Guild of Project Controls: Compendium | Roles | Assessment | Certifications | Membership

Tips on using this forum..

(1) Explain your problem, don't simply post "This isn't working". What were you doing when you faced the problem? What have you tried to resolve - did you look for a solution using "Search" ? Has it happened just once or several times?

(2) It's also good to get feedback when a solution is found, return to the original post to explain how it was resolved so that more people can also use the results.

Logic in Impacted Schedule

21 replies [Last post]
Mon, 2006-10-23 00:24
Puneet Gupta
User offline. Last seen 10 years 24 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 26 Apr 2005
Posts: 92
Groups: Petro-Chem / Oil & Gas
Hi

I have a doubt on linking of activities in impacted schedule.
We have a contractual schedule..

1. Say we have a variation of work , which we executed long before the start of activity (breaking of wall before starting road construction) , So do i need to show its impact on start of Road construction or on the activities which we were executing at the time of breaking of wall.....our consultant is saying this variation has no impact on the activity....but this is an additional scope of work!!!

2. Is resequencing of activities need to be shown on the impacted contractual schedule. which is a part of mitigation step but now putting contractor under the threat of Liquidated damages.

3. How to identify the difference between Variation of work and general requirement of activity. My understanding is that the Revisions in IFCs w.r.t Original IFCs which we received at the time of Contractual schedule is a variation and additional scope of work. am i right in this?

Thanks & Regards
Top

Replies

Tue, 2007-02-06 05:27
#1
Charleston-Joseph...
User offline. Last seen 2 years 46 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 10 Jul 2005
Posts: 1347
Groups: None
Brennan,

I agree with you.

That is why Rohit got to get all the information that is necessary to arrive at a baseline schedule acceptable to all, incorporating hidden agreement in a subtle way, etc.


Cheers,

Charlie
Top
Tue, 2007-02-06 05:13
#2
Brennan Westworth
User offline. Last seen 7 years 6 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 23 Feb 2003
Posts: 150
Groups: None
Regardless of what high level agreements are made, you still need to agree a baseline for completion of the project on time.

There is usually a clause in the contract whereby a baseline schedule has to be submitted x number of days after contract award.

Its better to deal with delays to contract award at that point before getting into an EOT situation.
Top
Tue, 2007-02-06 05:06
#3
Charleston-Joseph...
User offline. Last seen 2 years 46 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 10 Jul 2005
Posts: 1347
Groups: None
Hi Rohit,

I think there are some information that you are not aware.

This show in your post.

You know sometimes the big bosses may have already agree that irespective of the issuance of notice to proceed there will be no claims whatsoever.

So i think it is better to approach your situation on a case to case basis, meaning what are the documents available upon receipt of NTP. What are the hidden agreements? This is the most important because you can tailor your TIA base on the hidden agreement between the gods of the project.

If your position is very junior, just play with the games.

Cheers,

Charlie
Top
Tue, 2007-02-06 00:40
#4
Puneet Gupta
User offline. Last seen 10 years 24 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 26 Apr 2005
Posts: 92
Groups: Petro-Chem / Oil & Gas
Hi Freinds,

Please advise,

What if project is terminated before its completion. EoT is still on project completion date or can be asked on interim key dates which can be achieved before termination.
Top
Wed, 2006-12-27 23:48
#5
Puneet Gupta
User offline. Last seen 10 years 24 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 26 Apr 2005
Posts: 92
Groups: Petro-Chem / Oil & Gas
Mobilization is after Notice to proceed.

Say there is 1 month delay because of delay in Notice to Proceed i.e we started actual start after 1 month and impacted the original baseline schedule with delay in notice to proceed because of this delay some activities are coming in monsoon and further delayed the project by 1 more month.

So Can i say Total EoT = 1MONTH + 1 MONTH = 2 Months
Time related Cost (Considering actual start date) = 1 Month
Direct / Overhead Cost (because of Delay in NTP) = 1 Month

Please correct me on this , if i am wrong.
Top
Wed, 2006-12-20 08:52
#6
Dayanidhi Dhandapany
User offline. Last seen 3 years 11 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 18 Mar 2003
Posts: 470
Groups: None
Eventhough contract duration is unchanged, the project completion date will be delayed by 1 month due to delay in issuing NTP. Hence contractually we must write a letter to the engineer with the revised baseline schedule. Engineer has to approve the revised schedule or else he may issue LAD???. If there is any provision in the contract about claiming overheads due to the 1 month period delay go for it(because you have done the mobilisation already, check the approved baseline schedule when the mobilisation has to start? before NTP or after NTP)accordingly you can think of it.
Top
Tue, 2006-12-19 20:54
#7
Kinley Brown
User offline. Last seen 15 years 30 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 28 Nov 2006
Posts: 19
Groups: None
But as the contract duration remains the same you still have the same amount of time to complete the work. You are not losing any time due to the delay in issue of the NTP.

It has delayed the completion date as you rightly say, but as the contract duration remains the same and starts from the date of issue of the NTP then the contractual completion date will be pushed out by one month as a result.
Top
Tue, 2006-12-19 03:07
#8
Puneet Gupta
User offline. Last seen 10 years 24 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 26 Apr 2005
Posts: 92
Groups: Petro-Chem / Oil & Gas
Yes, i too agree with you.
But Delay in notice to proceed is an excusable & compensable delay.

and it has surely delayed the completion date.

i am really confused.

when this is an excusable delay , we must claim for EoT.
Top
Tue, 2006-12-19 02:10
#9
Kinley Brown
User offline. Last seen 15 years 30 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 28 Nov 2006
Posts: 19
Groups: None
If time start from the date of the NTP and if the amount of time you have to complete the work remains unchanged then I can see no justification for an EOT.
Top
Sat, 2006-12-16 04:50
#10
Puneet Gupta
User offline. Last seen 10 years 24 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 26 Apr 2005
Posts: 92
Groups: Petro-Chem / Oil & Gas
Hi

Continuing my query here again....

Time starts from the Date we received Notice to proceed. what if there is a delay in issuing notice to proceed, are we entitled for EoT in this case?

Say There is a 1 month delay in issuing the Notice to Proceed.
The project duration remains same but the completion date shifts by 1 month. so are we entitled for EoT of one month in this case????
Top
Thu, 2006-11-30 06:28
#11
Puneet Gupta
User offline. Last seen 10 years 24 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 26 Apr 2005
Posts: 92
Groups: Petro-Chem / Oil & Gas
Hello Andrew,

I need your help.

If there is a delay from client’s side in issuing a notice to commence, say a delay of 5 days, and this shifts the project completion date by 5 days...say from 1 may to 5 may.

Can i say EoT is 5 days. or EoT = 0

Whats your opinion on this?

Thanks
Top
Wed, 2006-11-01 05:26
#12
Santhosh kumar Na...
User offline. Last seen 6 years 25 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 7 Aug 2006
Posts: 66
Groups: Building Information Modelling, GPC Qatar
Rohit,
If you have done the activity ( Demolision) before the start of road consturction, how it affects in road construction?. ( DOnt think if you delayed the demolision and do just before the road construction).

If you have a valids reason for stoppage or delay in work such as relase of documents / approvals etc Introduce an activity " Delay in issue of........" with duration equal to the delay then link with sucessor in base plan so that ur end date will shift in base plan. ( Consult with engineer)
You cant just play in schedule!!. If it is properly linked ,defenitly the delay will affect the projrct end date.
Top
Thu, 2006-10-26 11:16
#13
Puneet Gupta
User offline. Last seen 10 years 24 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 26 Apr 2005
Posts: 92
Groups: Petro-Chem / Oil & Gas
Thanks Andrew

So does it mean that if we use as-built logics in our as-planned impacted approach we will not get any entitlement for the additional work.

Can i put it another way....say the moment we start breaking the wall for Road (Predecessor activity) i have started the working on my road construction but suspended it till i further started road construction (Successor activity).

So now this non-working period is the delay caused on the Road construction activity.

Reasons for this delay is we were executing the other activities + additional variations on other activities.

What if we have executed the predecessor just before the start of Road construction.

I think As-Built logics should not be involved in As-Impacted schedule because doing so the contractor may loose his acceleration.

Secondly , say if during the preparation of base line schedule we were aware of this variation we must have put it before Road construction or must have assumed this duration in Road construction activity.

That means if engineer is giving us instructions long before the start of activity and long after the finish of activty.
(Instructions related to activity only). We can not claim those variations. As it is difficult to link them with other activities on as-impacted schedule.

Say Another example we finished the backfill for road but later on Engineer comes long after the finish to put drain pipes and manholes work on the road!!!!

I know my logics are purely theoratical but just want to know your opinion in such case.

Regards
Top
Thu, 2006-10-26 10:22
#14
Andrew Flowerdew
User offline. Last seen 2 years 31 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 14 Dec 2004
Posts: 960
Groups: None
Rohit,

If your programme is incorporated into the contract, ie it is a true contract document, it is part of the contract made between the Employer and Contractor. That may seem blindingly obvious, but it’s significance may not be so obvious. A contract may normally (subject to express provisions) only be varied by the agreement of both parties. Many standard forms expressly allows the CA to vary the contract but not the contractor - therefore the only person who can sanction a change to the programme (ie contract) is the CA. (or Employer/Contractor together) The argument then follows that any change in the programme has to be issued as an instructed variation of the contract by the CA - which would then normally entitle the contractor to some sort of payment under the contract.
Top
Thu, 2006-10-26 10:13
#15
Andrew Flowerdew
User offline. Last seen 2 years 31 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 14 Dec 2004
Posts: 960
Groups: None
Rohit,

You say "We executed this additional work MUCH BEFORE the start of its successor activity (Start of Road construction)as per the instruction issued by engineer" yet you somehow seem to want to claim that the first activity had an impact on the successor activity. Try claiming for something that DID have an impact on the successor activity and you may get a more sympathetic hearing from the CA.

I don’t think "must have caused disruption" is an assumption you can make. It might of done, but then that’s up to you to prove that it did.

Why were the lead and lag’s taken out?
Top
Wed, 2006-10-25 09:52
#16
Charleston-Joseph...
User offline. Last seen 2 years 46 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 10 Jul 2005
Posts: 1347
Groups: None
Hello to All,

This is really a thorny issue in construction management. As a consequence a "War of Attrition" atmosphere will be prevalent during the implementation phase of the project.

I find it hard to understand why the contractor side keep on looking at the myopic view of claims. While it is true that variation are bound to happen (maybe reasonable EOT and cost entitlement, but to continue impacting the programme and showing project completion dates beyond the original schedules, it is still the contractor responsibility to find ways in achieving contractual obligations.

Only my humble opinion.

Cheers,

Charlie
Top
Wed, 2006-10-25 08:02
#17
Puneet Gupta
User offline. Last seen 10 years 24 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 26 Apr 2005
Posts: 92
Groups: Petro-Chem / Oil & Gas
One more question here!

What are the limitations of a Contractual Schdeule, how far we can change it.

My understanding is that it shows Dates and duration under which we have to execute the work.Any variation on it should be mutually agreed between Engg & Contractor. If Contractor changed any sequence he should have a valid reason.
But Contractor is obliged to finish his work on contractual completion date and so he can re-sequenced the work. can he do so in a contractual schedule???

Now say there is one activity which was assumed in Contractual schedule but was not executed on site , this activity is say on the critical path.

Now if we remove this activity are not we reducing our Contract Period????
Or can we transfer the duration of this activity to its successor?
Because its duration is our Time!!! am i correct here?

Please suggest....!!!!
Top
Wed, 2006-10-25 07:54
#18
Puneet Gupta
User offline. Last seen 10 years 24 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 26 Apr 2005
Posts: 92
Groups: Petro-Chem / Oil & Gas
Dear Andrew

I was waiting for your reply...thanks

Well i am using "As-Planned - As Impacted" approach as i feel this is the best approach when we have a Contractual Schedule.

Now coming back to my query, We have some additional work , this additional work (Breaking of wall coming on Road) is instructed by our engineer and can be considered as necessity condition to start the activity seen in our contractual schedule (Road construction).

We executed this additional work much before the start of its successor activity (Start of Road construction)as per the instruction issued by engineer

Now Engineer is saying this has not impacted the start of Road works.

But if i am preparing the Impacted schedule, I am linking this new activity (Breaking of Wall)as Predecessor to Start of Road works and hence impacting the As-Planned Schedule.

Another thing coming in my mind is to show the impact of this new activity on the activities which we were executing at the time of execution of this new activity as this activity must have caused the disruption to those activities which logically can not be linked with this activity but caused the disruption on other activity.... am i right?

Now coming on Mitigation Steps, we agreed to change the sequencing of activity with our Engineer to mitigate the delays caused by Engineer, the benefit of this was to Engineer only and say it has accelerated the project completion date by 3-4 months , now in our original contractual schedule we have some activites with lead and lags and now when we have resequenced the activities i am unable to show these leads and lags as new activity and which is no doubt our contractual time. what should we do in such case?

Also Engineer being not fair here to give us correct EoT and hence putting us under the threat of LD’s.

Please suggest

Thanks in advance!!!!




Top
Wed, 2006-10-25 07:27
#19
Andrew Flowerdew
User offline. Last seen 2 years 31 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 14 Dec 2004
Posts: 960
Groups: None
Rohit,

I think from what you are saying is that the additional overall activitiy (and probably the original activities) need to be broken down into a number of sub activities and each sub activity properly linked to those other activities that they affected.

Each additional work sub activity is then impacted in chronological order at the time they occurred and the effect of each sub activity noted, overall progress being updated before each impact. This will allow you to separate out the impact of additional and original works.

And yes the logic should be changed to show the mitigation measures. If I’m correct in my assumptions, you are trying to do a form of Time Impact Analysis The overall objective of this type of analysis is to try and reflect the changing programme as it goes from the original as planned to the as built, hence the logic should be changed to reflect what happened on site but the changes should only be made in the analysis at the time that it was decided on site to change the logic.
Top
Thu, 2006-10-26 09:56
#20
Andrew Flowerdew
User offline. Last seen 2 years 31 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 14 Dec 2004
Posts: 960
Groups: None
Charles,

Although I have so sympathy in what you are saying, I would qualify it as to the Contractors obligations are to carry out the original scope of contract works within the original schedule.

He also has an obligation to try and take reasonable measures to mitigate delays that are not his. By reasonable I mean those measures that don’t generally involve great expense on his part. He does not normally have any obligation to carry out the original scope of work plus alot more work heaped on him by the Employer during the contract, within the original contract schedule.

Hence why he keeps impacting the programme with this extra work in order to work out his entitlement to extra time to do the extra work that was not of his making. His myopic view of claims is due to working for too many Employers who think they’ve employed a charity and can tell it to do anything and everything without having to pay a single dollar more the extra work.
Top
Tue, 2006-10-24 01:59
#21
Puneet Gupta
User offline. Last seen 10 years 24 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 26 Apr 2005
Posts: 92
Groups: Petro-Chem / Oil & Gas
Where are all my expert freinds????? i am waiting for you guys!!
Top