Hi all

You all seems to be very expert in all this. I desperately need your assesment on my ongoing project, which has the similar situation.

We have a Contactual Schedule, and because of various reasons the project got delayed by a good time though the project is still not completed but i want to see the EOT.

Various methods for delay analysis are available but which one is correct is still a question for me.

Let me start with As-Planned as Impacted & also as-built at same time.
I have the baseline schedule, Now my major delays are because of Law & Order and Variation of works.

First i incorporated my Law & Order delays in my base line schedule as per the actual dates they occured.
And then my activities got shifted to a new dates.
Now i incorpated the additional duration in this because of variation of work, simply by adding my additional duration in the planned duration. But what if i have executed this additional work before the start of my impacted. Can i claim this additional work? I hope i can?

Secondly As we all knows that we rarely execute as per the schedule sequence. so there are some activities which i started before there schedule start date without any instruction (acceleration)from the Owner. Also some of the schedule activities have monsoon calendar but in the rellity we executed them in monsoon. so being a reasonable Contractor my intentions are to finish the work on or before time. but while considering these things in my As-Built schedule i am loosing a good amount of EOT , which is more as per my As-Impacted schedule.

So which way I should go to ask for my EOT?
As-Planned-Impacted or As-Built.

Please reply at your earliest.
Thanks

Back to the original topic for a moment, before there can be discussion of EOT or entitlement there has to a definition of "contract programme". People throw away the term every day but it is hard to extract from them what that means exactly (to them). The innocent (yeah, right) contractor provides the original plan/schedule/programme on day 1 (yeah, right) for information and to demonstrate that he knows how to make one (yeah, right), but thereafter every difference (and there will be many) between reality (ie project execution) and the plan, which is quickly out of date and irrelevant, is used as an excuse to flog the contractor at the progress meeting. I have no particular sympathy for the contractor. I just find the flogging and the anxiety and attempts to avoid it entirely a counter-productive distraction caused by a mis-understanding.

I think there are two distinct discussions going on here; one is what does it mean if the programme is made a contract document and the second, the ownership of float.

I don’t think we can really reach any definitive conclusions on the first point unless we know more about the precise contractual mechanisms and what the provisions are in the case of default.

The second part about ownership of float also has at least two aspects; float that is generated by the duration, sequencing and logic (this I called ‘accidental’ float) and float that is created specifically by buffer tasks or planning to complete the project ahead of time (lets call it ‘intentional’ float).

In the first case, as Trevor suggests, accidental float ebbs and flows throughout the lifespan of the project. This is the float that current legal convention says should be available to who ever needs it first. I am generally with convention there as I can’t envisage a more equitable way to deal with it unless any extensions of time awarded through the currency of the project can be changed if another party subsequently causes delay. Maybe Trevor is suggesting that float is maintained if the default is by the employer – and that could result in extensions of time being granted far in excess of what the contractor requires to complete the project by the Contract date. Or that delays, and extensions of time, are only analysed at the end of the project when all the delaying events are known – I don’t think that would get many supporters, having no idea of liability until the completion of the project.

The instance of intentional float then that is a different storey and I am more towards the contractor having sole use of it. Of course there must be some rules about how it can be used and monitored and, for instance, if it is allowed to grow bigger than its original value following progress better than expected. I predicted previously (but it has not happened) that the ‘buffer task’ developed by Asta for PowerProject would become a much used activity on contractor’s programmes and be replicated by other software. Asta say “Buffer tasks are an explicit way of including and account for project contingency, supports the Critical Chain concept and dovetails with the Society of Construction Law’s Delay & Disruption Protocol.”

Referring to Trevor’s military analogy I see reserves in two ways also; ‘accidental’ ones that are there because of the size of the army and it’s movements around various theatres and maybe some unforseen reserve as a result of perceived threats diminishing or allies or enemies performing better or worse than expected. Whereas ‘intentional’ reserves are troops that are held back intentionally and assigned to a particular project (battle?) just in case tactics don’t go the way there were supposed to or that allies were weaker tan envisaged or enemies stronger than envisaged. Heavy engineering, shipbuilding and even construction ought to have some of both in their projects. And, like when a general should not get upset when one of his colleagues needs to use some of the ‘accidental’ reserves because his battle strategy is not going to plan, neither should a contractor get upset when the employer needs to use some float. After all, generals and contractors are all on the same side, with the success of their battle plans or completion of the project being the primary aim. However, when the intentional reserves of one general are commandeered by another without some counterbalancing forces, that general is right to feel peeved, similarly when the employer uses some of the contractors intentional float the contractor has the right to shout ‘foul’ if there is no recompense.

And, can’t you just se I’m not a military man!

Peace and Goodwill…

David

ps. I almost forgot… The use of ‘accidental’ float is not necessarily a free to the employer. The contractor does generally have the right to claim for the direct cost of disruption (the effects of events that do not delay the contract completion). Reduction of ‘accidental’ float often results in working less economically, more riskily and requiring more supervision and management input.

pps. And another thought… where is Charlie’s insight when we need it!

I know that legal convention says that the client can erode the float till the cows come home as long as he doesn’t touch the critical path.
My examples were intended to show why this concept is, at best, deeply flawed, regardless of how universally it is the accepted wisdom.
The contractor/project manager is in no different position from the general with the army.
Sure the client can erode the float. Or, to put it another way, the contractor is obliged to accept variations and widening of the scope of the project, as long as it falls generally within the overall "spirit" of the contracted project. But that float should not be free.
Float can be created as well as eroded. Finishing Tasks before their Late Finish creates Float but only the contractor has control of this. The client only ever erodes the float, increases the scope and increases the project schedule risk, most of which is borne by the contractor.

A schedule, usually used as a Baseline schedule at the start of the project, is not in any way a promise to execute the work in detail as shown on the bars.
The start date of any task on the schedule is just the Early Start for scheduling forwards with the critical path method. Is there a promise to execute the particular Tasks between their respective ES and LF? I don’t think so. There is only a contract promise to deliver the entire project on or before the Contract Finish Date. Is there a promise to execute the Tasks in the sequence/order shown by the network predecessor relationships? If so, if any of the detail in a schedule/programme is a contract promise, then every contractor on every project will always be in breach. What about overall numbers such as the CPI, SPI or up-to-status-date numbers like BCWS, BCWP, ACWP or the baseline Costs and Hours S Curves? Again, there is no actual promise to perform against any of these, and even if there is, there is no remedy for a breach. Trying to prescribe how the project will be managed in such detail via the contract is a mis-understanding of the role of the contract, the Crital Path Method and EVA. The network diagram and the Gantt Chart do not say more than they say.
For any particular task the chart says only that "this task can start/finish as early as/as late as ES, LS, EF, LF provided that everything scheduled before it is executed exactly as shown in the schedule". The Schedule detail is an estimate. It never becomes a promise

If a contractor had a schedule which had float in it why would he ever reveal it, when it can be completely disguised by increasing the estimated duration of every Task until they no longer had any float to show?

"not needed and not used"

Float is a reserve against risk, ie insurance.
If you have an insurance policy anddon’t make a claim you cannot say it was not needed and not used.

If you are a general commanding an army in a battle and you have a reserve cavalry, the king cannot take the reserve away to be used elsewhere without imperilling your chances of winning the battle, even though he could say they weren’t needed and weren’t used.

The difference between the all up maximum design weight of an aircraft and its actual weight on take-off is a reserve against things which might happen but we don’t know what they are. If you load to max and you make it you cannot say that the flight was identically likely to have been successful with or without the reserve.