How to handle remaining quantities

In many jurisdictions, it is common practice to status activities following AACE International Recommended Practice No. 29R-03 page 24 of 105. Identify the true “finish” of an activity. The same logic as above applies to the finish dates. Generally, the analyst, absent specific data to the contrary, should assume that when the period of concentrated work is completed on an activity, the activity is complete. Another possible criterion is that an activity can be considered logically complete when a successor tied with a simple FS logic is able to start substantive work.

Our hands down approach is to follow the AACEI RP29R-03 practice to status activities, other complicated procedures are considered unnecessary distraction.

Very rarely/never we use the CPM as a payment tool. Such requirement mean that all involved in reviewing the payment request must be proficient in the use of the cost function of the particualar CPM software. Simple adjustments to the payment application require adjustments to the cost database that can be problematic. If not done correctly the prior payment time distribution can become distorted. These issues do not happen when using a separate worksheet. Still some contracts require using the CPM as the payment tool. But in case it is a requirement the above approach usually still holds.

• Schedule Cost Loading | CPM Schedule Solutions | Construction Scheduling Consulting, USACE, MILCON
• An Overlooked (But Beneficial) Part of the Scheduling Specification | CPM Schedule Solutions | Construction Scheduling Consulting, USACE, MILCON

If you are not allowed to record true "finish" as required for purpose of delay analysis and if it interferes with your planning that would be hijacking of your planning, hijacking of your means and methods.

When you have an activity that is "finished" for purpose of scheduling its successors but some work/retainage or any other issue is still pending you can inactivate the activity successor links.

- activitiy shall be set as interruptable as this affects resource leveling

- logic will still be visible but inactive

- inactive logic will not create out-of-sequence progress

- pending issue will be visible in the right place, it is not a good idea to hide pending issues

- with a simple note everyone should understand there is an issue still pending

- when the issue is finally settled it will be shown in the update when it happens

- reporting for inactive links is easy

- Please be reminded tha resource leveling of remaining works do matter, usually for the remaining portion resources shall be reduced and some will not be required, no need to create new activity but to adjust resource quantities. By delaying the response the client at some point might delay the job because of resource limitations. Also he might be causing disrruption on your planning. It might be convenient to create a UDF to identify who is responsible to take action, we call it "ball in court".

The following diagram is for Activity 1 only and it shows how Resource A quantity was reduced after update.

Bogdan,

in Spider Project an activity is finished if both remaining volume and remaining duration are zero.

The difference between initial (baseline) quantities and actual (cumulative) quantities are always available if to compare current version with the baseline. The problem with the cost is much more complex if the unit cost was changed during project execution but overall baseline cost and actual cumulative cost will be compared and the difference will be shown in the separate column.

Rafael,

many of our customers use economical criteria for justifying management decisions and so their schedules are cost loaded and budgeted.

There are two levels of performance control: one is for management and other for accounting. Spider Project is rarely used for accounting. Project updates are based on actual data that are collected on sites, the data that is not intended for accounting. Usually accounting reports are created once in a month and include only accepted volumes that are not the same as actually done. For understanding what is the real cost of work done vs accepted cost of work done it is necessary to compare these data.

Some companies create and manage two parallel lines of project files: one is usual, second includes only accepted and paid volumes.

Many customers integrate Spider Project with accounting software: both systems must use the sme reference books, payment information is imported from accounting system to Spider Project.

Financial constraints exist in the state programs - their yearly budgets are determined by the law and additional expenses require a lot of approvals and usually are delayed to the next year.

It is not rare when the owner spends money that are received from some sources with limited flow.

• Use the CPM Schedule to track Schedule Time Performance. Use the CPM to estimate cash flow of complex projects and to level financial constraints when necessary. In Spider Project we keep progress of activities volume of work.

• Use the Worksheet for Payment Applications (PA). We have Bill of Quantities and unit prices for payment application in over 99.5% of our jobs. The use of the schedule as a Payment Tool is a rare monster, but as some say, "shit-happens"! I do not believe it is a good idea to present the PA in CPM to the Designer, the inspection and a few others that must evaluate the PA but are no expert in whatever scheduling software is used. Usually we are required to submit paper and Excel file.

• Use the Accounting System to track cost, unit cost and labor productivity. To determine productivity actual quantities must be kept here.
  

  Production Reporting & Job Costing for Contractors

This approach might be called Best-of-Breed Approach: "Best-of-breed" technology is a term in the tech community that refers to individual solutions that are really good in their specific area. Actually, best-of-breed refers to the best solutions out there—based on customer reviews and tech ratings—compared to a single platform that can do everything, but may not do each function as well as a single solution dedicated to that specific capability.

What is Best-of-Breed-Technology? | Ping Identity

Integrated Scheduling and Enterprise Resource Financial Systems (ERFS) are very few, usually (if not always) are poor at Scheduling, and almost never used for Payment Applications. To my mind comes SAP, software used by large corporations but rarely by Contractors/Designers/Inspectors.

Even if the software could do it it seems like too complicated, to us a waste of time when using Excel we can all do it so easily. When using Excel everyone can verify electronically the payment application using their own worksheet. In the old times, everyone would verify the submitted paper using a hand mechanical calculator like if an abacus but easier than using the "modern" scheduling software.

Here no one use the scheduling software as a payment tool with very rare exceptions, like in a few Federal Government jobs. If so common, why no one is available to show us how they solve these issues? Perhaps some cheat the system while the others use simplified methods that do not follow the traditional payment application columns for quantities and unit prices but a dollar amount and percentage values.

Adding complicated procedures to an already long procedure, we would not consider of practical application. Calculating the period expenditures was a simple arithmetic, even the forms would provide the formulas for the user to follow, like Current = To Date - Prior Amount, so easy.

Part of the problem is that software developers sell the idea of Payment Application using the scheduling software when most of us do not like this idea.

The Great Divorce: Cost Loaded Schedules

• Our second recommendation is to treat an activity as complete (100% schedule completion and an accurate Actual Finish date) when it has reached the point where all its successors can begin. Activities listed in the out-of-sequence report (“Activity started, predecessor has not finished”) should be a signal to the project management team to evaluate the uncompleted predecessors. If the network logic is still valid (recognizing that some logic links are resource/crew related) then the scheduler must determine whether the predecessor is being withheld below 100% for cost reasons alone. If so, schedule progress should be updated to 100% and an Actual Finish assigned, but the cost should be unlinked and updated to less than 100%. For reference, the remedial work can be tracked using a “running punchlist” activity.

We do not use scheduele as a payment tool, in any case if need be the second recommendation using a “running punchlist” activity would be my choice. In such case in the BL I would create the “running punchlist” activity with no predecesso, no cost then as need be it would start with the first divorce and end after settlement of all current anf future divorce dues. This activity will remain open until the very end. I believe the procedure should be made clear form the start of the job for the understanding of all involved.

I wonder how Payment of Materials on site would be handled when the schedule is used as a payment tool.

• Looking for AIA G703 payment application continuation sheet? Get it here.

Best Regards, Rafael