r. psp chris carson, faace, - fplotnick.com · glen r. palmer, psp,. cfcc. owner. gr palmer...

Glen R. Palmer, PSP,

CFCCOwner

GR Palmer Consulting Services, LLC

Chris Carson, FAACE, PSP, DRMP, CEP, CCM, PMPDirector of Program Controls

ARCADIS U.S., Inc.

2

Owner, GR Palmer Consulting Services, LLC

Certifications:

PSP (Planning & Scheduling Professional ) –

AACE International

CFCC (Certified Forensic Claims Consultant) –

AACE International

University of Maine, BS, 1976

Professional Field: Glen Palmer has over 35 years of experience working on engineering

and construction projects. He spent more than 20 years working for two major

engineering and construction companies where he held positions as Project Controls

Manager and Corporate Head of Planning and Scheduling. More recently, he spent five

years with a major risk management and dispute resolution firm in the role of Vice

President of Power. He has experience in power, commercial, infrastructure, and

process projects throughout the United States and internationally. He has extensive

experience in estimating, cost control, planning & scheduling, and project management

covering all project phases. He has been an expert witness

on disputes

Association Involvement

Active in AACE (Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering)

3

Director of Program & Project Controls, ARCADIS U.S., Inc.

Certifications:

Fellow RICS (Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors), 2015

Fellow AACE International, 2013

DRMP (Decision & Risk Management Professional ) –

AACE International

PSP (Planning & Scheduling Professional ) –

AACE International

CEP (Cost Estimating Professional) –

AACE International

CCM (Certified Construction Manager) ‐

CMAA

PMP (Project Management Professional) – PMI

University of Virginia, Mechanical Engineering, 1972

Professional Field: 44 years of experience in CM and CM Services

specializing in

Planning and Scheduling, Cost Management, Risk Management , Forensic Analysis,

Dispute Resolution

Awards

Recipient of the 2011 AACE International “Technical Excellence Award”

Received the award for “Significant Contributions to The Scheduling Industry”

from PMI

(Project Management Association of America) College of Scheduling, 2009

Awarded first CMAA “Chairman’s Award”

for contributions to CMAA and the Construction

Management profession, 2006

Other Associations

Active in CMAA (Construction Management Association of America)

Active in PMI and the PMI College of Scheduling/ Scheduling Community of Practice

Active in AACE (Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering) International

Active in Planning Planet & International Guild of Project Controls

Active in RICS (Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors)

• Publications:

PMI book, “CPM Scheduling for

Construction ‐

Best Practices and

Guidelines”

published Oct, 2014

AACE RPs, Journal articles in

Scheduling, Risk, Cost, Forensic

Analysis

The authors, with experience of over 75 years in the

engineering / construction industry

The following presentation is based on the some of

biggest lies we have encountered in Project Controls and how to deal with them. What are some of the

biggest lies you have encountered?

There is no Float buried in the Construction Schedule


Important Discussion Points

Level III versus Level IV schedule

Critical and near critical activities

Is having float in the schedule a “bad”

thing?


Detailed Discussion Points

Level IV – If the construction schedule is prepared at a level IV and

is resource loaded (driven), it is more difficult to find the buried

float, because the unit rates / man‐hours are inflated to add time

Level III – every critical path schedule activity has a duration equal

to the construction work week or multiple work weeks



Level III – Start‐to‐start lags are high numbers and more than likely

represent a later than necessary successor start date



What is the difference between float and “time contingency?”

Is having float in a construction schedule a “bad”

thing?


Advice

Adopt a scheduling approach that allows float but makes it

transparent

Resource loading is too much trouble and doesn’t

provide value to the project




Understanding of planned resources is vital

Performance monitoring requires resource assessment

A schedule is not a true CPM schedule without taking into account

use of available resources

Inadequate available resources is at the heart of most disputes

Accurate resource count and loading is difficult

Resources are factor in all claims, inefficient at end when stacked

Manpower

Resource loading doesn’t provide value to the project




Production Rate x Quantities = Durations

Production Rate of Resources is based on number and capability

Cannot discuss Durations without assessing Production Rates

Achieved Production Rate x Quantities = Performance

Performance analysis is more than just identifying delays, it’s also

improvement analysis

Getting good individual resource information from subcontractors

is difficult and subject to inaccuracy

Loading individual resources carries risk of a high rate of error




Resources can mean Individual Resources (Mary Smith), Roles

(carpenters), or Crew Resources (Electrical Crew)

Value of resources depends on type of project

Individual Resources –

Engineering, Architecture

Individual Roles –

Engineering, shipbuilding

Crew Resources – construction of all types

Use of Crew Resources is simple, very useful, and limits risks of

inaccuracy and error




Baseline Schedule

Identify crews for each activity, load one crew/day in each activity

Need definition of crew composition

Update Schedules

Monitor planned against actual crew use

Analysis

Performance – resource consumption vs. planned

Inefficiency – resource productivity at activity level vs. planned

Delays – change order resource consumption vs. contract

Control trade & space

stacking risks

Resource loading doesn’t provide value to the project



Advice

Needed Information/Data

Baseline planned resources

Monthly resource look‐ahead plan & actual resources consumed

Use crew resources with crew composition

Analysis

Load crews into schedule, run crew average and peak loads

Review crews per trade, per location, per phase

Review similar as well as dissimilar concurrent crew use

Review crew usage on location basis, avoid overload of spaces

The Project can achieve 10 % construction progress in

one month


one month


Size of the Project

Work Force capabilities

Modularization

Increased “safety”

emphasis

Feeding the machine


one month


Size of the Project

When you have 500,000 craft workhours or higher it becomes

increasingly difficult in the USA to make 10 % construction progress in a

month


one month


Work Force capabilities

Our construction force is aging and there is substantially less training

than in there was in the past


one month


Modularization

Moving workhours offsite is a very valid approach to making 10 % in a

month


one month


Increased “safety”

emphasis

We put a high emphasis on “safety”

in the USA, which impacts

productivity


one month


Feeding the machine

On large projects with high numbers of craft, it becomes more difficult to

supply the materials required to the work fronts to keep the work force

productive


one month


one month

Advice

When someone hands you a percent complete curve with one or

more months with greater than 10 % construction progress – pay

attention

A Detailed Design‐Build Schedule is Impossible until

Design is Complete


Design is Complete


A promoted advantage for DB is shortened construction time

33% faster than DBB*

23.5% faster than Construction Management*

Yet, DB contractors often take the position that they cannot provide

a detailed schedule until design is complete ~30% into

construction?

*Konchar & Sanvido, “Comparison of US Project Delivery Systems, 1997


Design is Complete


Most DB projects are fixed price – with budget commitments at

~30% design completion or less

DB Contractors typically can provide detailed cost estimates

Conceptual but still reasonable with limited contingency

Cost estimates require similar information as scheduling, so if the

data is sufficient for detailed estimates, it is sufficient for schedule


Design is Complete


Most DB projects are fixed price – with budget commitments at

~30% design completion or less

Project duration is an important part of a project budget

Cannot provide accurate project duration without schedule

Contractor’s scheduler and designer work together, so can

collaborate on schedule


Design is Complete


DB Contractors bear ultimate coordination risk

Schedule is primary coordination tool

Schedule is primary communication tool

Often unforeseen conditions show up early with no schedule

Without early schedule, project is at higher risk of coordination and

success


Design is Complete

Advice

Require detailed schedule early in process

Do not allow late submission of schedule

No excuses because schedule is needed for early coordination and

analysis

Consider multiple submission of schedules

Preliminary schedule should contain detailed look ahead with summary to

completion

Secondary or tertiary schedules can be produced as further development of

preliminary but the goal is to have as much detail as possible

Do not allow “rolling‐wave”

effort as design is developed; need good overall

schedule in place to manage and analyze

The entire schedule has been analyzed and validated



Critical path

High Float Values

Manpower curves



Critical path

Does the critical path (longest path) make sense? What about the

near

critical paths?



High Float Values

This is one of the weakest aspects of scheduling today – lack of evaluating

high float

Float values allow monitoring of Non‐Critical Path work



Manpower Curves

Does the manpower curve have peaks all over the place or is it reasonably

bell shaped?


Advice

Don’t take someone’s word that the schedule has been analyzed and

validated; check it yourself!!

All the Delay is the Responsibility of One Party



There are significant challenges to identification of delay

Identification of delay

Recognition of entitlement

Assignment of responsibility



Identification of delay

Requires strong technical scheduling skills, a well maintained schedule that

models the work, and strong technical forensic analysis knowledge & skills


Well defined and understood contract documents

Detailed understanding of contractual scope of work

Assignment of responsibility

Detailed knowledge of contemporaneous project

Accurate documentation of daily work




Without a good understanding of both the contract and the scope,

entitlement disputes will delay the negotiations of time extensions

This can cause predicted delays to become absorbed into the project

Changes the entire analysis methodology from simple analysis to complicated

claims analysis



Industry studies show who has most

influence over change:

The Project Manager, Pinnell‐

Busch, Inc. 2005

(“Global Construction Disputes 2016 –

Don’t Get Left Behind”, ARCADIS)

Risk Assessment and Best Practices, Pinnell‐Busch, Inc. 2005

• Causes of Change• Contractors’

view

• Scope changes

• Errors & omissions

• Differing site conditions

• Owner delay

• Contractor error

• Estimated quantities low

• Causes of Change• Owners’

view

• Scope changes

• Differing site conditions

• Design errors

• Estimated quantities low

• Owner delay

• Contractor error

38%

25%

12%

9%

6%

5%

32%

19%

18%

12%

7%

6%



Advice

Clear contractual requirements for analyzing delay

Treat absorbed delays differently from predicted delays

Reference AACE RP #52R‐06 “Time Impact Analysis”

Reference AACE RP #29R‐03 “Forensic Schedule Analysis”

Embrace strong technical scheduling; knowledgeable schedulers,

good quality schedules, experts to analyze delay for support of

identification of delay

Include contract specialist; CM, QC, Project Engineer, Procurement

Manager for support of entitlement determination

Ensure high quality documentation for support of assignment of

responsibility

The Schedule Dates / Critical Paths have not been

manipulated


manipulated


Owner / Client on Critical Path

Strange / Changing lag values

Decreased Activity Durations

Schedule Analyzer, Claim Digger, or Fuse


manipulated


If the Owner’s / Client’s activities appear on the critical path soon

after the Project starts to fall behind schedule, you may want to

check the schedule for manipulation


manipulated


Strange / changing lag values – if a lag has a strange value it

suggests some science was involved in it’s determination


manipulated


manipulated


Strange / changing lag values – if a lag has a different value in a

subsequent update it suggests manipulation


manipulated


manipulated


Decreased Activity Durations – If you find that activities that are

future work activities and the durations have changed (especially

important on critical and near critical paths); again suggests

manipulation


manipulated


manipulated


Schedule Analyzer, Claim Digger, Or Fuse – These programs can

help you more quickly see what has changed


manipulated

Advice:

Analyze, analyze again, and then challenge the questionable

methodology before it goes too far

Our plan has not changed significantly; we’ve only

made minor adjustments




Failure to meet plan is a contributing factor in most claims

The “minor adjustments”

tend to reduce the viability of the future

work

It’s in everyone’s best interests to ensure the original plan is

attainable and is pursued aggressively each month

The schedule is a model of the plan ‐

both must align

Contractor’s failed plan requiring re-planning

Planned Resources need increases by 3 Crews in one update

“EOP 10”

–

progress only import to Update 10

Our plan has not changed significantly

Contractor’s failed plan requiring re-planning

Note that within one update period, the schedule shifted resources 4 months later!

“EOP 10”

–

progress only import to Update 10





The Critical Path of the progress‐only schedule is usually very

different from the mitigation efforts in the updated schedule

Progress only is the plan from the previous period – this is the Critical Path

that the CM team was monitoring

Mitigation logic change schedule Critical Path is usually a complete surprise

to the CM team – it can be responsible for a mid‐period Critical Path shift

Determination of driving activities is very different between actual progress & logic

changes (with mitigation manipulation)




Advice

Ensure achievable baseline schedule

Review crew resources for concurrency problems

Provide high quality technical review

Bifurcate the update analysis

Evaluate performance against plan

Evaluate logic changes made to mitigate performance failure

Encourage the contractor to make transparent minor adjustments

to better model the plan; but watch for hidden mitigation

“The Project is on Schedule”



Lack of Schedule Detail

Baseline Schedule Comparison

Questionable Updating Process

Schedule Sequence Deviations

Project Management Issues

“…just a quarter of

construction projects

came within 10 percent

of the original

deadline…”



Lack of Schedule Detail – Will impact anyone’s ability to accurately

update schedule progress and bring guessing into play



Baseline Schedule Comparison – If the current schedule is not being

compared to the baseline or target schedule, how do you know

where you are supposed to be on the job at any point in time?



Questionable Updating Process – A true updating process should be

“Quantitative”

not “Qualitative”



Schedule Sequence Deviations – If the project team is not paying

attention to the planned sequence of work, the schedule rapidly

becomes useless in monitoring the project’s schedule progress



Project Management Issues – There are PMs who are unqualified,

and some that are dishonest when it comes to overseeing a schedule

update; this can lead to an inaccurate picture of project status


Advice:

Don’t accept the above statement without doing your due

diligence!!

The project has only slipped by four days



Single period Critical and Near‐Critical Path Analysis, while vital,

will reveal only immediate delay concerns

Equally vital is the issue of trending; what are the ramifications of

the single period delays to all periods?

Analysis can be time‐consuming, particularly if not directed



All Critical and Near‐Critical Path delays should be examined to

determine if they will occur in later periods

Non‐Critical Path delays may not cause an immediate delay but

could have huge consequences in future periods

Failure to identify trending delays will allow them to be amplified in

later periods, often beyond the ability to mitigate



All Critical and Near‐Critical Path delays should be examined to

determine if they will occur in later periods

Does the delay reveal a problem with schedule logic?

Does the delay reveal a problem with resources or productivity?

Does the delay reveal a problem with one trade contractor?

Is there any reason to believe that this delay will never happen

again?



All Non‐Critical Path delays should be identified and examined by

trending

There are multiple tools for trending analysis

Float dissipation

Missed Starts and Finishes

Time Performance Ratio (duration analysis) – TPR or Tipper

Crew resource over‐allocation (under staffed)

Earned Value

Missed dates show lack of performance


97


This project suffered a pattern of delays in A/E review


Time Performance Ratio

0.02.0

4.06.08.0

10.012.0

Admin

Sitework

Concre

teMas

onry

Metals

Carpen

tryRoo

fing

Doors/

Wind

ows

Finish

esEqu

ipmen

tFurn

ishing

sElev

ators

Mecha

nical

Electric

al

Type of Work

TPR


EVMS To Complete Indices

To Complete Performance Index

(TCPI) for BAC

TCPI = (BAC – EV)/(BAC – AC)

If TCPI > 1, need improvement to

reach goal

The Planned Value curve slope in future period is steeper then past performance

May be achievable with additional crews with minor trending slippage

Future Plan


The Planned Value curve slope in future period is significantly steeper then past performance

Unlikely to be achievable even with additional crews and cannot accommodate trending slippage

Aggressive Future Plan



Advice

Embrace trending analysis – just as important as CP analysis

Use all the tools to ensure identification of trending problems

Float dissipation

Missed Starts and Finishes

Time Performance Ratio (duration analysis) – TPR or Tipper

Crew resource over‐allocation (under staffed)

Earned Value

10.

There is no Float buried in the construction schedule9.

Resource loading is too much trouble & doesn’t provide much value to

the project

8.

The project can achieve 10 % of the construction progress in one

month7.

A detailed design‐build schedule is impossible until design is complete6.

The entire schedule has been analyzed and validated5.

All the delay is the responsibility of one party4.

The schedule dates / critical paths have not been manipulated3.

Our plan has not changed significantly; we’ve only made minor

adjustments

2.

The project is on schedule 1.


Glen R. Palmer, PSP, CFCCOwner

GR Palmer Consulting Services, LLC7 Caswell Drive

Greenland, NH 03840 Office Ph.: 603‐436‐6604Mobile Ph.: 603‐591‐6754

E‐mail: [email protected]

Chris Carson, FAACE, PSP, DRMP, CEP, CCM, PMP

Director of Program & Project ControlsARCADIS U.S., Inc.

295 Bendix Road, Suite 240Virginia Beach, VA 23452Mobile Ph.: 757‐342‐5524

E‐mail: [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.gpalmer.com/

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.arcadis-us.com/

r. psp chris carson, faace, - fplotnick.com · glen r. palmer, psp,. cfcc. owner. gr palmer...

Documents