I do weekly progress update in our programme. At times, after update inputs, running the schedule results to out-of-sequence activities. In which case, I revise relationships to eliminate these out of sequence activities and to reflect the changes in sequence of works as they were implemented on site (e.g. two activities are initially planned as FS but in actual they started simultaneously, hence relationship is revised to correct the sequence). This revision to relationships often results to lesser delays compared to keeping “retain logic” when scheduling.
The consultant/project manager insists that during update, I am only entitled to make changes to percentages and actual dates. Apart from these, nothing should be revised as per FIDIC clause 14. He expects me to run the schedule and not amend anything afterwards. He insists that whatever resulting delay appears after scheduling is accepted as true and final. Somehow he thinks I am manipulating the programme to hide delays.
I explained that if relationships are not revised to reflect the actual situation, then the programme can no longer be used as reference for construction since it does not reflect the actual or the new forecasted sequence of activities. It is also rare that the planned programme is completely followed/implemented in actual due to several affecting actual conditions.
Let me know if I am making a right point about this. I don’t know how else to make the consultant accept my explanation regarding the changes made to eliminate out-of-sequence activities, which consequently reduce delay. Perhaps someone can show me publications regarding this so I can show it to him. Or maybe you can enlighten me on how to explain it further.
P.S. I only make changes in Current schedule not in Baseline programme.
Thanks,
Arlene
The consultant/project manager insists that during update, I am only entitled to make changes to percentages and actual dates. Apart from these, nothing should be revised as per FIDIC clause 14. He expects me to run the schedule and not amend anything afterwards. He insists that whatever resulting delay appears after scheduling is accepted as true and final. Somehow he thinks I am manipulating the programme to hide delays.
I explained that if relationships are not revised to reflect the actual situation, then the programme can no longer be used as reference for construction since it does not reflect the actual or the new forecasted sequence of activities. It is also rare that the planned programme is completely followed/implemented in actual due to several affecting actual conditions.
Let me know if I am making a right point about this. I don’t know how else to make the consultant accept my explanation regarding the changes made to eliminate out-of-sequence activities, which consequently reduce delay. Perhaps someone can show me publications regarding this so I can show it to him. Or maybe you can enlighten me on how to explain it further.
P.S. I only make changes in Current schedule not in Baseline programme.
Thanks,
Arlene