I don’t think it is a matter of approach – as Uri suggests – I think it is a matter of what the obligations of the parties are under the specific Contract terms.
If the deliverables are subject to acceptance by the Owner (or his Representative), then the giving of such acceptance is an obligation of the Owner (or his representative) once the specific deliverable is acknowledged as being acceptable. Failure to provide such acceptance by the Owner would make the acceptance to be “deemed” to be so by the Owner.

If the Contract does not require specific acceptance, but merely to be provided “For Information Only”, the Contractor is not obliged to take on board the Owner’s comments.

It isn’t a case of being with the pitbulls or the pussies; it’s a case of what the Contract requires and carrying out these obligations (or not, as the case may be!)



Stuart

www.rosmartin.com

Uri,

I understand what you’re saying and there have been many times when I’ve been on both sides of the fence. In some cases I have taken sides with a contractor in order to explain how an owner has been unreasonable. Other times I’ve taken the owners side of the dispute in order to ensure that their best interests are being considered.

You’re right that it’s simply a matter of approach.

I guess that in some cases what I see is an "Owner Knows Best" approach and this is not always the case. I’ve had schedules submitted that I thought were highly unlikely yet an experienced and motivated contractor has managed to get them done. Was the temptation to reject the schedule there? Very much so.

My concern is that (and probably better posted in another thread if we’d like to discuss is) if the onwer feels that a schedule is unlikely and rejects it, yet the contractor is convinced that this same schedule can be accomplished then where does the due diligence of pointing out concerns regarding the schedule end and interruption begin?

As I said in my earlier message, I think it’s important to treat the contracting industry as knowledgeable people in their field and if, after discussing and pointing out potential unreasonable schedules, a contractor still wishes to proceed based on this schedule then I think it’s up to the owner to document how and why this unreasonable schedule could not or has not been met.

The keyword here is unreasonable. A schedule that is downright impossible due to clear conflicts is another story.

Best Regards,
Don

Hello Uri,

I agree that it is a "hands off" approach to the situation. This being said, my concern on either "accepting" or "rejecting" the Critical Path Schedule is that if formally accepted you’ve basically bought in to the schedule that has been submitted. Thus you’ve possibly agreed to an unreasonable schedule and set yourself up for a claim based on unreasonable timeframes, production rates etc...

On the other hand, by rejecting the schedule outright you leave yourself open to the thought that you as the owner or representative of the owner have forced the Contractor into a schedule of your choosing and again have set yourself up for a claim.

If however you take the approach that the contractor is a knowledgable person who can schedule his/her own operations then the schedule becomes the contractor’s risk and not the owners. It’s important to question any schedule that seems unreasonable but only if it appeared completely off the wall impossible would I be comfortable rejecting it outright.

By questioning the validity of certain portions of the schedule such as the incorporation of timing constraints, environmental constraints, reasonable production rates and equipment/labour resources etc. etc. etc. you can still leave the risk of a poorly planned schedule in the hands of the scheduler and not take responsibility for directing the work schedule.

Sometimes it’s better to be on the fence then in the yard with the pitbull.....

As a Contract Administrator in Ontario Canada it is interesting to see that the problems we face here are problems that are faced all over. The term "reasonable schedule" comes up frequently in highway construction and from the view of a person who represents the owner 95% of the time I try never to either "accept" or "reject" the contractors schedule. When faced with what I consider to be an "unreasonable" schedule that has been submitted as the contractors as-bid idea on how they intend to build the project, it may be better to question how the contractor intends to actually bid this seemingly unreasonable schedule. For example, if a contractor were to state in the as-bid or baseline schedule that they intended on performing 100,000 m3 of earth excavation in a mere 5 days then the question would be asked as to how many excavators, trucks etc..the contractor intends on utilizing to achieve this inflated production rate. If after committing to an equally unreasonable amount of equipment to achieve the unreasonable production the contractor does not follow through it would be extremely difficult for that contractor to claim a delay based on the schedule since in reality the unreasonable production rate was never achievable. As such, I am neither responsible for accepting or rejecting the contractors schedule, only for questioning how they intend to perform it and monitoring whether the commitments they have made under the schedule have been followed through on.

Hi Maria,
That just confirms that we all be careful about the terms that we use and we shouldn’t assume that the same term - such as "As-built Critical Path" - means the same thing to all people.

Cheers,

Stuart

www.rosmartin.com

Stuart
What you call a baseline I call a target-0 project. When we have started up a project, and the schedule is set for the first time, equals the baseline/target-0 project. We never alter the information in this. We use it to compare with the up to date schedule.

In parallell with this work we have a separate schedule (which we call a baseline, confusing therminology). This schedule is used when we are starting up our next project. The "baseline" I wanted to have up to date, was this "to be the next project" schedule.

I apologise for maybe confusing things even more, but it is early morning here and also "Lucia".

Well, I guess the first question is from which perspective are you asking?

If you’re the one producing the schedule, obviously it is encumbent upon you to regularly inspect your schedule and revise your assumptions as you go, making sure to document any significant changes. (Failure to document could prove damaging during litigation)

As the owner/client, you do bear some responsibility for vetting the schedule and raising questions on any "unreasonable" matters. You can’t go to court and say "Well, if he says he can build my tower in five days, who am I to question." Of course the burden is lessened by virtue of the fact that you don’t know the schedulers assumptions unless they are provided in a Basis of Schedule.

I would caution against trying to keep the baseline "up to date". In most cases, clients will not (should not) accept a baseline that already contains update information as they risk accepting poor performance into the approved baseline. There have been occaisions where I rejected baseline submissions for this reason alone.

Baseline schedules should be "reasonable" representations of the initial plan for the completion of work. I think it goes without saying that this will be subject to change, and can be addressed with a narrative describing and justifying the change. If reasonable, there is no compelling reason for the client to reject it. Moreover, should the schedule end up in litigation, reasonable documented changes to the baseline made during updates are typically accepted by the court. It is understood that we are only human and will sometimes need to change our mind "once better information becomes available."

With a baseline schedule -do you mean the schedule you use to build a schedule in the beginning of a new project? (instead of making a schedule from scratch)

If so, even a basline schedule has to be up to date, otherwise you loose to much time adjusting it in the bebinning of a project.
cheers