor continuing modeling of scope and plan
– Unexplained revisions
– Missing narrative (to explain revisions)
– Out of sequence work (affecting Critical Path)
– Inappropriate Critical Paths
– Addition of delay events not approved by Owner
– Inaccurate as‐built data
– Inadequate resource planning
– Cost loading errors
10

11.
• Suggestions for scheduling requirements to increase
ability to approve schedule
– Require bid or tender schedule to qualify for award
– Time for planning – Contract should precede NTP
– Specify scheduler requirements (PSP, experience)
– Use two stage schedule submission
• Preliminary or Initial – short interim planning
• Detailed or Initial – full schedule
– Clarification of level of detail requirements
– Elaboration of written narrative requirement
– Requirement for crew resource loading
– Higher retainage costs for submission of approvable
schedule
11

12.
• Suggestions for scheduling meetings to increase ability to
approve schedule:
– Preliminary schedule review feedback
– Risk workshop
– Scheduling planning presentation meeting
– Presentation of Time Impact Analyses for EoTs
– Presentation of disputed issue analyses
12

13.
• Feedback from preliminary schedule
13

14.
• Risk Workshop – jointly with Owner and Contractor
14

15.
• Project controls actions when schedules cannot be
approved
– Identification of major discrepancies
– Careful documentation of all discrepancies
• Point out reason for discrepancies
• Summarized list
– Separate impacts absorbed into the
schedule/project from those that are not
• Absorbed impacts require a forensic analysis
• Impacts not yet absorbed require a Prospective TIA
15

16.
• List of discrepancies – clear, succinct
16

17.
• Project controls actions when schedules cannot be
approved
– Project requires a much higher level of documentation of
as‐built data
• Daily recordkeeping is necessary
– Deal with as‐built portion of the schedule separately from
as‐planned
• Similar to impact analysis
– As‐built has absorbed delays
– As‐planned has not absorbed delays
17

18.
• As‐Built Documentation
– When schedule discrepancies are severe, develop
Daily Specific As‐Built (DSAB) Schedule to document
actual conditions
– Document actual resources, ideally crews/equipment
– Perform resource analysis to validate what drove
schedule performance
– Perform identification of As‐Built Longest Path (or
ABCP as noted in AACE International’s FSA RP)
– Maintain cumulative delay chart from revised
schedules, annotate delay chart with impacts/low
productivity – Schedule Log (RP upcoming)
– Capture Time Performance Ratio or Missed S/F
18

19.
DSAB Prepared in a Forensic Mode
• Daily Specific As‐Built in As‐Planned vs. As‐Built Schedule Analysis
» Cost Engineering Vol. 50/No. 3 March 2008 By Svetlana Lyasko
19

20.
AB Forensic Schedule Development
• Retrospective As‐Built Schedule Development
– 2005 AACE International Transactions CDR.12 by Dr. Anamaria Popescu and Andrew Avalon
20

21.
DSAB Performed during Project
• Daily Specific As‐Built schedule development
– Significantly easier than in forensic application
21

22.
DSAB Procedure
• DSAB development – capture daily data into spreadsheet
– Each line item is a 1 day resource
22

23.
DSAB Procedure
• DSAB – identify field data for each line item, align with schedule
• These “activity codes” allow for filtering, sorting
23

24.
DSAB Procedure
• DSAB – develop all data for codes, then import into schedule
24

25.
Actual Resource Collection – by Crews
• Resource collection by crews
– Show planned crew loads (from contractor’s schedules to make a point)
– Collect count of actual crews
25

26.
Resource Analysis – Compare Plan/Actual
• Resource analysis
26

27.
Identify ABLP for Negotiations
• Presentation of ABLP analysis – alone or as AP vs. AB
– Use resource analysis to help establish ABLP
– Use ABLP to confirm validity of corrected schedules
27

28.
As‐Built Longest Path
• As‐Built Longest Path (ABLP) presentation
2004 2005 2006
Location Work Description
A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D
Mobilization
SBW 5 Clearing and Grubbing
Demolition, Asphalt Placement, Erosion
SBW 4
and Sediment Control
38 CD
B603 Electrical Conduit, Demolition
Demolition, Formwork, Rebar, Deck
13 CD
B601
Concrete Placement 19 CD
Formwork, Rebar, Deck Concrete
B602
Placement 37 CD
Formwork, Rebar, Footer & Wingwall
Placement, Precast Concrete Wall
99 CD
SBW 5
Erection, Asphalt Placement, Guardrail 90 CD
Installation
SBW 6 Precast Concrete Wall Erection 361 CD
Electrical, Clearing & Grubbing,
SBW 5
Excavation & Backfill 20 CD
Excavation & Backfill, Asphalt Placement,
SBW 6
Guardrail Installation 11 CD
B602 Concrete decks, Curb and Gutter 39 CD
B601 Demolition, Demobilization
3 CD
Concrete sidewalk placement, Demolition,
4 CD
B603
Demobilization 27 CD
28

29.
Cumulative Delay Discussion
• Schedule Log to generate cumulative delay chart
Chron Activity Critical Update Window Project Duration Remain. Time
File Name Start Date Data Date Early Finish Cum Delay Notes
Order Count Activities Size (cd) (cd) (cd)
6-Jul-09 15-Apr-09 15-Apr-09 26-Jul-10 578 29 0 N/A 467 467 baseline DC 2003
580 83 0 N/A
6-Jul-09 15-Apr-09 15-Apr-09 26-Jul-10 467 467 revised baseline DC Hodges 03
578 61 92
16-Jul-08 15-Apr-09 16-Jul-09 10-Aug-10 10 482 390 Revised baseline (Zero Progress)
9-Mar-09 50 0 N/A
15-Apr-09 15-Apr-09 26-Jul-10 571 467 467 Baseline Revisions DC 03
50 0 N/A
1 15-Apr-09 15-Apr-09 15-Apr-09 26-Jul-10 571 467 467 Baseline Final
#VALUE! 16
DESIGN
15-Apr-09 1-May-09 N/A
8 8 #VALUE! Design Issues Schedule
19-Oct-09 19-Oct-09 29-Sep-10 112 65 171
2 15-Apr-09 571 532 345 Update October 19, 2009
4-Dec-09 4-Dec-09 91 46
3 15-Apr-09
25-Oct-10
571
133
558 325 Update December 04, 2009
4-Dec-09 15-Apr-09 4-Dec-09 9-Dec-10 571 221 136 0 603 370 Update December 04, 2009, with Glenwood
3
21-Jan-10 21-Jan-10 15-Dec-10 212 142 48
4 15-Apr-09 571 609 328 January Update 2010
154 41
5 3-Mar-10
15-Apr-09
3-Mar-10 27-Dec-10
571
213 621 299 February Update 2010
154 77
6 19-May-10
15-Apr-09
19-May-10 27-Dec-10
571
127 621 222 May update 2010
133 44
7 2-Jul-10
15-Apr-09
2-Jul-10 6-Dec-10
571
134 600 157 June Update 2010
144 26
8 28-Jul-10
15-Apr-09
28-Jul-10 17-Dec-10
571
185 611 142 July Update 2010
172 0
IT
15-Apr-09 28-Jul-10
14-Jan-11 577 185 639 170 IT Claim with July Update
199 65
9 1-Oct-10
15-Apr-09
1-Oct-10 10-Feb-11
571
113 534 266 September Update 2010
227 2
TANK
15-Apr-09 3-Oct-10
10-Mar-11 576 114 694 158 Day Tank Claim with Sept Update
213 31
10 3-Nov-10
15-Apr-09
3-Nov-10 24-Feb-11
571
82 680 113 October Update 2010
219 37
11 10-Dec-10
15-Apr-09
10-Dec-10 2-Mar-11
571
62 686 82 November Update 2010
210 67
12 15-Feb-11
15-Apr-09
15-Feb-11 21-Feb-11
571
18 677 6 January Update 2011
256 31
15-Apr-09 571 723 21
13 18-Mar-11 18-Mar-11 8-Apr-11 6
295 39
29
February Update 2011
14 26-Apr-11
15-Apr-09
26-Apr-11 17-May-11
571
6
762 21 March/April Update 2011

30.
Cumulative Delay Discussion
• Chart Cumulative Delays directly from Schedule Log
30

31.
Cumulative Delay Discussion
• Chart Cumulative Delays – Overlay known delay event timeframes
31

32.
Cumulative Delay Discussion
• Chart Cumulative Delays – Label known delay timeframes
32

33.
Cumulative Delay Discussion
• Chart Cumulative Delays
Period of possible concurrent submittal problems
33

34.
Cumulative Delay Discussion
• Chart Cumulative Delays – Note any delays/production issues
Shows two schedules with same data date & different EF dates
Could be acceleration or mistake, but worthy of investigation during triage?
34

35.
Cumulative Delay Discussion
• Chart Cumulative Delays – Identify specific delay or acceleration
concerns
No overall delay due to IT design
35

36.
Cumulative Delay Discussion
• Chart Cumulative Delays – Identify specific delay or acceleration
concerns
Period of possible concurrent production problems
36

37.
Cumulative Delay Discussion
• Annotate Cumulative Delays
Period of possible concurrent production problems
No overall delay due to IT design
Period of possible
concurrent submittal
problems
Shows two schedules with same data date & different EF dates
37

38.
Cumulative Delay Discussion
• Annotated Cumulative Delay Chart
38

39.
Actual/Original Duration
• TPR ‐ Time Performance Ratio – AD/OD
– Shows performance slips
39

40.
TPR/Resource Analysis
• Show Activity Duration impact on delays
40

41.
As‐Built
• As‐Built documentation
– This provides solid documentation of what
happened
– Collected from project records – validated
– Documented in form for use in meeting
with contractor
• Next step – As‐Planned documentation
41

42.
As‐Planned
• As‐Planned documentation
– Create separate set of schedules incorporating revisions to
correct discrepancies
• Document how discrepancies are incorporated
– Identify analysis differences between submitted schedules
and revised schedules
– Analyze resource (crew) needs for next period work
• Review for reasonableness (compare to actual)
– Compare that ASLP/CP to the previous period revised
analysis, record differences, and analyze
– Generally it should align fairly well – while the contractor’s
schedule will not
– Meet with Contractor – present results of ABLP/CP,
resource analysis
• Intent is to show how revised analysis (incorporating
discrepancy revisions aligns with actual project data in
DSAB/ABLP
42

43.
As‐Planned
• Show As‐Planned differences
43

44.
Present Resource Plan
• Planned Resource Histogram
44

45.
Present Resource Plan
• Resources – Daily Plan
45

46.
Conclusions
• These steps will put the Owner in a strong position even
without approvable schedules
• The goal is to use the data to meet with the Contractor
– Convince them to cooperate and fix
schedules
– Convince them that documentation rebut
loose/inaccurate claims
– Convince them that the Owner’s analysis
process is accurate and convincing
• Ideally this process will influence the Contractor to raise
the quality of their schedules
• Bingo; approvable schedules
46

47.
Other Opportunities
• General industry actions that can be taken to increase
opportunities to approve schedules
– Providing free training in the industry to improve the quality
of schedules
– Refer contractors to quality scheduling consultants
– Industry involvement to define and raise the level of good
practices for scheduling
– Helping the Owner to develop a schedule‐driven culture
– Conference participation:
• ConstructionCPM
• AACE International
• PMI SCoP
• CMAA
47

48.
Dealing with Schedules That Cannot be Approved
Questions? Comments?
Chris Carson, PSP, CCM, PMP
Corporate Director of Project Controls, Alpha Corporation
Chris.carson@alphacorporation.com
757-342-5524
48

49.
Separator Page
49