Clive,

Don’t forget to include the company philosophy on use the use of programmes.

1. Long time, little work - detailed [] programme and estimate.

2. Short time, lots of work - not so detailed programme [] or estimate

James.

Annoon
Good to see you back in yet another guise

No doubt, Estimater and Planner should be considered one as both are integral part in execution of works especially in tendering, procurement and then in certification of monthly invoices

Andrew and James
An interesting points raised.
Each Company has its own methods and way of going about the task.
Many require the planner to put together the Preliminaries from the perspective of plant and staff allthough often the Estimator will add the final values.
There is an art to identifying the big ticket items and focussing on getting them right and to me that involves a joint effort on the part of the estimator and planner. As an example if you are going to achieve a 4 day cycle for a multi storey building it is a good idea that the estimator knows this and sufficient materials and labour are priced into the estimate.
I initially ignore the clients requirements as to the tender programme and build a programme on what is likely to be required by the site team. If having achieved this it does not marry with the clients requirements I will first ask the question why. As you say Andrew if the Client only wants to be shown 50 activities hammocking up the programme is not such a difficult task. In broad terms I have no interest in programming for trhe installation of every door but I will identify when orders are required to be placed and when the first and last door are likely to be installed, all be it this may be a generic activity such as 1st and 2nd fix joinery. If at all possible I will identify a floor by floor programme when I want power on when I want lifts operational. Where a nominated subcontractor is involved particuarly with design input I will programme in detail what is expected of him.
I often find that contracts will require a detailed programme to be submitted within say 4 weeks of award. This task I feel can only be acomplished if a good level of detail including methods, material requirements and plant has been defined at tender stage. For myself if I am to advise on the feasability of a tender duration at the tender settlemnt meeting I am likely to have fully satisfied myself that the duration is achievable. If it isnt and no method can be found to comply with the contract period the closure meeting must decide whether to seek a longer period or to add LDs. This is not an easy decision but setteling the money and ignoring the time is not conducive to good tendering practice. As a scenario lets consider a bill with maybe a 1000 items which goes into extreme detail (mayube too much) should not the programme be simiarly detailed?
So in conclusion the tender programme I feel is for the contractor, the tender submitted programme is for the client such that the contractor may explain his principle plan. If greater or lesser detail is required at the tender submission stage the contractor should manipulate his programme to provide it. This does not mean he fudges reality but maintains his logic.
Just a thought
Clive

James,

You said it in your first sentence:-

"The level of detail included in the tender programme is normally based on the requirements of the client"

ie, it’s to win the job, not build it. I totally agree that it would be nice, and the aim should be, to get it right at the earliest possible stage - however some clients know alot about the construction process, some know very little. Depending on your client or their consultants, they MAY have detailed requirements and a good knowledge, but this is not always the case.

The tender team has to convince the client they know what they’re doing and this does not always correspond with giving alot of detail, but sometimes it may. I have worked on tenders where the client has specifically stated a maximum number of activities for a tender programme (50no activites for a £25million project believe it or not)and therefore there was no way it could at that stage become a detailed construction programme - although by rolling up activities into summaries it had more detail in it than shown.

Still hold to my contention that it’s the estimators job to come up with the correct competitive market value for the job, ie win the job, rather than get every dollar allocated against the right piece of plant, material etc. Time doesn’t usually permit a breakdown to the nth degree.

We never have enough time at tender but the role of an estimator is not to get every bit of money in exactly the right place, although very helpful if he/she does.

An estimators role is to come up with the market value of the project. In doing so he (or she) needs input from many sources, planners being one. They don’t need a detailed construction programme but an overview of the times involed, methods, etc, to build the project.

I know the frustration it causes when you start to build a job. You look at the tender breakdowns and the programme and keep finding things that don’t appear to be included in the tender, programmes that are of little help as to how you are going to actually build the project, etc, etc.

It took me a while to accept that the tender is a document to win the job, not a detailed handbook on how you’re going to build it.

Hello Morph,

I hope you had a good week-end with your family, and are feeling happy to be back at work.

In answer to first your question: NO!!!

Last week, on Tuesday, I was asked to help construct the programe on a £5M tender. Strictly speaking, the programme was supposed to be delivered on the Friday. Three days to construct, optimise and amend the programme???? Yeah right.

I told them that it would take at least a week to even have the basic programme ready - and that assumed I had all the estimating data already available.

Initially, it was the bid leader who began constructing the programme - yet none of the estimating had been done. When she realised how much time it would take to construct the programme, she then asked me if I could do it for her (she is an Engineer with a little bit of very basic programming experience). This enables her to continue with the Estimating Sheets.

This is where our company has failed to learn, and still thinks that "programming" is a five-minute job, to be done as a "pretty-picture" just to satisfy the client’s RFP. Therefore, it gets given to whomever happens to be leading the bid - usually an Engineer. Then they suddenly find out that they can’t cope with the amount of data; concluding in a badly constructed programme.

Yep, it’s the same old story. They don’t involve the planner until it’s too late - or even at all.

You are correct in that a bid is a team effort between all concerned. I keep telling them to complete the estimate sheets and I’ll construct the programme. We’ll all get-together and then optimise the programme.

James