Tips on using this forum..

(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.

Revised Baseline Programme

20 replies [Last post]

Sun, 2009-08-09 14:50

Vamsi Gollapinni

Offline

Joined: 19 Apr 2007

Posts: 22

Groups: Building Information Modelling, GPC Qatar, TURNAROUND & SHUTDOWN (T/A & S/D)

Dear All

I am currently working on a 5 Star Hotel which is under construction.

The situation is as follows:
1. A Baseline Project submitted by the contractor was accepted some 2 yrs back.
2. Contractor submitted a number of EOT claims, which are under review.
3. They were asked to submit a revised baseline programme.
4. They submitted a revised programme with delay events but the balance of scope of works still follow the same logic as was shown in the baseline programme whereas their current sequencing of works time for diff trades has completely changed.

My question is, when the contractor has included the delay events into the programme, and shown a impacted as-built programme, then should not they include the realistic sequence of works for the balance scope? This in my opinion will give a realistic picture of the date of completion and also the revised baseline will serve the purpose of a contractual document.

The problem is under the FIDIC contract being followed, a revised programme can be only submitted when the actual duration of the works is more than the estimated duration. i am stuck with a programme which had estimated duration way too relaxed and now the contractor is in fact taking less time to do most of the trades. The delay has been mainly due to design revisions from the engineers side.
Can any seniors guide me on this issue?

Regards

Vamsi Chand

Replies

Tue, 2009-09-22 06:05

Rafael Davila

Offline

Joined: 1 Mar 2004

Posts: 5241

Groups: Spider Project Team

Ashraf

I am not proficient with any retrospective forensic tool as we are contractually required to use TIA in the prospective. But one principle regarding EOTs I know is that concurrency does not prevent the contractor from EOT’s.

Monetary compensation is another issue, unless it was pacing, concurrency prevents him from recovering monetary compensation for the time in concurrency. If the contractor claims it was pacing and not a concurrent delay the burden of proof is still on him, he must prove it was indeed pacing.

Best regards,
Rafael

Tue, 2009-09-22 04:55

ashraf alawady

Offline

Joined: 26 Aug 2006

Posts: 320

Groups: None

Dear All

The situation is as follows:
1. A Baseline Project submitted by the contractor was accepted some 2 yrs back.
2. Contractor submitted a number of EOT claims, which are under review (taking into considerqation that The delay has been mainly due to design revisions from the engineers side) .
it is very clear that the contractor is entitiled for EOT and it is the engineer responsibility to finalize the contractor’s claim in resonable time and he mey give interim EOT .
3. the contractyor was asked to submit a revised baseline programme.
4. They submitted a revised programme with delay events but the balance of scope of works still follow the same logic as was shown in the baseline programme .
the contractor has the right to includ the delay events into the programme, and shown a impacted as-built programme, they should include also the realistic sequence of works for the balance scope and they have to show the actions they take to mitigate their own delays-if any because the contractor will get EOT for the reasons of delays which behined his control only and other delays he eill take the resposibility to mitigate this delays if possible or it will be concrunt delays with the other delays from the enigneer side .

Mon, 2009-08-24 07:38

Vamsi Gollapinni

Offline

Joined: 19 Apr 2007

Posts: 22

Groups: Building Information Modelling, GPC Qatar, TURNAROUND & SHUTDOWN (T/A & S/D)

Guys

Thanks a lot for all your comments and most of the insights were extremely helpful.

Last few weeks were spent foraging through the documentation of the project since its start date, and has resulted in a foggy picture of the chronology of events. One thing i have decided to do is build the delay events right from scratch based on the existing documentation which includes submittal , approvals, Instructions, variation orders, contractors daily progress reports, updates, letters from all parties involved, etc. This is to analyze the effect of every event as it happens.

Now, for arriving at a realistic completion date, as Tony rightly suggested, i did work prospectively to arrive at the end date based on the current sequence and resources deployed by the contractor and following standard productivity norms as practiced in the region. This has shown a decrease in 1.5 months from the end date as compared to the contractors claim of EOT. This suggests that an acceleration claim is evident, hence it all boils down to establishing delays and attributing them to the right parties, and awarding the contractor an EOT which he rightly deserves. I still dont like the idea that he has to be awarded an EOT based on an expired sequence and logic.

Mon, 2009-08-24 03:43

Scarllet Pimpernel

Offline

Joined: 19 Jul 2009

Posts: 152

Groups: GPC Qatar, Pinoy Planning Planet Community

Dear Samir,

I know what you are trying to say. The point I’m trying to say is that whatever knowledge you have could be obsolete due to the circumtances of the project since project is a unique one time endeavors.

I have this experience working in a casino and resort development. I just recently joined the project and I was surprised to find out all the system and procedures where out of the book, whatever project management book you could master. Price escalation clause were tampered, variation claims approvals were secretly approved without going to a reasonable process, etc. etc.

It was only after some time that I understand the situation I’m in. The finances of the casino and resort development comes from Panama. And I got the feeling that somehow the money could be drug money and luandered. My life was in danger because even how much i wanted to do things as per project management books, somehow it was not possible.

So the point here is that you really don’t know what is going on the most secret chambers of project management. that is why I propose to continue sending cv in the internet because you just don’t know anything.

Thank you,
Scarlett

Fri, 2009-08-21 14:49

Anthony McHale

Offline

Joined: 23 Jan 2008

Posts: 4

Groups: None

Friends,

I read through this post and was pleased at the number of though provoking comments and suggestions. The list of questions to answer regarding the potential for an acceleration claim were especially enlighted.

The one question I was left asking was, ignoring all contractual issues, whether or not a revised baseline was really necessary. By way of explanation, it seems that the project is still in the vertical construction of the super-structure, which is by its nature a pretty lineal process. So, from a big picture perspective the underlying logic of the schedule is probably still fairly sound. (i.e. the core still proceeds the slabs) The means and methods change has however caused the floor to floor durations to be reduced, thereby accelerating completion of the project. This acceleration should result in a reduction of negative float in each update.

It sounds like you are performing a retrospective analysis to determine the reasons for the original delay, but the other decision point is to determine actual completion so that you can negotiate the EOT claim. You seem to be looking to the contractor to tell you, but you can probably do a lot to determine it yourself. In order to estimate the net effect of this acceleration, I would prepare a copy of the contractor’s schedule using the reduced floor to floor durations to project the net effect of the acceleration. (You sound very intelligent, so you probably have done this already)

Now to the claim aspect. The law in the USA, where I primarily work, is less clear than elsewhere, but I will give you my impression based on generally accepted US practice (not an absolute as constructive acceleration law varies from state to state). It sounds like the contractor has submitted an EOT claim that has not been accepted. If the Owner has not responded in a timely manner to that claim, or if the Owner has denied that claim (and it is later proven to be valid as excusable time) then you are potentially in a situation of constructive acceleration.

In the USA, the other component to prove a constructive acceleration claim would be cost. In other words, the contractor would have to prove that they expended more money to complete the work more quickly in order to get an award from the owner. So, if the new forming system is costing them more than the baseline plan in rental or labor, you should probably expect to see a claim. But if the increased form rental is off-set by a reduction in labor, then the contractor would probably not be due a monetary award for its acceleration.

In any case, my final suggestion would be to make sure that you are keeping good archives of the contractor’s CPM database and daily reports. If the project does go to a claim, these will be vital to help assess delay and culpability.

Good luck,

Tony

Thu, 2009-08-13 13:52

Samer Zawaydeh

Offline

Joined: 3 Aug 2008

Posts: 1664

Groups: Civil Engineering, Regional Representatives

Dear Scarllet,

The subject or new baselines was mentioned in PMBOK, 4e, page 56:

"During project execution, results may require planning updates and re-baselining. This can include changes to expected activity durations, changes in resurce productivity and avaulability, and unanticipated risks. Such variances may effect the project management plan or project documents and may require detailed analysis and development of appropriate project management responses. The results of the analysis can trigger change requestes that, if approved, may modify the project management plan or other project documents and possibly require establishing new baselines."

With kind regards,

Samer

Wed, 2009-08-12 07:34

Se de Leon

Offline

Joined: 15 May 2001

Posts: 321

Groups: None

Hey Charlie, are you there?

As usual, the message is choppy, that’s why I came to the conclusion that you’re there.

Cheers.

Tue, 2009-08-11 23:23

Scarllet Pimpernel

Offline

Joined: 19 Jul 2009

Posts: 152

Groups: GPC Qatar, Pinoy Planning Planet Community

The fundamentals is confuse here.

Always remember that projects are unique. What you planners out there have expereinced may not be for the good of planners in UAE.

We really don’t know the reason why the contractor accelerated. There are lots of reason.

if you will look at what is happening in UAE, particularly in Dubai, a lot of cosmetic actions are developing to squeeze more money from investors. A lot of exagerated handover dates are announce to lure more money to grab. The contractor may have knowledge that others are not in possession that guide his actions. And Vamsi, being new in the project just fall into the traps common to client representative.

In conclusion, there is no quick fix to the problems due to fluidity and dynamics of UAE, Dubai in particulars, current construction limbo. Nobody just know what will happen next.... it could be your project will just stop and go pack up your things and go home.

So, where is the PMBook of Knowledge here. or Any bright guys with PMP, APM, PSP, etc. ,etc.

Also consider the mentality "Insha Allah". When things will happen, it will happen, GOD willings.

So my previous comments remains valid,

Thank you
Scarlett

Tue, 2009-08-11 16:31

Rafael Davila

Offline

Joined: 1 Mar 2004

Posts: 5241

Groups: Spider Project Team

Gary,

I believe these types of specifications were developed for jobs that require a strict coordination between the owner and the contractor such as those remodeling jobs of facilities to be kept in use while remodeling is going on. The problem is when someone not knowledgeable of CPM picks up from a drawer this type of spec /clause by perceiving them as the most comprehensive and better for the job when it is not. Unfortunately not every job has someone like you that understands how CPM works and dare to question the specifications or clauses in the best interest of all parties.

Vamsia,

Se de Leon might perceive the Contractor as a lion, and it might be, not every contractor can change methods at the middle of a job so efficiently. Listen to every question Se de Leon is asking. Maybe as a newcomer to the job you have the best opportunity to ease tensions in the benefit of all, at least with regard to CPM. At the end it is up to the Contractor to meet ends or not, is always his responsibility. It is an illusion to believe a “good” CPM schedule will make a good contractor; it is not the driving wheel (the CPM), it is who is behind the wheel (the Contractor) that will get you to the finish line.

A hand down approach, never naïve but to behave in a measured way can only work in your favor. I believe most of PP members do take this approach.

Best regards,
Rafael

Tue, 2009-08-11 15:47

#10

Se de Leon

Offline

Joined: 15 May 2001

Posts: 321

Groups: None

I have to ask you the following questions:

1. Does the contractor encountered a delay that is excusable under the contract?
2. Does the contractor made a timely and sufficient request for an extension of the contract schedule?
3. Do the the client denied the contractor’s request for an extension or failed to act on it within a reasonable time?
4. Do the client insisted on completion of the contract within a period shorter than the period to which the contractor would be entitled by taking into account the period of excusable delay, after which the contractor notified the client that it regarded the alleged order to accelerate as a constructive change in the contract?
5. Does the client require the contractor to expend extra resources to compensate for the lost time and remain on schedule?

Coming from a contractor’s point of view, I would not also give what you’re asking for if I have a pending request for EOT. Would you if you’re in their shoes? It really takes two to tango.

Basing on how your contractor is behaving, I believe your contractor is preparing something that will not be pleasing to the client.

IMHO

Tue, 2009-08-11 12:25

#11

Gary Whitehead

Offline

Joined: 24 Mar 2009

Posts: 1215

Groups: Building Information Modelling, Content Moderators, Petro-Chem / Oil & Gas, The GrapeVine

I completely agree, Rafael

I would also like to add that not changing outdated logic on the update schedule is also to the detriment of the client.
I onced worked as client representative on a project that had one of these clauses denying the contractor the ability to change logic or durations without agreeing a new baseline. The schedule showed 4 months delay, but the contractor would insist he had implemeted changes which would recover this, but couldn’t reflect these changes on the programme becuase of this clause. It took me 3 months of sitting through progress meetings whith the contractor saying "trust me, it’ll be OK" before I managed to persuade the client this was not the best way to manage a project and to agree to waive the clause.

Tue, 2009-08-11 07:00

#12

Rafael Davila

Offline

Joined: 1 Mar 2004

Posts: 5241

Groups: Spider Project Team

Vamsia

After your clarification that the Contractor is behind schedule I understand your point as valid. On the other hand if there are pending EOT’s I can understand the Contractor’s denial to submit a revised Baseline because of the implications this might have.

The fact that the contractor is changing his methodology to get on time is good. The problem is that for the moment his update schedules are not reflecting true plan and they should as you are claiming. Maybe asking him to submit his update schedules in accordance to changed plans would be enough. He just got to understand an update schedule shall represent a true depiction of his plans but in no way is a Baseline that will change contractual requirements. There is a misunderstanding in the industry that update schedules shall only be updated with actual dates and remaining is to be left untouched as per original submittal, then it is no longer a true depiction of his plans. If the contractor changes plans very frequently then the validity of his Schedule as a claim analysis tool might be questioned by your team, this will make things difficult but that is the way it is. We all would like CPM to be the perfect tool, but it is not, sorry ladies, it is wrong to presume that the published schedules are rigorous and accurate.

Believe me I have seen specifications that do not allow for changes in the logic of the CPM as if the contractor is no longer in control of the means and methods. Incredibly some of these specs require the approval of these changes by the owner prior to incorporation on the schedule, the Owner is now in control of tools and methods not the Contractor. No way, the contractor keeps the right to change plans; the Owner keeps his right to be informed.

In the update narrative the Contractor shall highlight all changes in logic for the attention and knowledge of all. Latter on a revised baseline should follow, but allowing the contractor some time to establish his rhythm might give some relief to the parties. Your communications per-se is raising the flag about the validity of his updates.

I rather have Update Schedules that show actual and valid schedules than many Baselines Schedules that are always lagging. Isn’t it enough to require the Contractual Milestones to constraint the network? These contraints show the Owner when and by how much the schedule is behind, at the expense of hiding logic, want more?

Best regards
Rafael

Tue, 2009-08-11 02:41

#13

Vamsi Gollapinni

Offline

Joined: 19 Apr 2007

Posts: 22

Groups: Building Information Modelling, GPC Qatar, TURNAROUND & SHUTDOWN (T/A & S/D)

Scarlett

1. Contractor is behind the original programme. Now as i said before delay has been due to many reasons.
2. Let me explain it to you what my predicament is:
EG.In the baseline, duration for slab casting between each level has been given as 30 days. The project is behind schedule and all those dates(baseline) have passed. Now the contractor is doing the slabs in less than 20 days. He changed his method of casting the core wall, original programme had core wall being done along with the columns, whereas now he deployed a climbing formwork system and core wall is ahead of the slabs. He also deployed more resources to execute the works at the same time. Result - Slab cycle reduced. This is evident in the way he is executing wet trades, and other finishes too.
So when the basis/logic of the original programme is not existing anymore, i believe a revised programme for the balance of works should be submitted reflecting a realistic project completion based on current site conditions and this has to be agreed as a contractual document (IF Clause 14.2 of FIDIC 1987 supports it, then why not??); otherwise Contractor is misleading the Client and Engineer with his old programme, which would result in the project acting like a cash cow for the Contractor. He does not need to crash, or submit a recovery, just reflect the current conditions and submit a programme to achieve a realistic completion date. This cannot be an acceleration programme, because we are asking to submit a PROGRAMME BASED ON THEIR EXISTING SITE RESOURCES, PROCUREMENT STATUS and PROJECT REQUIREMENT and that is what the contractor is not agreeing to.

Now coming to your advice on finding a job (which was totally uncalled for), i believe you have developed a hypothetical situation of contractor not responding to my comments. AS i said before, i have just been assigned to this project and its not even been a month. I posted my query here to get some guidance from seniors, to assist me with my thought process. I believe that is the purpose of this forum. I may have been not clear initially.If anybody out there is solely relying on Planning Planet forums for surviving their jobs, then i really wonder when do they actually work.

Samer and Rafael, your comments have been really helpful. Thank you.

Regards

Vamsi

Tue, 2009-08-11 02:05

#14

Scarllet Pimpernel

Offline

Joined: 19 Jul 2009

Posts: 152

Groups: GPC Qatar, Pinoy Planning Planet Community

I just don’t know what really the true situation.

Is the contractor ahead of schedule?

then why ask for revised baseline?

Is the contractor behind schedule? What schedule? Original schedule, revised schedule.

Vamsi, you need to be clear what you want. If you want a schedule that accelerate the work of the contractor, all you have to do is issue the contractor an instruction. If the contractor will not give, then, that is a big problem. Look at the contractual clause if the contractor is in breach of the contract. Then, tell the contractor if ever, that the contractor is in breach of contract.

If still the contractor will not acknowledge your notes, then, it is very clear the contractor has no respect of your authority.

My advice, start searching the internet for job requirement. Maybe there is something for you thant will give you respect as professional planner.

Thank you,
Scarlett

Tue, 2009-08-11 00:16

#15

Samer Zawaydeh

Offline

Joined: 3 Aug 2008

Posts: 1664

Groups: Civil Engineering, Regional Representatives

Dear vamsia,

When you have a Program of Works that does not represent the actual scope of work or is not consistent with the actual progress at site, then you can raise a flag and as the Contractor for a revised program of works.

Usually, the Baseline schedule is left untouched for post project evaluations. You change change the Program sequence if you want per requirement. Both of you are correct. You need to come to an agreement to the method of representing the actual sequence of activities that you actually have, in your Program of Works.

With Kind Regards,

Samer

Mon, 2009-08-10 13:49

#16

Rafael Davila

Offline

Joined: 1 Mar 2004

Posts: 5241

Groups: Spider Project Team

vamsia chand

Maybe he is American and do not understand you have a somewhat different way of contracting. If I were the Contractor and you ask me to submit a baseline that projects a finish date before the contractual I would issue a Claim for acceleration as a condition for it to be considered, of course very inflated to keep you aligned or maybe I would issue none.

Maybe you are asking for a Recovery Schedule when he is ahead, to me this is hard to swallow.

Here we have essentially two types of baselines:

1. Contractual Baselines: tied to contract milestone dates, accepting changes in these have contractual implications.

2. Comparison Baselines: usually updated schedules used for time impact analysis, these do not represent changes in the contractual baselines per-se.

Essentially a baseline can be anything; a contractual baseline is another thing.

The acceptance of a Baseline Schedule in the US legally constitutes an amendment to the basic contract. It is possible to wave contractual requirements just by allowing items in the Baseline Schedule that contradict what is specified in other documents.

Baseline Schedule Review

RECOVERY SCHEDULES

If you want the Contractor to commit to an earlier date then pay him a premium.

I do not have a copy of the NEC nor FIDIC but wanted to show you what is our practice as a word of caution, just in case.

The contractor have the right to finish early, not to finish late. What if for some reason he is delayed and give you for free contractual time, are you going to give him back the time you got out for free?

Perhaps he interpreted your request as a request for acceleration and the claim is on the way, this wolud be Constructive Acceleration even when ahead of schedule.

Best regards,
Rafael

Mon, 2009-08-10 12:49

#17

Vamsi Gollapinni

Offline

Joined: 19 Apr 2007

Posts: 22

Groups: Building Information Modelling, GPC Qatar, TURNAROUND & SHUTDOWN (T/A & S/D)

Dear Samer

That is what is written in the Particular Conditions of Contract for Clause 14.2 in the contract documents for this project.

The problem is the contractor has already deployed more workforce, and achieving actual duration which are faster than the estimated durations in the programme but he is unwilling to commit to any revised baseline based on his current resources. The value of the project is close to 500 Million AED or around 150 million USD. The percent complete is around 45%.

Thanks and regards

Vamsi

Mon, 2009-08-10 12:39

#18

Samer Zawaydeh

Offline

Joined: 3 Aug 2008

Posts: 1664

Groups: Civil Engineering, Regional Representatives

Dear Vamsia,

You have stated a new issue: "accelerate the progress of works without cost to the Employer"??? "

This is a big issue and you need to make sure of it. Does it mean that you can ask the Contractor to double the workforce and crash the schedule for free?

How big is your project and what is the percent complete and the new end date.

With kind regards,

Samer

Mon, 2009-08-10 00:28

#19

Vamsi Gollapinni

Offline

Joined: 19 Apr 2007

Posts: 22

Groups: Building Information Modelling, GPC Qatar, TURNAROUND & SHUTDOWN (T/A & S/D)

Dear Samer

Thanks a lot for your advice.

Yes there are lot of issues going on at once as i have just started on this job, and i thought this would be the best place to get some expert guidance.

Regarding the EOT claim, i am following a Time Slice methodology and trying to do exactly what you had described in your e-mail.

Regarding the FIDIC Clause, they are following the Fourth Edition 1987, and somehow in the Conditions of Particular Application they came up with this "If at any time it should appear to the Engineer that the actual progress of works is less than that estimated in the original or revised programme, the Engineer may request the Contractor to accelerate the progress of works without cost to the Employer"???

The General Conditions read exactly as you had described and before reading the Particular Conditions i was very confident of getting a revised programme out of the Contractor as their actual works did not confirm to the baseline.

Sun, 2009-08-09 18:13

#20

Samer Zawaydeh

Offline

Joined: 3 Aug 2008

Posts: 1664

Groups: Civil Engineering, Regional Representatives

Dear vamsia,

You have several issues going at once in your email. That is normal, and you need to handle them each one by one.

1. Please read the FIDIC clause 8.3 regarding the program carefully. This will enable you to understand the full requirements of FIDIC.

2. You will need to create a list of all the delays caused by the Client side due to design and other issues. This you will use by impacting the approved schedule by the Engineer one delay event at a time and understanding what the effect of each delay was.

3. The last Paragraph in your thread about " a revised programme can be only submitted when the actual duration of the works is more than the estimated duration" is not correct. This is not the requirement of FIDIC. The requirement of FIDIC states the following:

"If, at any time, the Engineer gives notice to the Contractor that a programme fails (to the extent stated) to comply with hte Contract or to be consistent with actual progress and the Contractor’s stated intentions, the Contractor shall submit a revised programme ot hte Engineer in accordance with this Sub-clause."

4. Regarding the balance scope, unless the Engineer gives notice to the Contractor stating the extent to which the Programme does not comply with the requirement, then the Contractor shall proceed in accordance with the Programme.

5. The best solution in your case is to divide the task into two sections:

a. Have an expert claim analyst handle the EOT claim by the Contractor.
b. Make sure that the revised programme is complete and to your satisfaction.

If you need more assistance, please let us know.

With kind regards,

Samer

Contact Us

Email: PPadmin@planningplanet.com

Planning Planet

Tips on using this forum..

Revised Baseline Programme

Replies

Top Posters

Contact Us

More like this

User login

Partners & Sponsors