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.

Float usage and Baseline

10 replies [Last post]
Tue, 2008-09-30 16:23
Rajeev P.U.
User offline. Last seen 5 years 40 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 6 Nov 2007
Posts: 26
Groups: None
Situation 2:

It is not defined anywhere in the contract documents for whom and by what percentage the float is to be shared by Engineer and contractor.

Contractor is planning to use the float of certain activities to insert some additional activities (due to change in methodology) in the consented base line program to avoid having any impact on the project completion date. As PMC (Engineer) we pointed out that the float have to be shared on 50-50 basis and further the program to be reviewed by Engineer prior to use it as a baseline.

1. Is it allowed to insert additional activities in a consented baseline program and use the same as baseline program OR better consent it as a Revised Baseline Program (The contractor argument is that since it doesn’t have any impact on critical path there is no need to consent as a Revised Baseline Program).

2.How the float will be distributed among PMC (Engineer) and Contractor since it is not defined anywhere?
Top

Replies

Tue, 2008-10-14 13:30
#1
Rajeev P.U.
User offline. Last seen 5 years 40 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 6 Nov 2007
Posts: 26
Groups: None
Hello Mike,

The equipment is to be fixed by mid of 2009.

An activity "Kitchen equipment layout(09june08-08Jul08)" under Provisional item is included in the program for getting information from client prior to prepare the Ground floor shop drawing.

This activity is not linked with GF slab activity, but instead linked to material/procurement/MEP 2nd fix/authority approval in that order. But the contractor argues and claims it is due to the delay in getting the information the ground floor shop drawing cannot be prepared and henceforth the delay in GF slab leading to cumulative delays. (The contractor has not even completed the verticals in the basement floor till date).

I am using P6.1.

Drop line is straight as it is not linked to any construction activities that is to be executed in the near future.

This activity is not in the critical path and has a float of 35 days.

Best Regards,



Rajeev
Top
Mon, 2008-10-06 11:08
#2
Mike Testro
User offline. Last seen 5 weeks 3 days ago. Offline
Joined: 14 Dec 2005
Posts: 4418
Groups: Building Information Modelling, Content Moderators, GPCCAR Editors
Hi Rajeev

Some questions - not in any order of importance.

What was the actual date of the equipmant layout issue?
Was there a design development period for the Contractor?
What software are you using?
When progress % is entered is the drop down line straight or jagged?
In the original programme is the Equipment Layout activity critical - if not is there significant float.

Best regards

Mike Testro

Top
Fri, 2008-10-03 12:11
#3
Rajeev P.U.
User offline. Last seen 5 years 40 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 6 Nov 2007
Posts: 26
Groups: None
Hi Mike,

Here is the scenario...

The contractor is updating the baseline program with progress status and it shows delay of 2 months (cut off date 30/09/08)to which we asked for explanation.

Contractor says...it is the equipment layout (to be given by client prior to casting of GF slab) is having more impact on the present delay.

PMC says it is the structural part that is having dominant impact on the present delay.

So to substantiate PMC point of view I update the activity "Equipment layout" with 100% completion in the last month updated program (cut of date 30sep08)with 2 cases
(case1 - 09june2008& 09jul2008- 100% comp)-orig prog dates
(case2 - 31aug2008 & 30sep2008- 100% comp)-giving cut off date as finish date.
In both cases I have found that the impact of equipment layout is not the one that is dominant.

My concern is in an updated program "which date is to be considered for the impact check--the original program dates or present date based on the cut off" as all other activities in the same program are updated as per progress.

Trust the above explanation will give the clear picture.

Best Regards,


Rajeev
Top
Fri, 2008-10-03 11:51
#4
Mike Testro
User offline. Last seen 5 weeks 3 days ago. Offline
Joined: 14 Dec 2005
Posts: 4418
Groups: Building Information Modelling, Content Moderators, GPCCAR Editors
Hi Rajeev

I just ran a search on Impact Check but I am not clear what you are asking.

Let me know your scenario and I will see if I can help.

Best regards

Mike Testro
Top
Fri, 2008-10-03 11:41
#5
Rajeev P.U.
User offline. Last seen 5 years 40 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 6 Nov 2007
Posts: 26
Groups: None
Hi Mike,

Certainly...that is pretty cool...

Mike I have another scenario regarding impact, may be you might have seen the thread in the forum "Impact check".

What is your opinion....

Best Regards,

Rajeev
Top
Thu, 2008-10-02 16:10
#6
Mike Testro
User offline. Last seen 5 weeks 3 days ago. Offline
Joined: 14 Dec 2005
Posts: 4418
Groups: Building Information Modelling, Content Moderators, GPCCAR Editors
Hi Rajeev

Thanks for the feedback - keep in touch with further developments.

I will keep a lookout on PP on any threads from your contractor’s planner.

Best regards

Mike Testro
Top
Thu, 2008-10-02 12:26
#7
Rajeev P.U.
User offline. Last seen 5 years 40 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 6 Nov 2007
Posts: 26
Groups: None
Thanks Mike,

Today we told the contractor that the program with additional activities cannot be accepted without reviewing its impact on the original program. Also we hinted the contractor they cannot take all the float (just to keep him updated)if he is going for the revised program.

Look like it worked, the contractor planner was bit confused when he left the room.

I have to do the exercise what you had mentioned, in the electronic copy to give more feedback to my PM.

Best Regards,

Rajeev
Top
Wed, 2008-10-01 13:38
#8
Mike Testro
User offline. Last seen 5 weeks 3 days ago. Offline
Joined: 14 Dec 2005
Posts: 4418
Groups: Building Information Modelling, Content Moderators, GPCCAR Editors
Hi Rajeev

Very simple - just refuse to accept any adjustments to his original programme.

Insist that all progress is recorded on the contract programme.

If you have an electronic copy of the programme you can check where the flaws may be.

Excessive float is usually caused by activities not having a finish start link to the next appropriate activity - an open ended task will leave float to completion.

Mid chart links or negative lead lags also distort float.

Best regards

Mike Testro
Top
Tue, 2008-09-30 17:44
#9
Rajeev P.U.
User offline. Last seen 5 years 40 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 6 Nov 2007
Posts: 26
Groups: None
Hi Mike,

You said it..this is the feeling I am having ...I think they realize by now that there are some more flaws in their program to which he is trying get some buffer for the future.

But how to prevent him from using the float..anything you can think about....

Best Regards,

Rajeev
Top
Tue, 2008-09-30 16:36
#10
Mike Testro
User offline. Last seen 5 weeks 3 days ago. Offline
Joined: 14 Dec 2005
Posts: 4418
Groups: Building Information Modelling, Content Moderators, GPCCAR Editors
Hi Rajeev

The current thinking is that the float belongs to the project on a 1st come 1st served basis.

It seems that the contractor is trying to add contingency time risk buffers to an already submitted programme.

This should not be allowed at this stage - after the programme has been submitted.

Use of float is very important and it seems to me that the contractor is trying to set up a situation for his future benefit.

Aproach this with caution.

Best regards

Mike Testro
Top