09 MANAGING PROJECT PROGRESS

It looks like the authors of the GUILD have no interest on debating when questioned or challenged.

It is not difficult to foresee that in many cases the proposed workaround using a single "Running Punch List" activity is not good enough for many instances where the portions of work transferred can be started before the single "Running Punch List" activity.  

The same goes with regard to Earned Value that is so dependent on a Baseline that as soon as revised will erase all variance unless cumbersome tweaking is applied.

What are the recommendations of the GUILD to solve these two issues we shall expect of common occurrence if the CPM Schedule is used as a tool for billing. 

Using the CPM as a basis for payment requires all project sponsor personnel responsible for reviewing monthly payment applications to be schedule-oriented and knowledgeable about both the progress of the project and the status of the schedule. The Inspector, the Architect and all required to sign the application approval shall be able to use the scheduling software in order to certify the application and the schedule are aligned. They must understand how to deal with the issues when a certain item within an activity is not finished but the activity successors can start. On big jobs with thousands of activities there is high probability that upon every payment request and associated schedule update several activities will have pay items not finished but with successors started.

One undesirable result of insisting with using the CPM as a payment tool will be that more and more specifications will hijack the planning tool selection away from those responsible of the means and methods, promoting a software monopoly that does no good to the industry as a whole.  

Because of their insistence on using the CPM as a payment tool I must ask the GUILD which CPM software monopoly they favor? 

• I would expect for their selection to be something better than MSP or P6 as they cannot handle many advanced resource planning issues such as consumable resources, spatial resources and financial constraints just to name a few.

Because it is common for some contracts to require any changed schedule to be subjected to approval I must ask the GUILD what they propose when this happens?

• Because for contractors payment is of critical importance I expect the GUILD will suggest no more than a couple of work days for schedule revision approval or if not approved for client to submit all his comments within the two days period and second revision within one work day. I also expect for some guidance if the second schedule revision is not approved and commented within one work day, perhaps some fast track dispute resolution to finally solve the issue within a total of two work days for a total of five days.

The following links provides a 7 page schedule of values that represents a typical schedule o values as done in my location,

http://www.opp.psu.edu/planning-construction/design_and_construction_st…%20of%20Values.pdf

Many activities will contain a subset of each line item, for example in the CPM we might have several activities for Door Frame installation. Each set will include different types of frames such as metal frames and wood frames.  

We are aware of the monumental task of using the CPM activities as a payment document and therefore it is not our practice to do so.

Usually it takes about 30 days to get the CPM submitted and 30 additional days for revisions and final approval. If first application for payment is delayed until this is approved the first payment will be delayed. Fortunately this is not how we prepare and submit our payment of values. We keep the Schedule of values and the CPM divorced of each other for many reasons as per following reference. 

• www.nflaace.org/index_files/john_orr_cost_loaded_schedule_updating_pdf…

Just imagine upon every payment application negotiating a re-schedule because some/many activities successors started before some payment items within the predecessor activities did not finished creating a distortion of the schedule that in order to fix it requires a schedule adjustment. A schedule adjustment that must be approved for the payment application be re-submitted in accordance to the approved schedule. 

Because each activity might consist of several different pay items broken down into different cost codes the 10,000 activities schedule will yield more than a 10,000 lines payment application report.  A report that must be exported into an electronic worksheet for further manipulation within the required AIA form or its equivalent/similar. 

Dealing with material on site [MOS] at the CPM activity level can also become a nightmare. It might be that some stored material ends up being installed at different activities depending on how the schedule progress and activities move. What initially was scheduled as MOS for certain activity will have to be moved, requiring a CPM re-schedule.