Level: Advanced
Author(s): Greg M. Hall, PSP
Venue: 2017 AACE International Annual Meeting, Orlando, FL
Abstract: Change is inseparable from construction, yet the owner/contractor cooperation necessary to properly deal with it varies widely from project to project. Specifications require detailed, regular schedule updates and numerous reports, but much of what the contractor generates to meet those specifications is either rejected by the owner, of questionable value, and/or ignored by both parties.
To make matters worse, each party often responds to change in a manner that seeks to protect their interests. Contractors protect profit margin by refusing new risk or seeking high compensation for it. Owners try to control program cost while keeping delivery commitments to the stakeholders. While cost certainty benefits both parties, potential change orders and resolution of potentially costly delay impacts can often languish up to—or beyond—project completion.
This paper addresses open, unresolved changes and delays by examining past projects’ typical practices of schedule updating, Time Impact Analysis, handling Resource-Driven Logic (RDL), and communication of the data generated by these processes. By differentiating between progress and schedule adjustments, distinguishing RDL versus physical logic changes, and emphasizing “LP23” reviews which include Progress-Only update status, we hope to encourage the owner and the contractor to review and discuss the schedule update reports and find solutions which are in the project’s best interest, meet their divergent goals, and avoid disputes.
Author(s): Greg M. Hall, PSP
Venue: 2017 AACE International Annual Meeting, Orlando, FL
Abstract: Change is inseparable from construction, yet the owner/contractor cooperation necessary to properly deal with it varies widely from project to project. Specifications require detailed, regular schedule updates and numerous reports, but much of what the contractor generates to meet those specifications is either rejected by the owner, of questionable value, and/or ignored by both parties.
To make matters worse, each party often responds to change in a manner that seeks to protect their interests. Contractors protect profit margin by refusing new risk or seeking high compensation for it. Owners try to control program cost while keeping delivery commitments to the stakeholders. While cost certainty benefits both parties, potential change orders and resolution of potentially costly delay impacts can often languish up to—or beyond—project completion.
This paper addresses open, unresolved changes and delays by examining past projects’ typical practices of schedule updating, Time Impact Analysis, handling Resource-Driven Logic (RDL), and communication of the data generated by these processes. By differentiating between progress and schedule adjustments, distinguishing RDL versus physical logic changes, and emphasizing “LP23” reviews which include Progress-Only update status, we hope to encourage the owner and the contractor to review and discuss the schedule update reports and find solutions which are in the project’s best interest, meet their divergent goals, and avoid disputes.