"Project Management is what you are forced to do when you don’t Plan and Schedule!" - who said this? Read more...

Acceleration Claim - Presentation

29 replies [Last post]
Shahzad Munawar
User offline. Last seen 1 year 37 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 2 Jul 2003
Posts: 551
Our client instructed us to give acceleration cost of 12 months for a project having total duration of 18 months becuase he wants to complete it within 12 months instead of 18 months.

Also note that project was started just two months before.

For above acceleration of 12 months I prepared following attachments :

a) Baseline schedule (Accelerated schedule for 12 months)
b) Additional cost for Resources (Manpower , Equipment etc)
c) Additional cost for Asphalt Plant

From Presentation point of view to Client, suggest me others points/attcahment /steps to present it before the Client for its acceptance?

Replies

Hi Shahzad.

The simpe answer is Yes - the acceleration costs would be balanced by a reduction in the site prelims.

Dont forget that accelerated work also requires more supervision and plant deployment which have to be included.

Don't try to link the acceleration with a bonus for early completion - that will always cause more disputes - just agree to accelerate on a "best endeavours" basis to achieve and earlier target date.

Best regards

Mike Testro

Nuski Mohamed
User offline. Last seen 2 weeks 1 day ago. Offline
Joined: 9 Oct 2014
Posts: 2
Groups: None

Dear shahzad

 

Our original contract duration was 1 year . If acceleration happened upon the request of client to complete the project within 8months ... then will client hold the rights to request for cost saving for remaining 4months? .I mean cost saving for salaries of staffs for remaining 4 months etc.....

Note : There is no scope changes and we already submitted a sperate claim for acceleration only ( such as paying for overtime, providing meals for the staff and labourers on overtime, achieving less productivity to cost ratio, etc)

Awaiting for your valuable response.

 

Thank you

Jaco Stadler
User offline. Last seen 8 years 1 week ago. Offline
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
Posts: 300
If I was the Client I would choose item one.

1. To make the accelerated date a contractual obligation, he must pay me the equivalent delay LDs for the period of acceleration, in addition to the direct extra premium costs,

The Reason Being the Client can only charge LD if incurred. So Then you can only charge him incurred acceleration cost ???.

To Say you have increased the risk on the full contract value is not quite true you have only increased the risk on the LD value (Normally to a Maximum 10 %) This is the funds that are at Risk so if you increase your contract by just a straight 10 % you have no Money at Risk. So them you need to ad the additional incurred cost subtract the P & G Saving and then you would see the true acceleration cost @ no risk.

Normally when you price a contract and you see that LD is applied for you make an allowance for LD. Remember to subtract this from the above amount.

Why is it when people hear the word accelaration they think it is a lot of money. It is not.

The Easy way out normally is to reprice the Full Job.


Cheers
Philip Jonker
User offline. Last seen 5 years 46 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 7 Nov 2004
Posts: 852
Hi John,

Thanks for reviving this one, you must have been bored,

The point about acceleration is, it is like travelling from London to Edinburgh, and trying to do it in 20 minutes, when the normal time is 2 hours. You must re-calculate the manhours that is involved, the extra supervision, and look at the space constraint. These are only the basics, you have to check a lot more,

Let’s go back to the problem of travelling from lonhdon to Edinburgh, the problem is that the faster you go, takes more attention, ie supervision, and also the fuel consumption goes up, ie more resources. This is the simple way to explain the costs of acceleration, which could be double the normal costs.

Regards
Philip
John Whitney
User offline. Last seen 42 weeks 6 days ago. Offline
Joined: 26 Jul 2004
Posts: 35
I have to say I am with Stuart and Paul on this.

The fundamental point to remember is that the client is unilaterally changing the contract by reducing the construction time. In this, of course, I am assuming that he will want to apply LDs from the new "accelerated date" as he will want to regard that as the new due date.

However, time costs money, and for this the client should be ready to pay dearly. Why on earth would a contractor willingly give up any time on his schedule, and expose himself to additional delay LDs, just to be reimbursed the extra costs he has incurred for securing the client’s benefit? Commercially, it is a non-starter. The saving of time-related costs for the acceleration period in no way would compensate for the risk of LDs.

I am in this situation myself, albeit from a position of being involved in commercial negotiations for a new contract’s terms and conditions. The client wants to be able to instruct us to do acceleration and just pay us the premium costs to achieve that. I have said that if he wants that, then he has one of two options:

1. To make the accelerated date a contractual obligation, he must pay me the equivalent delay LDs for the period of acceleration, in addition to the direct extra premium costs,

or

2. Call his accelerated date a "target date" - with no contractual obligation to achieve it. LDs still apply from the original due date and he just pays the premium costs,

These principles apply also for completion dates that are extended through EoT grants.

My point is that the client has no power to change the contractor’s completion date unilaterally, which is what an acceleration instructiion effectivley is unless the compensation for doing so is agreed beforehand. In my case, I do not want the risk of LDs for the accelerated period. Take it or leave it.

Members’ views would be welcome.


John

Naveed Tariq, PE,...
User offline. Last seen 5 years 22 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 19 Dec 2002
Posts: 45
Groups: Building Works
Dear Shahzad,

Considering the Pakistani Envoirnemnt I have all the believe that your contract must be a unit rate contract. So your efforts to file a claim on the basis of increased manhours will be really tough.

You may follow two ways:

1. Considering that baseline project plan has been mutually agreed and signed between you and your client or its a part of your contract. Also considering that you also have submitted your man hour/ resource requirement with schedule.

a. In this case you have to recalculate your required man hours for each activity as if you are doing the crunching of your activities and submitt the revised project plan with manhours. % diff between your revised manhours and baseline manhours will become the basis of the claim.

b. if you are only doing fast tracking (running parrallel activities) than obviously your total manhours in revised schedule will remain the same. It is merly shifting of your activities. This will not become the basis for your claim. As intelligent client may reply you are also getting the revenue quicker.

2. Go for the bonus clause normally not offered by Pakistani clients. Calculate the extra expenses that your company have to bear due to time compression. Like leasing extra machinery/plants, HR cost (hiring extra supervisory staff), extra godowns etc. etc. Than based on that figure discuss a bonus amount with your client.

Regards,
Naveed Tariq

PS: Advices given by other members wrt space management, site conditions must also be considered.
Asif Anwar
User offline. Last seen 3 years 14 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 1 Oct 2004
Posts: 35
Shahzad

You have to be very careful when putting your acceleration claim in front of the client. An in-depth analysis is required on the schedule and the construction methodology and various factors need to be considered before such presentation can be prepared. As Stuart highlighted and Madhav mentioned with the example that with one of his subcontractors he actually managed to reduce the price from the actual contract price. If the client is smart, he can use the same argument, and if you are not prepared well, it can go against you.

First of all, an acceleration of the project from 16 months to 10 months (considering the present situation) requires a major shift in the construction methodology in executing the works. Theoretically anyone can say that it’s very easy to expedite from 16 months to 10 months as most clients will say. Increase the labour and plant and here you go in completing it earlier. But in the real world it can be very different. There can be certain factors which must be considered. I will try to highlight few of these.

1. It is always not possible to simply increase the labour on a job to increase the productivity. Sometimes there is a limit of labour you can increase on a specific job. For example, there will be a difference when you want to increase the labour on a single highrise building or 5 blocks of highrise building. You may start with 5 work fronts with 5 blocks and hence can increase the productivity by increasing the labour with respect to your earlier planned schedule where you scheduled to use the same workforce to complete the 5 blocks. Whereas there will be a limit to the no. of people you can increase on a single building.
2. Sometimes there is a lead period required for several materials. For example lead time for buying certain materials can take upto months before you can actually start work. It happened to me where the lead time to get the first batch of the specified steel plates of 16,000 tons from overseas was 4 months and hence during that time you can’t do anything with the progress.
3. Carefully analyze the construction sequence. The sequence may not allow you to expedite the works simply from 16 months to 12 months. For this you need to discuss in detail with the executing team.
4. The logistics at site are such that you can’t move several equipment/plant at same time and hence by just increasing the manpower only will not help in expediting the works.

Hence check first that whether the construction sequence allows you to actually finish the job in a reduced period of time.

Now come to acceleration claim. Let’s take the main cost elements of a typical construction project.

1. Labour
2. Material (Permanent and Temporary)
3. Plant/Equipment
4. Overheads including logistics

Let’s analyze the effect of acceleration on the above elements.

Regarding labour, it can be simply said that for example the original plan required was 1,000 manhours in 16 months and the same manhours will be required to complete in 10 months as there was no change in the scope of works (taking out the inefficiency factor as highlighted by some members). The argument here is that though there may be same hours required, but it was almost impossible to expedite the works during the normal working hours due to sequence of works. Hence the contractor needs to extend his works into additional time (overtime) in evenings or night shifts or on holidays and hence the rate is increased. You are entitled to claim this hours based on the overtime rates which are always higher than the normal working rates. (But remember when you will calculate such overtime hours, the client will ask you to deduct the normal working hours from your planned total hours and hence you will get the net difference between the normal working hour rate and overtime rate)

Though it can be said by the client that the permanent material is same as in the original contract, there can be a hell of difference on the temporary material like formwork. Initially you may have planned to use 2 set of formwork for the whole job, whereas now you have to engage 6 set of formworks and hence the cost is considerably increased. You are entitled to claim that extra cost. Another example is the curing where you might have to engage expensive curing agents to increase the curing time instead of normal curing period with traditional methods. Similarly as i mentioned above there may be certain permanent materials which you cant simply get in time as per accelerated programme and you need to pay extra to the suppliers to get such material in advance.

Plant/Equipment hired can be analyzed on the same principle as labour mentioned above.

An overhead is the item where it can again be argued by the client that your overheads are actually reduced. But you need to prove here is that, you may have to increase the overheads by increasing the supervisions due to several work fronts started at same time, and extending into overtime hours. Also analyze the other factors like additional lighting required when carrying out the evening or night works which was not required when working during normal working hours.

Shahzad, carefully analyze your whole job and schedule with the project/construction manager and the executing team on the construction methodology and the resources required due to the accelerated programme. Calculate the additional cost and reduction on the overheads, see where you stand and then present to the client. You need to do your homework thoroughly and be ready for any sort of arguments that might be put from the client in light of above.

As Stuart mentioned the best approach for you may have to be to re-price the whole job based on the new methodology which you many intend to employ to carry out such instructions from the client and need to agree with client before executing such works (if you can prove to the client).

Good Luck

Asif
N.M.Raj Nadarajan
User offline. Last seen 31 weeks 6 days ago. Offline
Joined: 21 Sep 2004
Posts: 19
Jimmy,

There is no need to be so negative and personally critical. This is a forum for discussions, opinions and most importantly "Teamwork". As you can see, this particular issue has generated responses from five countries. None of us are getting paid to do this and we are only doing it in the spirit of camaraderie.

Stuart has spent a lot of time and effort on his responses. Different opinions on contractual issues are important as it helps broaden our views.

If you are not interested in certain responses, please ignore it or criticise "constructively"; it will be beneficial to all of us. Thank you,

Best Regards,

N.M.Raj
Stuart Ness
User offline. Last seen 2 years 41 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 30 Jun 2004
Posts: 352
Groups: None
Dear Jimmy,
Thanks for your never-ending support and guidance!

Cheers,
Stuart

P.S. Have you ever eaten half-baked Alaska?


www.rosmartin.com
Paul Maddocks
User offline. Last seen 6 days 7 hours ago. Offline
Joined: 29 May 2003
Posts: 25
Shahzad Munawar

If you won the original project by competitive tender
and the client has only asked for you to cost a potential acceleration, you only need to evaluate two things.

1) What does your contract explicitly say regarding acceleration?

2) Does your company want to accelerate.

a) If your company thinks acceleration is viable under the terms of your contract then I think you need to completely re-tender the project based on the revised criteria and risk elements invloved.
b) If your company thinks the risks are to high to accelerate then price yourself out of that option.

This would be my approach, cynical though it might be, you still have the project to complete under the existing contract and until you are instructed to accelerate you still need to proceed with the works on that basis.

Jimmy robert
User offline. Last seen 9 years 9 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 29 Sep 2004
Posts: 35
[Duplicate, nasty post deleted by Moderator.]
Stuart Ness
User offline. Last seen 2 years 41 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 30 Jun 2004
Posts: 352
Groups: None
Hi Shazad,

Is this taking place in the real world??
In effect – as mktse correctly pointed out – you are reducing a Contract Period from 16 months to 10 months, which equals a reduction of 38% in your schedule!!

Against this background, I would consider that this represents such a fundamental shift in the project’s parameters that the entire project now needs to be re-priced and re-resourced. Inevitably, it will call for a reconfiguration of the site management provisions and probably major changes to the methodology of executing the Works.

Probably the best way forward would be on a “cost-plus” basis related to actual resources and costs involved; I would certainly minimise the amount of “crystal ball gazing" to guess what the future might hold!
And remember that any Client that pulls this cunning stunt only two months into the project is clearly so fundamentally disorganised (or vicious) that it would be commercial suicide for a Contractor to predict the future and agree to a fixed sum of money in advance of any “acceleration”.
I hope the instruction was in writing (and blood!!!).

Cheers,

Stuart

www.rosmartin.com
N.M.Raj Nadarajan
User offline. Last seen 31 weeks 6 days ago. Offline
Joined: 21 Sep 2004
Posts: 19
Jaco,

I presume you meant FIDIC...Please note that I was referring to the FIDIC Conditions of Contract - Fourth Edition 1987 (Reprinted 1988/92 with amendments)...Clause 26.3 does not exist in the said Conditions of Contract...Maybe you were referring to another edition, an "amended" FIDIC form of contract or another form of contract altogether?

Best Regards
Jaco Stadler
User offline. Last seen 8 years 1 week ago. Offline
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
Posts: 300
Subject to Sub-Clause 26.3(d) below, the Employer and the Contractor shall first agree the extra sum to be paid for each day by which the Contractor completes the Works or part thereof earlier than the Time for Completion.

Fedic 26.3

(You first Agree / Price and then execute) Can not use actual hours to agree something or price it before it happens.

So that is why you can not use actual hours spend.

Cheers

N.M.Raj Nadarajan
User offline. Last seen 31 weeks 6 days ago. Offline
Joined: 21 Sep 2004
Posts: 19
Jaco,

There are several ways to price risk and/or allow for contingencies…I have also worked in the UAE and am quite familiar with process of risk management in the Middle East, Far-East and Europe… In fact we have a specialised “Risk Management” software (Pre & Post Contract Risk management) which was developed exclusively for our company…BTW Although I primarily work a Claims Manager now, I have also worked as an Estimator/Engineer…!!!

Your question is hypothetical…How can you accelerate and compare the resultant hours expended to what you would have actually expended under normal conditions. These two pieces of data are mutually exclusive. You would only have the latter data if you finish the works without acceleration or it would have to be based on the “As-Planned” programme. If you accelerated the works you would never have the said data. The only data you would physically have on a project before commencing acceleration are the following:

1. Actual hours expended to-date (normal conditions, assuming there are no problems).
2. Planned hours to completion (without acceleration)
3. Planned hours to completion with acceleration.

After you finish the project, you would have the total “As-built” hours which could then be compared to the sum of items (1) & (2) with due adjustments being made for any variations and Contractor related delays.

Looking at it from another perspective, at any singular point in time (before commencing acceleration) the variance between the ‘As-planned hours’ and the ‘Actual hours’ expended to-date is not relevant from a “claims” point of view; assuming that the Contractor has not been delayed/disrupted in any way. As mentioned in my previous note, the Contractor is obliged to finish the works in accordance with contractual dates…How he does it is entirely upto him. So whether he spent a 1000 hrs or 1300 hrs or 2000 hrs at any point in time is irrelevant assuming that the scope of works have not changed and that the Contractor has not been delayed/disrupted. There is no claim. However, if you are given an instruction to accelerate, you would have to compare the projected “acceleration” hours to the sum of the “actual hours” to-date and the projected “as-planned” hours. After the completion of the project, the As-built hours can be compared to sum of items (1) & (2) with due adjustments being made for any variations and Contractor related delays.

Furthermore, you have your internal and external (For the Client) data …All your claims will be based on your external data and your internal data is not contractually relevant.

It would be worthwhile for you to refer to the case involving Amec & Alfred McAlpine (Joint Venture) and Cheshire County Council (1999) wherein the acceleration costs were calculated in a manner analogous to the method described above and my previous notes.

Best Regards,

N.M.Raj
Jaco Stadler
User offline. Last seen 8 years 1 week ago. Offline
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
Posts: 300
Hi Madhav

I am not sure how you do things in Europe but I am use to do things different.

When you do a estimate for a project you do a risk analisis and establish your contingency. (Sometimes this is put into the labour rate and excluded in the dayworks rates because no risk)

Your contingency should cover Estimate "errors" (Remember it is only an estimate and a contingency was designed for it)

As an example only (1hr = US$ 1)
So if you estimate a 1000 hrs/$ and you spend 1200 hrs/$ (Normal Conditions) you will fund your the 200 hrs/$ from your contingency. If you are ask to accelerate and the actual hours is 1300 hrs/$.

What will you then be paying as acceleration ?.

300 hrs ?
100 hrs ?

I would say the answer is 100 hrs/$ (Because 200 hrs / $ is from the contingency) if you use actual hours you will end up with 300 hrs /$.

In short you will be Paying additional 200 hrs/$ plus a portion of the contingency (Which belongs to the contractor anyhow because he is not doing his work at risk)

Well maybe you do thing diffirent in Europe but this is what I am use to.


N.M.Raj Nadarajan
User offline. Last seen 31 weeks 6 days ago. Offline
Joined: 21 Sep 2004
Posts: 19
Jaco, I would make the following points in response to your note:

1. If we take the FIDIC form of Contract as an example, the “Clause 14 programme” (Clause 14.1 – Programme to be submitted) will be issued to the Engineer for his consent and it clearly details the Contractor’s intended method of construction. We will not go into other contractual issues about whether tender programmes form part of the Contract etc.
2. Based on the Clause-14 programme, it is possible to estimate the “As-Planned” hours. The ”Actual” hours that would have been expended are not pertinent as the question at hand relates to acceleration i.e. the works are being accelerated and therefore the Contractor will never know how many hours he would have actually expended if not for the acceleration. However, the “As-built” hours can be ascertained after the completion of the project and, at any point in time within the Contract period, it would also be possible to make a reasonable estimate of the “Actual” hours that would be required in the future to meet the acceleration programme. The “Actual” hours can be firmed up after the completion of the project i.e. it becomes the “As-Built” hours.
3. Assume the Contractor’s estimate is, as you said, 1000 hrs and that he finished the project with no acceleration measures being implemented. Whether he finally expended 900 hrs or 1200 hrs is actually irrelevant because he is obliged to finish the works in accordance with contractual dates…How he does it is entirely upto him. A few pertinent Clauses that relate to this issue are 8.1, 8.2 & 12.1. This obviously assumes that there are no issues related to variations, Employer risk events and any other pertinent events as defined by FIDIC.
4. Sorry, but I can’t understand why you believe that the net addition to the as-planned hours cannot be taken as an acceleration cost for the labour if the scope of works have not changed. Say you estimated 1000 hrs to do 10000$ worth of work (Net Cost) i.e. 10 men x 10 hrs x 10 days. Now, assume you have been delayed and disrupted and you need an extra 2 days (200 hrs) to finish the works. In this case, you would expend an additional 200 hrs without a proportional recovery. If you accelerate your works by adding more men or more hours in a day, you could finish it on time in 10 days but you would obviously want reimbursement for the additional hours expended i.e 200 hrs (assuming there aren’t any other factors like disruption, trade stacking etc.).
5. With respect to your question about productivity, please refer to my earlier note where I mentioned “Unit Costs”. Let’s consider the example in point 4 again. Based on your initial estimate of 1000 hrs for 10000$, your cost per day is 1000$ and cost per hour is 10$. Assuming the total work is, say, 10,000 sq.m, your average productivity is 1000 sq.m per day (let’s forget about the learning curves and other issues..!!!). Therefore your average unit cost, based on productivity, is 1$/sq.m. Again, based on your initial estimate and productivity, if you were delayed/disrupted (say 2 days), your unit cost would be higher i.e. your cost would remain the same whereas your productivity suffers. Your average productivity, based on a 12 day period, will be 833.33 sq.m/day. Thus your new unit cost is 1.20$/sq.m. Total revised Cost = 1.20 x 10000 sq.m = 12000$. Extra Cost = 12000$-10000$=2000$. Extra hours = 2000$/10$ = 200 Hrs. Same answer as point 4. Obviously, your “As-Planned” hours should be “achievable” and should stand up to scrutiny. Furthermore, any further issues related to changes/disruption to “productivity” must be treated on a “case by case” basis. i.e. if it is caused by the Client, it is recoverable and if it is caused by the Contractor, tough luck…!!! I am sure you know all this; maybe we have a communication gap.
6. With respect to decelaration, in accordance with Clause 46.1 of FIDIC, the Engineer can notify the Contractor if, in the Engineer’s opinion, the rate of progress is too slow to comply with the Time for Completion. A failure by the Contractor to take necessary measures to expedite the progress (i.e. acceleration and other necessary measures) is a ground for the termination of the employment of the Contractor under Clause 63.1 (Default of the Contractor). The only other means available to the Employer for a late completion is liquidated damages, Clause 47 refers.
7. With respect to your hypothetical question of the 3 bidders, I cannot understand why any Contractor would take on-board such a risk. Furthermore, if he priced it incorrectly, how can he recover his costs even if he finishes late? At the end of the day he would only be entitled to recover his tender sum (assuming a lump sum contract) whether he finishes it on time or not. Furthermore, if he finishes late, he incurs additional time-related prelims costs. Maybe such Contractor’s exist; however, they will not exist for long!!!
Jaco Stadler
User offline. Last seen 8 years 1 week ago. Offline
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
Posts: 300
I tend do disagree with the "as build" portion of the work to be used. The reason for this is "productivity" does not play part of this.

Example if the estimate is a 1000 hours and you have spend 900 hrs or 1200 hrs what do you pay.

When you get do to accelaration you should "reprice" the work on the same basis of the estimate. (This will ensure that productivity loss or gain does not effect the accelaration)

I know accelaration plays a role in productivity but this should be brought into your new estimate.

Maybe you have same views on a contractor being late (Decalaration) is it fair to say it is unfair not to charge him decalaration cost. (Something not covered in any contracts I have seen)(I am only used on penaltys if the owner have incurred cost)

The reason why I ask it if you think it is unfair that because if 3 or more people price the same job and the lowest bidder gets the work did the other two not priced the job correctly and the third priced it incorrectly knowing that he will not complete the work on time and that the owner will not apply penalty’s)




N.M.Raj Nadarajan
User offline. Last seen 31 weeks 6 days ago. Offline
Joined: 21 Sep 2004
Posts: 19
Shahzad, I am not sure I understand your question.

Jaco, I agree with your view on the costs. The additional costs for the labour should be based on the net difference in the labour hours between the “As-planned” and the “As-Built” programmes. Maybe I didn’t express myself clearly enough earlier. Furthermore, only “Extra Over” costs should be claimed for overtime and night shift working. At the end of the day, the cost differential is based on the variance between original and actual “Unit-Costs”. Furthermore, an adjustment would also have to be made for any labour/plant element(s) in relation to variations as these are not included in the original “As-Planned” programme.

Paul, this is an unfortunate fact of life for Contractors and Subcontractors alike. In one project, I assessed a Subcontractor’s acceleration claim and then raised the issue about a proportional adjustment to his prelims/pertinent time related charges. He had loaded his prelims and, finally, the net result was an overall saving to his Subcontract sum!!! Let’s just say he wasn’t a very happy bunny….
Paul Maddocks
User offline. Last seen 6 days 7 hours ago. Offline
Joined: 29 May 2003
Posts: 25
Shahzad,
You will also need to include a credit in costs for the overall reduction of preliminaries value, cost of insurance etc. and any other indirect time related funding.

The right hand giveth and the left hand taketh.
Jaco Stadler
User offline. Last seen 8 years 1 week ago. Offline
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
Posts: 300

Acceleration Claim a complex topic.

I am of opinion that an acceleration claim would only involve additional cost. As an example if you had to spend more manhours/equipment hours to achieve the same goal. (Included is additional mobilisation).

Example if you had 1000 hrs will be spending now a 1200 hrs for the work you can only claim for the additional 200 hrs. (Please note this can include stuff like overhead etc)

Please dont use additional people as the main factor for an acceleration claim rather look at additional hours (Except for mobilisation)

But if a project time duration is shortened a person must also look at the savings incured. Example Time related cost. a Factor that is mentioned very little except when you are looking at extension of time. When you have a look at this you would notice that accelaration of project is not that costly and remember time is money.

That is why I support the attutude when you do do accelaration cost the best way is to price the complete job (Portion) again and then compare the two rather than to attempt to do a change on additional cost.

Cheers
Shahzad Munawar
User offline. Last seen 1 year 37 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 2 Jul 2003
Posts: 551
Raj:

These additional information subject to acceleration claims is an additive.
N.M.Raj Nadarajan
User offline. Last seen 31 weeks 6 days ago. Offline
Joined: 21 Sep 2004
Posts: 19
Shahzad,

I have submitted several acceleration claims and I would suggest that you go through the following detailed checklist:

As planned v/s As-built
1. Additional Labour
a. The costs associated with the additional labour hrs should be calculated based on the Contract rates and not the actual costs.
b. Additional costs (at Contract rates) should be worked out for night shift operations.
c. Extra over costs should be worked out for overtime working over and above that envisaged by the As planned programme, including weekend working.
2. Additional Plant – Maybe extra Tower cranes, hoists and other equipment that you have to utilise over and above that allowed in the tender. Peruse the items the preliminaries section of the BoQ carefully.
a. Miscellaneous plant – Extra pumps and hoses, mortar mixers, bar bending machines and shearers, any other extra temporary materials.
3. Additional material – Additional scaffolding, self compacting concrete (if used), plywood, Automatic climbing system, any additional material that will be used for protective measures due to works being carried out simultaneously on several fronts.
4. Additional supervision – Extra personnel for day shift, additional staff for night shift including workers for canteen, stores, cleaning up etc.
5. Logistics and power – Additional storage space for materials, maybe you have to rent additional land, warehouses etc. Extra costs for task lighting at night, additional health & safety measures (increased risk due to several workfronts), extra transportation for labour, hoist labour, anti-freezing measures, crane operators, extra temporary doors for access etc.
6. Any Subcontract claims that may arise should be included as well.

Best Regards,

N.M.Raj
B.E.(Civil). MCIArb
Shahzad Munawar
User offline. Last seen 1 year 37 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 2 Jul 2003
Posts: 551
Leon and Ernesto

Thanks for detailed reply in respect of Presentation Parameters for Acceleration claim which is really helpful in evaluating and preseting this to Client
Ernesto Montales
User offline. Last seen 10 weeks 2 days ago. Offline
Shahzad,

I agree with Se. You must check the changes in your original programme resources againts the accelerated resouces. You can do this by loading the again the resources on the accelerated program. Remember acceleration is merely arranging the activities in you’re project in parallel. By doing so you are increasing the required resources since more activtis are occuring at the same time.Most project management software can accomplish this task.

Regards

Jojo
Se de Leon
User offline. Last seen 28 weeks 6 days ago. Offline
Joined: 15 May 2001
Posts: 318
Shahzad,

In terms of cost and resources impact, you may need to check one by one the impact of accelerating your project not just making a ratio and proportion analysis.

You may check the following:
1. additional equipment - mobilization, overtime cost, impact to maintenance etc.,
2. additional manpower - mobilization cost, overtime, bonuses, additional supervision etc.
3. impact on your general requirement. Is there additional supervision, electricity, communication expenses etc.
4. you may need to mobilize additional formworks and scaffoldings.

There are many things to be considered, but it all depends on the nature of your project. I just cited some examples.

Best Regards,


Se
mktse
User offline. Last seen 5 weeks 2 days ago. Offline
Joined: 27 Feb 2002
Posts: 528
For the resource, I think just based on those prepared programme to work it out. However, I have some concern on cost. I’ll price the whole project again. Then add the cost for those will be ’stop’ or ’give up’ which are scheduled to performance previously. Remove the influence of current delay if any. Don’t forget to add the mark up.
Shahzad Munawar
User offline. Last seen 1 year 37 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 2 Jul 2003
Posts: 551
Mktse:

Your reply is Ok but it is limited to As Built Schedule. What’s your opinion on other supporting attachments like Costs and Resources etc.
mktse
User offline. Last seen 5 weeks 2 days ago. Offline
Joined: 27 Feb 2002
Posts: 528
You stated the original project duration is 18 months and will be accelerated to 12 months with project started 2 months ago.
Then the acceleration measurement is from 16 months to 10 months since the past 2 months is not counted.
I think you need a baseline of original 18 months, as-built for past 2 months and an acceleration for coming 10 months. Am I right?
For the as-built, please prove you have no delay as planned, otherwise, I’ll exclude this influence on your proposal.