20% just example...but i think still possible

Norzul
Do you ever get 20% rework thats astonishing
Clive

Puchlist is rework or PONC as we call it in our company. For planning purpose I think we should consider amount of rework to be done when we prepare the overall schedule, maybe 5%, 10%, 15%, or 20% of the duration. The % depends on the experience....

Hi Clive,

Agreed, however the time, that I include is nominal, based on the intricacy of the job, the quality standards, etc. The problem happens when you receive the punchlists, you can then make a accurate assessment of the time required to correct these items. The first step, is to categorise the items, and we normally use three catgories:
Cat 1: Items that affect safety and Operation, omitted and not per as the design.
Cat 2: Items of concern in safety and operation, but not included in the design.
Cat 3: Items, which is aesthetic, etc.

The point is that you can hand over portions of the job to commissioning, without Cat 3 items being completed, Cat 2 items is items, where decisions need to be made, as to whether they affect commisioning, and are normally split up between cat 1 and 3 as decisions are made. Cat ! are therefore the items to be concetrated on, and cat 2 should be included as seperate activities in the program.
I find the best way to to run this is with a punchlist, with dates, and monitor it on a frequent basis, anything from daily, hourly or weekly meetings, dependant on the urgency of the project.

Regards

Its an interesting point
No not who the ER is or even what a punchlist is as that is the semantics.
Do you include for punch lists (snagging) or not on the programme. I will usually include some time for this on the master programme as even the best contractors will have to rework some items. However many snagging items can be carried out after practical completion ie when the building or facility has achived fit for purpose condition.
It would not be unreasonable therefore to place items in the maintenance period after practical completion or contract completion.
James has a good point what does the contract require you to do and does or will the engineer really understand a very detailed snagging programme.
Often it is better to have a completely different arrangement for punch list items which can be tracked under a data base rather than a programme, this is mainly due to the logic constraints ie fixing 700 locks can run concurrently resources witstanding.
Clive

Christian: Thankyou.

Philip,

Now that you have a clarification, do you have a view?

James.

Ha, ravin’ ha, Rajat, :-)

It could also mean "Engineering" or "Executive". Regardless, the principle of Christian’s question is the same. If ER is higher-up than you (the Contractor) in the food-chain, then ER can be considered your "client". The principle under-pinning my response remains.


James.

Philip,

Thankyou for the insult. If, however, you care to read the question, it states that the “contractor has submitted…..should include punch-list.” By most interpretations, the contractor and punch-list author is the team/company that works at the coalface, actually doing the work. Therefore, any “submission” of programmes is more than likely to be upwards in the hierarchical chain of authority, becoming ever-more summarised in the process. It is not really relevant as to precisely who ER is; only that ER is “upwards” in authority relative to the contractor. Using this assumption, Christian’s question was perfectly clear. However, I’m sure that he will clarify any misconceptions on my part.

Over to you, Christian.

James

Christian,

The validity of the ER’s request really depends on:

1) At what stage of the project you’re at.
2) At what level of detail the “contract programme” resides.
3) Why the ER is asking for such detail.
4) What the contract itself states

Your ER (what does ER stand for?) is probably concerned that the scope of remaining work isn’t particularly well-defined; thus he is asking you to portray your understanding of such work by asking you to provide the punch-lists. Anybody can compile a comparatively high-level programme that looks good but may not be substantiated by the nitty-gritty detail that punch-lists provide. However, I wouldn’t expect that level of detail to reside on a programme….it would be unmanageable.

We have just come through a very similar situation, where our client asked for our detailed programme. The contract programme has about 150 lines and the client seemed to be worried that we didn’t quite have an understanding of what we were doing. In order to “help us” and “offer advice”, he wanted to see what plans we were working to. I explained that he really ought not to ask for this because it contains over 4000 lines and, in the format that he wants it, he would have absolutely no hope of assimilating the data. However, we provided it; he looked at it, said nothing and just carried-on. I can only assume that he was satisfied that we actually had a plan. Of course, we stated that just because it is on the plan, it doesn’t necessarily mean that we will work in exactly the sequence shown; therefore, he (the client) must not attempt to monitor us against such detail.

Ultimately the important thing was that we showed him our plan, walked him through our progress-reporting analysis and showed him our monthly “milestone” punch-list process. This gave him the knowledge and confidence that we did have a process and we knew what we were doing…..it was just that it was taking too bloody long to do it!

HTH.

James.