For example, in the last 90 days of a project the contractor had 45 days brick pavers, the FS 45 days landscaping. What if both items will only take 20 days and can very easily be done at the same time? Do you have to leave that 90 days because approved in the Baseline and you can touch it because you cannot direct "means and method" or can you call "bs" (that it is wrong) and have them reduce the remaining duration and fix the logic?
Do you have to "live with" non-sense logic or durations (in delays) just because it was approved in the baseline?
Forum Sponsor
Top Posters
Julian Pegg
1 posts
Peter Nagy
2 posts
Raymund de Laza
17 posts
Syed_Asad
0 posts
Tony Greyvenstein
0 posts
Ahmed Al-Jubouri
13 posts
Umar Alvi
3 posts
Sibusiso Mahlalela
0 posts
Michael Samanyayi
3 posts
Simon Gumede
0 posts
Hi John.
Unless your programme is a binding contract document or it is under an NEC form of contract, you can make any change you think necessary to your programme.
It is never "Approved" but it is "Accepted" but you need to inform the CA of your changes.
Usually you need to do the hard landscaping before any planting and that task is usually seasonal so consider your logic before changing.
Best regards Mike T.
Out of curiosity what is the volume of work of each activity, the crew composition?
Does the planned production per day make sense?
What do the specifications say about the work requirements?
If Hydroseeding is specified then 45 days no matter if just 1 SM might not be enough.
volume of work
production per day
Brick Pavers
paving crew composition
SM ???
SM/day
Landscaping
landscaping crew composition
SM ???
SM/day
Reviewing schedule durations without volume of work and crew composition & production rate makes no sense at all.
Questioning the durations without this data makes no sense.
Approving the Baseline without the reviewer doing his homework makes no sense, it might come to a cost.
By this time the issue must be over! What finally happened would be good to know.
Best Regards, Rafael
John,
I know this was a while ago but still...here's my 2p...
Although in principle I would agree with you, hwhat I have experienced is that any attempt to correct baseline programmes is met with extreme confrtonation and casting of doubt over the rest of the work you produce.
It is agreed at the time of inception, and you should therefore honour that contractually (probably) binding programme revision - even if it contains obvious to you issues such as that you describe.
John,
I know this was a while ago but still...here's my 2p...
Although in principle I would agree with you, hwhat I have experienced is that any attempt to correct baseline programmes is met with extreme confrtonation and casting of doubt over the rest of the work you produce.
It is agreed at the time of inception, and you should therefore honour that contractually (probably) binding programme revision - even if it contains obvious to you issues such as that you describe.
John,
I know this was a while ago but still...here's my 2p...
Although in principle I would agree with you, hwhat I have experienced is that any attempt to correct baseline programmes is met with extreme confrtonation and casting of doubt over the rest of the work you produce.
It is agreed at the time of inception, and you should therefore honour that contractually (probably) binding programme revision - even if it contains obvious to you issues such as that you describe.