(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.
I have an issue at present whereby we have been working to a target programme for a while and have recently combined these dates with the Cl32 programme and therefore the P.C has come back by 11 weeks.
The programme went in for submission but has recently come back with a non accpetance, therefore the alast accepted programme has a P.C date +11 weeks compaired to this last submission (it is realistic to achieve this new completion date).
We have just receieved a PMI for additional works, if assessed under the last accpeted programme then the works can be accomodated to some extent and only cause a slight delay.
However if assessed under the new P.C date then it has a bigger impact. Therefore have i got a case to say that we feel we should assess under this new programme logic (-11 week P.C albeit programme is not accepted) or do I have to assess on accpeted programme logic.
The new P.C -11 week logic is quite different therefore the assessment on the accepted programme would be unrealistic. Or becuase the -11 weeks to P.C is not accpeted is PM within rights to use up available float still within the accpeted programme?
Printer-friendly version
Send to friend
Tony,
Assuming the programme was rejected for one of the 4 reasons specified in the contract (cl 31.3), and within 2 weeks of submission, then yes you are both obliged to assess the impact of the additional works vs the latest accepted programme.
Cheers,
G
Email: PPadmin@planningplanet.com
Replies