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.

CPM Software Specifications in Government Jobs

15 replies [Last post]

Tue, 2009-05-12 13:32

Rafael Davila

Offline

Joined: 1 Mar 2004

Posts: 5229

Groups: Spider Project Team

...On a local federal job by the US General Services Administration, specs call for the Latest Version of Primavera Project Planner P3, we just heard is no longer available for sale by Primavera/Oracle. By the same token Primavera SureTrak is no longer available for sale by Primavera/Oracle.
...Primavera/Oracle supports their Enterprise line through Primavera Project Manager P6, an expensive product, full of bugs that they do either upgrade to newer versions or provide service packs every other month in order to get rid of a few bugs at a time. This software is geared toward the Enterprise who handles hundreds of projects at the same time, sharing resources among them, with maybe a hundred people gaining access to a single monstrous database at the same time. Yes it can be deployed as a single user application on a laptop PC but what about its bugs, what about it’s every other month fixes. This would be overkill for jobs with less than 100,000 activities. The companion products Primavera Contractor and Contractor Deluxe are a joke, not only limited from 700 to 2,000 activities but neither can do resource constraining even when the schedule can be resource loaded. I believe neither of these support Project Groups.
...In the spirit of free choice we may be asking the contracting officer to please let the contractor keep control of the schedule with the software of his choice, otherwise it might end not being his schedule. We believe specs should not call for what is no longer available.
...Is it legal, is it fair that the federal government procure bids specifiying only one supplier without even providing a single other option? If a government agency decides that they want to go along with a name brand specification, the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) requires a written justification. FAR 11.1.05 states, “agency requirements shall not be written so as to require a particular brand name, product, or feature of a product, particular to one manufacturer, thereby precluding consideration of a product manufactured by another company…” The only allowance to this rule is to provide written justification that the “particular brand name, product or feature is essential to the Government’s requirements, and a market research indicates other companies’ similar products, or products lacking the particular feature, do not meet, or cannot be modified to meet, the agency’s needs.”
...Please provide us with a few arguments in support of our request, in case my client goes ahead with the RFI. Will keep you informed if so, in either case your argumentes will be welcome for future reference.
Thank you all in advance,
Rafael Davila

Replies

Fri, 2009-05-15 09:23

Rafael Davila

Offline

Joined: 1 Mar 2004

Posts: 5229

Groups: Spider Project Team

Gary your suggestion seems reasonable, though I am not sure they will be as to accept it.

Your statement "But it is unreasonable to expect a contractor to change their planning system (which may be lniked to timesheets, accounting, inventory, etc software) at the whim of the client." goes right to the target bulls eye.

Thanks, seems like a good bullet, a silver bullet.

Finally I am getting a few good arguments in our favor, I was starting to feel like a roach on a chikens party.

R. Davila

Fri, 2009-05-15 09:10

Gary Whitehead

Offline

Joined: 24 Mar 2009

Posts: 1215

Groups: Building Information Modelling, Content Moderators, Petro-Chem / Oil & Gas, The GrapeVine

I can understand why the client (government or not) would not want to have to convert the project from one format to another, as this can lead to conversino errors which could make assessing claims / LDs very problematic (which version is the ’real’ baseline?)

There may also be very valid reasons why they cannot purhcase a copy of the software you want to use, for example they may have a preferred supplier system or a ban on installing non-standard software.

But it is unreasonable to expect a contractor to change their planning system (which may be lniked to timesheets, accounting, inventory, etc software) at the whim of the client.

Would another option be to perhaps include within the tender bid a laptop loaded with your preferred software for the client to use?

Wed, 2009-05-13 14:13

Rafael Davila

Offline

Joined: 1 Mar 2004

Posts: 5229

Groups: Spider Project Team

Sherif

I agree with the U.A.E. best case scenario - the float belongs to the contractor.

Then under the above premise the impact should be analyzed taking into consideration resources availability and not merely the simplistic approach of assuming that it belongs to whoever reaches first.

Seems like the European norm is correct, we are somewhat behind, even when some courts have ruled as per the European norm some specifiers insist otherwise.

Samer

I believe they will end using P6, what I cannot accept would be to require us Contractors to use P6 or Primavera Contractor. From P6 they should be able to read P3 files; P3 files form SureTrak, MS Project in many variations plus P6, Primavera Contractor, P3e, P4 and P5. In a couple of years they will be close to P35 then I believe they will skip some numbers as to avoid confusion with WWII airplane names.

It seems like a spec taken by the Architect from a drawer without cleaning the dirt. The problem is when you get a stubborn inspector and an Architect who knows nothing about CPM Scheduling, believe me we have seen a few. Seems like this issue is better to be resolved before bid opening as Andrew suggests.

In their capital program schedule? A single bar should do it, is the Contractor’s Schedule, not theirs. Who in top management is to analyze millions of activities? This is not a State Utility doing hundreds of jobs with their own forces.

Sory Microsoft, Micro Planner, Open Plan, Spider Project, you are out, it is not your money, you are not paying your taxes, only Primavera is. Do you?

Thank you all, you are helping us to sharpen our request if we decide to raise the issue before times runs out to do so, it will be of great help.

Wed, 2009-05-13 14:07

Samer Zawaydeh

Offline

Joined: 3 Aug 2008

Posts: 1664

Groups: Civil Engineering, Regional Representatives

Dear Rafael,

You can easily prepare a comparison sheet between the two softwares (P3 and the Contractor’s choice).

You can also ask the Client for the information that they need to extract from the Schedule periodically. Most probably they will use it in their capital program schedule. You may offer to provide this information and in the format that they want.

Best Regards,

Samer

Wed, 2009-05-13 14:01

Sherif Fam

Offline

Joined: 18 Apr 2005

Posts: 28

Groups: None

Rafael,

I do not use these techniques in my schedules. I am working in U.A.E. and here the float is either owned by the contractor or in the worst case scenario; based on who reaches the activity first; owns its float.

Regards,

Sherif

Wed, 2009-05-13 10:22

Rafael Davila

Offline

Joined: 1 Mar 2004

Posts: 5229

Groups: Spider Project Team

Andrew

We will not make a fuss out of it, if we decide to ask the question, as we are still on time, it will be in a professional and respectful language, not as informal as we are discussing the issue here. Yes your advice is welcome.

Remember P3 is no longer sold nor supported by Primavera/Oracle though maybe on Amazon you could get a few licenses of those still available for sale.

We use Suretrak but it is no longer sold nor supported by Primavera/Oracle. My clients would rather go with MS Project than with an Enterprise Solution full of bugs like P6 nor with their very limited companion products Primavera Contractor Standard/Deluxe.

I did some work for a local Program Manager for a Utility who would accept either P3 files from P3/Suretrak or MS Files, he was using infamous P3e, although having all sort of issues with the import of the files he would allow some choices. But come on, an enterprise solution for a windows replacement job?

Wed, 2009-05-13 09:48

Andrew Flowerdew

Offline

Joined: 14 Dec 2004

Posts: 960

Groups: None

As I said before, commercial decision time, whatever the rights and wrongs of the spec:

Kick up a fuss now and possibly be seen as a contractual and potential awkward contractor - and maybe the job goes elsewhere.

Keep quiet, get the contract and then try and change the software, but you’ve agreed to use the software by signing the contract so you’re not in the strongest of positions. You can still argue the spec is anti competitive, etc, and should allow other software, but it’s unlikely to be an argument that’s going to be settled overnight - not knowing the outcome, which software do you use?

No easy answer, should have been raised prior to tender submission stage.

As for your comment "my clients are not in the business of scheduling but in the business of Construction Contracting" - if they are construction contractors then they should very much be in the business of scheduling, it’s a fundamental part of their managmement job - although I think I get the gist of what you are saying.

Wed, 2009-05-13 09:31

Rafael Davila

Offline

Joined: 1 Mar 2004

Posts: 5229

Groups: Spider Project Team

Sherif

Float suppresion techniques are prohibited by these specs, I don’t know why, but it is ok with me, it should be enough that specs require your schedule to reflect your real action plan, this would be covered here and more. Seems like CPM specifiers’ have a tendency to complicate things above what is needed. Maybe that is why CPM has been discredited so much, instead of a usefull tool it becomes a burden.

We do not use float suppression as it will hinder true schedule, it most likely will backfire. We believe in being honest, in the event you have a valid claim don’t put it at risk by using those techniques.

Wed, 2009-05-13 09:21

Sherif Fam

Offline

Joined: 18 Apr 2005

Posts: 28

Groups: None

Rafael,

I will comment only on the "float ownership" issue; which I understand that the Client specified its ownership to him.

This can be a very serious issue; in the future; from claims perspective.

To my knowledge; USA Government implements "Time Impact Analysis"; which is mainly based on the Critical Path(s) of the schedule. In your case; all the paths will be critical. Any minor delays in any activity (which normally would have a float in other schedules); will be translated into negative float in your case. Most likely you will be in delays throughout the whole project duration. Hence; any delays from the Engineer/Client side will either be parallel to yours (concurrent delays); or within your delays (no claim).

In your position; I will increase as much as I can the durations of my scope activities; and minimize the activities durations of the the Engineer/Client scope; as well as frontload their activities to the maximum. Such schedule may not be realistic or reflecting how you realy desire to sequence the works; and will have its negative impact on controlling the job. However you may be forced to schedule the project in this way.

Regards,

Sherif

Wed, 2009-05-13 09:18

#10

Rafael Davila

Offline

Joined: 1 Mar 2004

Posts: 5229

Groups: Spider Project Team

Precisely, it is our money they are spending. Why Government is to leave out other suppliers from getting Government Jobs, the Government using their own money to rule them out?

Well our legislature issued the laws, federal procurement regulations are binding. Government agencies should follow the rules. Yes,there might be exceptions, that is why I am asking for bullets in both directions.

About planning software packages my clients are not in the business of Scheduling but in the business of Construction Contracting. They believe they must empower their managers to solve scheduling issues on the spot, at the jobsite in coordination with the subcontractors. They do not want to centralize scheduling. They have already spent time and money into training their managers to use the software of their choice. Specifying other software than what we use puts us at disadvantage.

Wed, 2009-05-13 08:48

#11

Andrew Flowerdew

Offline

Joined: 14 Dec 2004

Posts: 960

Groups: None

Rafael,

Specifying a single product is against most public procurement rules I know of, but as I said, I’m not that well up on those in the USA. The reason being as you state, it’s anti competitive.

You said "The argument for integrating and tracking all projects I would accept it if in private jobs, not in public jobs". Why don’t you except that public bodies need to track and have a handle on their projects just like private companies? After all, it’s your money they’re spending!

If you’ve submitted your tender, YOUR OFFER, then there’s time before the contract is awarded to negotiate something different, but it’s something that maybe should have been raised before submitting your tender. Usual predicament now that tenders are in, would you risk losing the job by kicking up a fuss, ie, for the cost of buying P6?

PS: I have 7 different planning software packages on my computer, (4 of which I use alot), and no doubt will have to buy others at some point as the job requires it!

Wed, 2009-05-13 08:17

#12

Rafael Davila

Offline

Joined: 1 Mar 2004

Posts: 5229

Groups: Spider Project Team

Andrew,

Bids have not been opened yet. The specs are very dogy, call by product name, make and model, "later version of P3" (no longer sold by Primavera/Oracle), not open to other options.

My point is that the specs do not follow the federal procurement rules.

But I wanted to hear what could be their one sided arguments, to bullet-proof our arguments the same way the windows to be replaced are to be bullet-proof.

The argument for integrating and tracking all projects I would accept it if in private jobs, not in public jobs.

Would you change your accounting/financial software to SAP instead of Peachtree just because it fits their wishes?

Government should limit to ask for a Bar Chart if is not willing to follow the rules of procurement.

I won’t oppose for government to issue a standard for transfering electronic files any software vendor could supply without getting into the way of a free market. These standards should be issued with enough time for software developers to catch up. Maybe other type of specification would be in order, but Brand Specification for a CPM software, no way.

Wed, 2009-05-13 07:48

#13

Andrew Flowerdew

Offline

Joined: 14 Dec 2004

Posts: 960

Groups: None

Rafael,

Not up on public procurement rules in the USA, in Europe it would very dodgy to specify one product - usually it would say something like "Primavera or other similiar approved".

But from their point of view, a government dept will probably have several projects on the go at any one time, hence they may use Primavera to track and integrate all the projects, (eg for cashflow). Hence why they specify it.

Are you at tender stage or has the contract been awarded?

If at tender stage you could ask the question, if the contract has been awarded then you could try and agree something different but at the end of the day in this case, that’s what’s you’ve signed up to, that’s what you agreed, that’s what you have to do if they won’t agree something different.

Wed, 2009-05-13 05:44

#14

Rafael Davila

Offline

Joined: 1 Mar 2004

Posts: 5229

Groups: Spider Project Team

We don’t oppose for the Client to ask for a CPM capable software. But in public works procurement it should be the contractor’s choice . By specifying Brand Name it might be favoring a particular vendor, it might even lead to corruption practices when the specifier is paid by a supplier to leave out their competition. This is against the most basic principles of a free market.

We don’t oppose for the client to specify certain level of detail. We would oppose specifications that prevents the Contractor to have control over his own schedule and management methods by placing restrictions on how to handle the schedule in a way it hinders him to schedule his own plan. Well under this bid the specs go as far as specifying ownership of float preventing the Contractor of his right to build as per his plan, this restriction may create issues of resource availability.

When you read these types of specs you get the feeling that the specifier believes he is the only person capable of doing good scheduling practice, he is a moron. The Contractor needs a schedule to effectively communicate on the field, not to submit a thesis no one else will look. Well maybe the specifier should become a Contractor and put his eggs on the basket before he is allowed to issue CPM specs.

In this particular job, windows replacement on a government building, requiring the use of P6 would be like asking you to submit along with your personal tax return electronic files of your finances in SAP (an enterprise financial software) just because a $500 laptop computer can load the sofware.

Sherif I completelly agree with your approach, you are an open minded person, unfortunatelly the specifier for our job is not.

Wed, 2009-05-13 04:57

#15

Sherif Fam

Offline

Joined: 18 Apr 2005

Posts: 28

Groups: None

Rafael,

In my personal opinion; the Client should be asking for a CPM-capable software.

However; some Clients tend to include in their specifications; a certain degree of detail in the schedule (e.g. no activities with duration greater than 14 days; no activity costing more than 10,000$; etc. with minor exceptions such as long-lead items, etc.); in order to have more control over the schedule.

With such degree of details; where the schedule can be 10,000+ activities; you will find yourself restricted to use Primavera.

I agree with you that P6 has some bugs. Till now; I am facing 3 problems with it so far:
- Ability to print the calendars.
- Autosaving; which disrupts you while in the middle of work.
- Working hours per days which are not stored inside the schedule; but in the master database. If you define 8hr/day for a schedule; and define 10hrs/day for another one; then you open the 1st schedule and run it; dates and floats will be different. I am not talking about the calendars; but about the User/Global preferences for converting the days to hours; as P6 uses hours in solving the network.

Anyhow; try to start by agreeing with them the WBS; Activity Codes; Degree of details; list of activities; etc. which you can prepare in Excel.

Afterward; discuss with them what they are looking to get from the schedule; and explain that other software are able to carry out the job.

Regards,

Sherif

Contact Us

Email: PPadmin@planningplanet.com

Planning Planet

Tips on using this forum..

CPM Software Specifications in Government Jobs

Replies

Top Posters

Contact Us

More like this

User login

Partners & Sponsors