Not all the time the never approving programme tactic works in favor of the client.

In one project, we submitted the first issue of the programme to satisfy the contract requirement. As expected it was rejected with 10 pages of comments.

We submitted revision A within 21 days as required in the contract. Within 21 days the programme was rejected with 4 pages of comments.

We submitted revision B expecting to receive approval. The programme was rejected again. This time only 2 pages of comments. Duration seems excessive, activity A is not related to activity B, etc.

Then after 4 months the client started to get concerned with the delays. We submitted revision C eliminating the current delay. Still the programme was rejected.

Then there was delay in the possession of one portion of site. We submitted revision D eliminating our delay and preparing for the major claim regarding delay possession of site. For obvious reason the programme has to be rejected.

There was another delay due to the client. We submitted revision E doing the same thing as in revision D.

In the progress meeting, we were heavily criticize due to delay in two sections of the works. We stated that based on revision E all the works are on programme except two items where the delays were due to the client.

After two weeks we had an approved works programme. What surprised us was, it was the revision B that was approved.

Regards to All,

Perhaps you have looked that this whole issue in a way that assumes many things that may be incorrect. In the USA, construction is a negotiated process. The Owner defines his requirements and the Contractor prices the cost of performing the work and then the Owner decides on the best course of action.

The Owner does not wish to one day attend a meeting in which the Contractor states, “Oh, by the way – we had a delay a while ago and I went out and hired more workers to put us back on schedule. Here is a bill for the extra workers.”

The Owner wants (and has a legal right) to be notified of a delay in a timely manner. He then can ascertain if that delay is a project delay (delays the completion of the project) and whose responsibility that delay was.

If the delay was the fault of the Owner, then he may request suggestions for overcoming the delay and pricing for each. The Owner then appraises the various options and costs (including just letting the project completion extend) and directs a course of action.

If the Owner chooses to add extra manpower for a certain price and length of time, then the authority and pricing would already be agreed upon. This may seem like a lengthy process, but so is litigation.

The problem with any programme put forward for approval is that typically it –
·requests information earlier than it necessarily needs, ·lacks build up to the lead-in/procurement period from receipt of info to site installation, ·does not allow for any structured release of information to meet the demands of the programme, ·does not provide any indication of resource levels required to achieve the programme, ·does not provide a method statement to complement the basic concept of how they intend to carry out the works in accordance with the programme, ·the durations of activities have no details of how they were built up and established, ·there are no quantities or value attached to the activities, ·the logic linking the network together has not been provided and will require substantiation, ·some sequences of work might be preferential and are open to other equally viable permutations, ·certain activities will no doubt have been missed, ·some activities will no doubt deem to include or incorporate certain elements of work that are deficient in the description, ·so many aspects of the programme will merely be indicative of what the planner drafting the programme feels is an appropriate period of time based on his experience and knowledge, ·the programme is probably not properly correlated with the tender price/bid in respect to method, resources, quantities, output rates, plant, calendar, working hours, sub-contractors, etc. ·does not define in detail the essential elements of the design information that is required to enable to works to progress efficiently, ·periods of available float on non-critical activities are not shown or defined, ·certain activities do not indicate any learning curve allowance and production is predicted as constant from start to finish, ·certain activities group elements of the works together without any obvious consideration of the complexity of the co-ordinated sequence of the operations, ·certain activities of similar work content seem to require longer periods of time, ·there are a number of critical path activity strings through the network - how dependable are these?, ·the sub-contractors that the programme intends to utilise are not identified, so as and when sub-contracts are placed then the procurement / installation string will no doubt differ for each selected sub-contractor either due to the use of an alternative contractor or due to revised circumstances of the tendered contractor and so the programme will inevitably alter.
Any such baseline programme would require the dependencies and critical path to correctly reflect the true and strict criteria for the sequencing of the Works. However, there is always so much uncertainty with regards to so many different influential factors, making it impossible to develop a perfect model programme, one that will accurately generate the real consequential effects of any delays or failings. It is impossible to predict the future with any accuracy. The expectations of what a fully logic linked network planned programme provides is all so often too great. After all, a programme is only the best forecast of what can be expected to happen in the future, based on current circumstances, what is known about at the time and with the information available. As the quality of the information improves, the situation alters, different ways of working are realised, more information is received, changes are made, etc, then the programme of future intent will inevitably require adjustment, ie, adaptive planning.
With the knowledge of all of the above uncertainty, how credible can any EOT analysis be, if it relies on best guess programmes ?
Feasibility is the key to solving the problem. One has to demonstrate that the project was feasible in the time frame, based on certain criteria known about and allowed for at the time of tender. But let the planner determine the optimum time frame for the project.

If you have been delayed in your works and as a result you use 20% more men on site than is shown in the approved programme. Am I correct in assuming that you have to DEMONSTRATE that the increased resources employed were required AS A RESULT of the delaying occurance?
YES. Cause and Effect. However, one should also consider that the consequential effects to subsequent activities could be quite substantial. Knock on effect.

Am I also correct in assuming that you cannot simply say that the ACTUAL INCREASED RESOURCES reflect a direct result of the delay, ie that the programme is approved and as such any manpower over and above that approved baseline must therefore be down to the delay? Surely this may be too simplistic.
YES you are correct. Whether one is looking at manpower resources or money, it is not good enough to claim that the difference must be the result of the delay, even if there is only one delay and it is an employer relevant event. That would have o assume that the planned manpower or the bid estimate was correct.

Yes measured mile is one method used to demonstrate that productivity was good in a period of minimal or no disruption, compared with a period where disruption was high. However may I refer everyone to a very good web site by the Strathclyde University which deals with delay and disruption issues by system dynamic modelling. There are papers available to download and it is worth reading them. www.managementscience.org/research/superb.asp

Firstly one must look at the contract estimate, the planned programme and the resources, ie, the bid offer, and establish viability, feasibility and compatablity. If there is an acceptable correlation of these, and if then the actual resources used to execute the work increased then this increase must be linked to the cause / event.
The problem is that typically the increase in man hours expended is due to reduced productivity as a result of disruption, which is very complex to analyse.