Specific Clause in Contracts regarding the use of P5/6

an ALAP with positive lag is still the better option.

If, for example, the client cannot make the meeting until 20 days before (anticipated) project end, and the punch-list to come out of it is 60 days work, leading to 40 day delay. With negative lag, the red zone meeting was never on the critical path despite (arguably) being the reason for project delay.

Does negative lag work and or make sense in the case of a mandatory Red Zone meeting 60 days prior to the end of the project? I ran this scenario by Army Corp. and they approved the use of negative lag in this situation.

David,



The last sentence of your previous post made me smile,



Your analysis is "flawed" I believe is the usual expression!!!!



Wish I had received a pound for every time I’ve been told that by the opposing lawyer.



On a very good day my analysis might even be described as "fatally flawed" by the opposition!!!!!!



Andy

Anoon...



Apologies for my wariness!



I think this discussion needs to be carried out on another thread. I think it has already been hijacked by a discussion on negative lag and now on how much experience is required to make a competent planner.



All I might add is that one of the measures that goes to make a good project model is the competency of the person who puts it together. Whatever your plans are like, even if your experience is not as great as others, in my opinion it will be better than having no plan at all.



Little by little you will gain experience and your employer will have more and more confidence in what you do. Apart from taking every opportunity that comes your way and working to the best of your ability there is nothing more I can suggest to help.



For the record, my first planning/programming job was in 1977 and some people, especially those on the opposing side in a dispute, still say what I produce is rubbish - but again, they would wouldn’t they!.



David

David,



My only agenda is to learn as much as I can from say, a very experienced personality in the field of Planning, which maybe you are one of them?? Sorry for my curiousity, as I just wanted to know if how many Plans (reasonable ones for that matter) do an aspiring Planner needs to accomplish before he can be considered as one? Because in my experience, yet I still need to convince (even a clerk, sorry) that what I’m doing is really a Plan and can be worked-out (in other words no one believes in what I’m doing).



Maybe the question is, How to make a very convincing Plan? So that everyone in the project team (including the teaboy) understands that the project or a certain activity has an end (even if it’s late).



Thank you Sir (in advance) for your answers.





Anoon

Anoon



Thanks for your question.



I see a programme as a ‘project model’. So if you think of it as any other model it depends on the information you have, how detailed you make it, how realistic it is, the skill of the model maker, the resources and finance available and the time allowed to make it.



The poorest model is one that is made with unskilled model makers, with little information, no resources and no time. Ultimately the best model would be a full size working version of the real thing (a prototype maybe).



Whenever the project model is put together all I expect is that it is made using what ever information is available at the time, by skilled planners/programmers using a reasonable amount of time and resources. But you know all that anyway.



Perhaps you are trying to say that a project model will always be a compromise, and I agree. I’d like to think that the majority of project models I have made are reasonable (and reasonable is the key word) - but I would say that wouldn’t I? Whether they be just a single line statement saying something like, the average time to construct this project is X weeks with a 95% confidence limit of A and B, or a detailed ‘construction master programme’ put together with all the information available prior to construction starting.



I think what is important is that the project programme is never considered to be a static document and that it is updated as and when additional information, changes and so on become apparent. That begs the question, is the only true programme made at the end of the project when all the information is available? I don’t agree; an as-built programme is a record of the work carried out, not a tool for carrying out the work.



And… as you will have seen from my recent postings, if I have a difference of opinion with other posters I will say so. Thank-you for your courtesy, I am not used to it, I hope you do not have an alternative agenda!



David

i would like to direct this question to Mr. David Bordoli (if he will allow me).



When is the reasonable time (say for an EPC project) that you think you have enough data to be used to create a project model that is a representation of a reasonable Planned Construction Process? And in your entire career, how many reasonable project models (planned) you’ve made? (with all due respect).

David,



We appear to be singing from the same song sheet - maybe we’re just of that generation!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oliver,



To expand on my earlier throw away comment!



You are in court before a judge, the client delays were to the approval of a sub contractor - leading to a delay in procurement – leading to a delay to completion.



But although your analysis shows that the work done by the sub contractor was critical, because of the logic used, (negative lag), the analysis does not show the procurement process was critical. The actual work the sub contractor did went smoothly with no delays.



You know the delay in the procurement was the cause of the delay but the software doesn’t show that – the procurement activity just hung out there not being driven from the front by logic so not glowing red as critical. Possibly different software would have shown something different but in this case it didn’t.





So you argue that although the analysis shows what it does, actually the procurement process and the delays associated with the procurement were critical.



Have you ever tried explaining to somone who is not a planner what negative lag means or tries to represent?



And what do the opposing counsel jump on – oh, so we can’t rely on this bit of your analysis, you admit it is showing the wrong thing, how can we rely on the rest of your analysis? How do we know that isn’t showing the wrong thing also?



Arguments you just don’t need and a golden opportunity to shoot yourself in the foot.



Thankfully on this occasion it wasn’t a complicated dispute and the procurement argument was won because it was obvious on common sense grounds, but ………

To throw my 2 cents worth in - one of the problems, particularly in higher level scheduling, is the use of the SS with positive lag eg start concrete foundations in an area and so many days after the start of concrete the steel erection can start. If the conditions/duration assumed to be within the original lag from the start of concrete are not met then the logic may still be correct (ie steel must start after the start of concrete) but a delay/change in the conditions upon which the duration of the SS lag was based means the original schedule assumption is incorrect. Note that if the activity "concrete’ is expanded into several lower level activities, allowing simple FS relationship(s) to steel then a delay in one of the concrete activities will correctly model the actual situation & forecast a delay in the start of steel. Like any scheduling logic - its fine if you understand and have recorded the ’basis of schedule’. cheers, Omar Grant

Sorry if i missed some of the earlier discussion on scheduling activities ALAP. Was the consensus that this was as bad as using negative lag?



The way I schedule procurement is to have the milestone ’place call to steelwork subcontractor’ linked to the ’start steelwork’ activity with a F-S link and 10d lag.



That is a logical sequence to me, place a phone call and the steelwork will be delivered in 10 days time. To prevent the need for continual examination and intervention I would then schedule that ’place call’ milestone ALAP.



The effect I am sure is the same but is the logical relationship that is the difference, one works forward the otherone works backwards and to me, working forward is a more logical progression than working backwards and represents the process; ’do this and then that will can happen’.



So, in this instance using S-F and negative lag is, in my opinion exactly what E. William East said: "In my opinion, negative lags have been included in scheduling software to assist contractors to obtain ’correct results’ without constructing a project model that is a reasonable representation of the planned construction process”

Oliver,



This is the fundamental of planning.



We plan using the best logic that the our western education had given us, using our best experienced, our best reading materials, our very best all the way, we plan thinking in the most positive way that such plan is feasible.



We dont plan using emotions, negative hypothetical scenario that the foundation will be delayed that is why you use negative lags.



We plan based on our exeperienced, our understanding of the scope of work, the best logic on how activities will work believing it will be done as plan because we have people and resources to implement the plans and schedules.



Now in the event that the foundation will be delayed and the steel work contractor have mobilized, then, we have to revert to the contract provisions and determine who is culpable to the delays and cost incurred.



Take note that planning is different from monitoring actual site conditions, actual site progress. It may be possible that due to tremendous delay of the foundation work, the project management may instruct the steelwork contractor to delay the mobilization.



The above scenario will not justify the use of - negative lag at the planning stage.



I hope you are now enligthen on the difference between best planning practice and preconcieve hypothetical negative scenario that may distort logic.



still you are free to share your negative lags



Cheers,

Charlie

But what is your reason for not using the negative lag?



Why mobilise when you can’t commence work?



Thanks,

Oli

Oliver, your idea????

"If the scenario was the mobilisation of a steelwork contractor 1 week prior to the foundations being finished , how would you drive the mobilisation out if the foundations were delayed?



The mobilization of steelwork contractor can be done in a lot of ways. But the start of steel erection works will follow after the finish of foundation. The scenario maybe that the steelwork contractor have mobilize but cannot start steelworks installation because the foundation was delayed.



So no need for this: "The use of FS -5d working days lag would automatically push out the mobilisation of the steelwork contractor, thus telling the PM when he needs ready the steelworkers."



my preference is never to use - negative lags.



Cheers,

Charlie

Trevor,



If every time i say ’is’ you say ’isn’t’ it doesn’t prove anything either way.



Planning is all about assumning things are going to happen in the future.



The only assumption i make is that a week before the projected end-date i need to think about ringing the contractor.



If you can’t assume a date in a plan, to fore-warn the contractor, then where can you?



Regards,

Oliver

David,



I don’t want to contradict someone who I otherwise agree with (which is pretty rare around here) but the tail doesn’t wag the dog.

The predecessor’s (early) start or finish determines the earliest date for the successor’s start or finish, as the case may be, not the other way round.

For FF with no lag "Task B can finish no earlier than Task A’s (early) finish".



Oliver, I think it is wrong because it requires an assumption that something will happen in the future at a certain time/date even though we know, from all experience, that it is unlikely to happen on that time/date. That is a lot different to waiting for something to happen and taking that as a signal for the next thing to happen. It may have been stated or asserted that -lag is ok many times but just repeating it doesn’t amount to proof.

David,



The issue i have is that if the race gets delayed by 10 minutes then somebody will need to tell the runner to listen for the bang 10 minutes later.



If the scenario was the mobilisation of a steelwork contractor 1 week prior to the foundations being finished , how would you drive the mobilisation out if the foundations were delayed?



It would require manual intervention, ie addition of a dummy task or the addition of lag prior to mobilisation, otherwise the contractor would turn up before the concrete has set.



The use of FS -5d working days lag would automatically push out the mobilisation of the steelwork contractor, thus telling the PM when he needs ready the steelworkers.



If there are tens or hundreds of similar sequences in a project, then it makes remembering all the manual frigs difficult for the planner should anything be delayed.



This option gives a dynamic plan with no hanging activities. In the case of a delay, not using negative lag means that your plan becomes illogical without manual intervention. What do you say?

Oliver...



Sorry if I appear to be teaching you to suck eggs but this is the best explanation I have for those that cannot envisage the problem (and apologies for not being able to cite the source).



Take a track runner. The logical sequence of events between the staring gun ‘bang’ and starting is F-S. When the gun goes off the runner springs from the blocks.

Imagine the starting gun being more like ‘baaaaang’. To get maximum advantage the runner must spring on the starting ‘b’ not the ending ‘g’. That means the runner has to anticipate when the gun is going to go off so he can start his spring before the bang has ended. Fantastic if he gets it right but massive risks if he gets it wrong.



Its just a matter of what is logical and not logical. The S-F link says to start something before you can know when to finish it. Your timing has to be precisely right and precise timing is just not possible.



See, this is again where I have difficulty, it is the recurring problem that learned planners seem to think S=F and negative lead/lag is good practice whereas everything I have learned and practised and understand says the opposite. Is it me at fault I ask myself or is our discipline doomed to failure?



David

Personally, I find the research inconclusive.



What does it prove about the problems negative lag causes? We have proved in previous posts that it makes logical sense in certain circumstannces.



Nobody ever explains WHY it is wrong!



The only possible issues i have heard is that it makes delay analysis more complicated, but that is still a throw-away statement.

Trevor



I think it is right, just draw it out to see…

Say the first activity (predecessor) starts day 10 and finishes day 20.

The second activity (successor) finishes day 10 (and starts sometime earlier).

That means that the predecessor always finishes (10 days in this case) after the successor

A good example why the Start to Finish dependency is so dumb.



David

David,

Bravo, Hear, Hear, and thanks for the research.



Surely, however, this bit is wrong:



"It indicates that the predecessor activity cannot finish until the successor activity has finished."



Surely it is the oother way round: "It indicates that the succecessor activity cannot finish until the predecessor activity has finished."



Perhaps better check the source.

Apologies to all as I have joined this thread near its end but I am always enlivened by the debate on negative lead/lag and S-F links.



I recently wrote a critique of an analysis carried out by one of the UK’s top consultants who had, in their repair of the master programme, used negative lead/lag and S-F links. In my report I suggested that this was not good practice and received a somewhat terse response suggesting I did not know what I was talking about. Again, I am happy to admit I might be in error but if I am correct I do fear for the future of our discipline if some of the country’s leading experts dare say that negative lead/lag and S-F links are acceptable good practice.



By way of illustration I submitted three references that you might like to use when faced with a similar problem:





Construction Scheduling: Preparation, Liability, and Claims

(Jon M. Wickwire, Thomas J. Driscoll & Stephen B. Hurlbut. Construction Scheduling: Preparation, Liability, and Claims. Aspen Publishers, December 2004.)



Negative Lag Relationships. Still another Corps of Engineers clause pro¬hibits the use of negative lag relationships where precedence diagramming and logic is used for the network analysis system. Recall from the discussion in §2.03[A1] that precedence diagramming allows the scheduler to avoid the use of dummy activities (to show logic relationships) through the use of lead and lag connectors. Thus, a lag relationship might allow for activity L to start once 25 percent of activity J has been completed. However, a negative lag relationship would provide that a given activity, such as activity S, could start at some minus date before the completion of another activity, say activity M. Thus, the diagram logic might provide that S could start 180 days before the completion of M. The problem here is that we have no absolute assurance that M will indeed be finished in 180 days such that S can start now - in fact, the negative lag logic does not make a lot of sense. The Corps of Engineers clause states: "Lag durations con¬tained in the project schedule shall not have a negative value." E. William East states, “In my opinion, negative lags have been included in scheduling software to assist contractors to obtain ’correct results’ without constructing a project model that is a reasonable representation of the planned construction process”36.



36 Letter from E. William East to Jon Wickwire (Sept. 11, 1995)





Managing Projects for Success

(Albert Hamilton. Managing Projects for Success. Thomas Telford, 2001.)



The term negative lag (lead) is used to situations that permit succeeding activities to begin before preceding activities have been completed. However, this type of relationship can he shown using an SS relationship with positive lag (simply reverse the arrow). SS relationships with negative lag are complicated and difficult to understand they should be avoided.

An FF dependency links the finish of the predecessor with the finish of the successor. It indicates that the predecessor activity cannot finish until the successor activity has finished. FF relationships are used to show the relationship between the finishes (or completion) of two activities. Again, negative lag is difficult to understand and increases the complexity of the calculations to determine the critical path. Use of negative lag should be avoided.





Network Scheduling Techniques for Construction Project Management

(Miklos Hajdu. Construction Scheduling: Preparation, Liability, and Claims. Springer, December 1996.)



Some schedulers like to use negative lags to make activities concurrent. They say, `Activity B can start 3 days before activity A finishes, so the right relationship is FS -3.’ However, this logic is false. Imagine that activity B has started before the scheduled finish of activity A, but due to some problems, activity A has stopped for a week. According to the network logic, we have a situation which is impossible. The lag time between the finish of A and the start of B is less than the prescribed value. This means that the network logic was false. The correct relationship would be that `activity B can start after x days of the start of activity A,’ or ’activity B can start after y percentage of A has been completed,’ etc. This is the correct logic to express these kinds of activity interdependencies. Negative lags can produce the same start and finish values with wrong logic. It is used to schedule an activity to a desired date without describing the real activity interdependencies.



A network logic containing negative lag values in case of minimal type of relationships is never good, therefore one must handle the results of this logic very carefully.

Summarizing the above mentioned, avoid dangling activities and never use negative lag in minimal type of precedence relationships.



Regards



David

Raphael,



The way different software treat SS and FF links when rescheduling is important, one very common piece of software in the UK get’s it completely wrong in one specific situation - although now has a fix to get round it.



If I was programming the situation you describe below, (and I’m sure there are other ways), I’d split activity B into two, B1 and B2 and link as follows:



A SS (1) B1

B1 FS (0) B2

A FF (1) B2



The FS link between B1 and B2 effectively representing the float present. This way you can assign whole resources to B1 and B2 rather than say try and use a duration of 10 days for B and assign 50% of resources to each day, (as I’ve seen done before).

fellow P & S Folk



Forgot to give the details of Bramble & Callahan book on Construction Delay Claims.



Which are as follows, note I am not promoting these gentlemen, but I have found them very useful.



I can already hear the whinges about the price of the book, but as I am on record as saying that P & S folk generally are not poorly paid and want to paid what they are worth then the same is fair for others !



However that is another subject, so the book is



Construction Delay Claims, Third Edition

by Barry B. Bramble, Esq., Michael T. Callahan, Esq.



List Price: $236.00

ISBN: 9780735505483

Page Count: 888 pages

Format: Paperback

Publication Cycle: Supplemented annually

Last Updated: 8/28/2007



Raf

Fellow P & S folk



I must agree with both Oliver and Andrew with regard to the use of SS and FF to provide the best answer to task which are actually being overlapped.



As I said back In January when this topic also arose’



The problem with using Start to Start and Finish to Finish is lag drag.



If you do not know what lag drag is, the following might explain



Two Activties exist, one call "A" and the other "B"

A is 10 days in duration and B has a duration of 5

There is a SS of 1 from A to B and a FF of 1 to B



When you calculate from the start of A (= 0) to end of A, the EF is 10, now calculate the EF for the FF, and we have 10 +1 =11.



Go back to start of A, ie 0. The EF for the SS to B is 1. Thus the ES for B is also 1, add the duration to get the EF , ie 1 = 5 =6. Ah, but B can’t finish until 11, because of the FF relationship.



Both Primavera and Open Plan subtract the duration from the EF of Activity B and show the ES as 6, that is 11 -5 =6.



But B can start as early as 1, but cannot finish until 11. Thus there is Free Float in the activtity, but as I just said Primavera and OPP make the ES of B 6. Thus you have just experienced lag drag. The ES of B has been dragged to the right.



This is wrong, so Primavera and OPP have a switch which causes the ES to be pulled back to ES = 1. This is achieved by increasing the duration or elapsed time, which is quite wrong.



The only form of logic to ensure the computations were correct was to use the Ladder technique in Arrow format. Ladders go back to 1962-64. As the co-inventor of this technique with ICL in the UK I know that the results of SS and FF between two or more tasks is always correct in Ladder form. Because the ES calculation reminds as it is always done, but the EF is calculated as SEE rather that ES + dur. Which then allows for the impact of the SS lag on the successor task’s Earliest Start !



Unfortunately our colleagues in the US decided to follow the precedence daigram methodolgy and never sorted out the arithmetic.



Microsoft can not even offer the facility of SS and FF which has been an integral part of Critical Path technology since at least 1964, As a result the use of negative FS lags has become a blight on the industry.



It leads to very sloppy logic - if indeed there is any logic. Tasks hanging in space are common place.



I have just completed a couple of very serious Forensic Delay Claims and it was just about impossible to establish that the Critical Path had indeed been delayed.



As well as CIOB books as mentioned by Toby on this very subject I have found that the books by Michael T Cllahan and Barry B Bramble extremely useful in my forensic practice. Admittedly they are American, but they do go right down to the absolute basics in scheduling.



Id you want to find out about ladders then the following books are useful



See HS Woodgate’s book "Planning by Network 1968 page 41

Dennis Lock’s book "Project Management 1989 page 103



If you want to get correct results when using SS and FF then you should be using Micro Planner X-Pert for Windows / Macintosh where both Arrow and Precedence diagramming can be defined on the same logic network. How easy is that?



Raf

Andrew



I would certainly be interested in seeing this.



Keith Pickavance and Fenwick Elliot solicitors wrote a suite of supplements to the standard form UK building contracts (called the PFE Change Management Supplements), which put the principles of the SCL Protocol into a contractually binding form.



These are also worth a read.

Oliver,



If we all did exactly the same thing, life would be very boring.

Sherif,



The debate is now about whether or not the use of negative lag is correct. The outcome of which would be whether or not they should be prohibited via contract clause.



Andrew,



Looking back at the blockwork scenario, the SS and FF approach is most suitable, but there are areas IMO that -lag models reality more effectively.



I would be interested in someone one-day explaing the anomalies that it causes in delay analysis. (But i imagine that creating a graphical explanation may tak some time!)



The thing i find with planning is there is never a set way to do anything! As Bo Johnsen mentions in a off-spring of this post, there is a balance to be struck as the plan must be all things to all parties.

(Even if that means considering litigation during the earliest planning phase!)

May I ask what is the aim of introducing such restrictions? Is it to make sure the contractor is "doing all the possible works; once they can be done"? (Early Track)



Well, in this case, I recommend the Client or Consultant to prepare a full detailed schedule; and includes it in the Tender Documents; so the contractor abides to it.



Contractual Milestones are used; and reasonably accepted; if you wish to have more control. However; the contractor must be free to plan the works according to his method statements.



Moreover, why the -ive lag exist in the planning world? Do you suggest to globally eliminate the SF and -ive lags from the planning world?

Oliver,



In some ways I agree but my dislike of -(ve) lag doesn’t come from my programming days but my delay analysis days.



"The use of ALAP is a constraint that ’drags’ tasks to the end of their ’free-float-path’" It does but the logic using this method is still forward looking and clearly shows the "this can’t happen until this has happened" relationship.



When updating a programme -(ve) lag can cause wierd results which can not be properly substantiated or supported or doesn’t tie in with reality, especially on progress updates - back to fact that the start and finish of an activity are usually driven by different factors and you can’t model both with one link.



Therefore using two links instead of one is a much safer way and I believe more logically correct way to do it.

Andrew,



I agree in full with your last statement and personally feel there is little difference between each method.



However, i think the driving/dragging concept may be the reverse.



The use of ALAP is a constraint that ’drags’ tasks to the end of their ’free-float-path’? (I think i may have just made that description up!?)



Whereas, the use of FS with negative lag is just a delayed push from the front.

Basically, programmes should be DRIVEN from the front by logic, not DRAGGED along by it.

What does a fixed -(ve) lag do? Anything different? If you want to ensure the mobilisation is not left until the very last minute, (not recommended), increase the mobilisation activity duration:



OR



Put a +(ve) lag on the mobilisation FS link to the work

Andrew,



Does ALAP not promote the project member in charge of prompting the mobilsation to leave it until the last minute? this possibly wasting any float between the end of asbestos removal and the succeeding stage of the project?

No, schedule the mobilisation activity on ALAP dates rather than ASAP and the effect will be the same.



The mobilisation activity is linked to the first work activity then with a FS link and the mobilisation activity will always move back in time if the first work activity does, (or any other programmed constraint).

Imagine decommissioning a factory,



’the asbestos removal contractor should be mobilised 5 working days prior to the finish of plant and equipment removal’



If the P&E removal falls behind and a ss (+lag) is used, could it not be the case that you somebody asks the asbestos removal contractor to up-tools before the factory is designated ready as safe to start removal?



Wouldn’t negative lag be more suitable?

Thats a proper way.....



SS+ x days with FF + x Days



Rather than having SF link



Plz correct me, if i m wrong

Let’s be a bit contentious



I would support the outright banning of -(ve) lag:



“Concete and Blockwork, it should be FS with -ive lag (in order to expedite the blockworks); not SS with +ive lag.”



It should be SS with +(ve) lag AND a FF with +(ve) lag as there are two separate logic arguments at play:



1. The blockwork can not start until …….



2. The blockwork can not finish until ………



Completely seperate and different arguments involving different factors.



Therefore two links are required, one controls the start logic, one controls the finish logic.



If you use one link then you can not properly, (or without fudging it), reflect a change in one of the logic arguments without affecting the other.



And thinking of other things I would ban - the use of "jagged" progress lines!

And thats why these contract people, always add:



OR as otherwise directed by the Employer’s representative."



For procurement, Clause is "With the exception of approval cycles and the procurement of material, no activity can have a duration of more than 21 days."



Neway, Ramadan and Summer time is mandatory in UAE at least and so, always considered even by the Contractor while bidding and so, its a part and parcel of calender in UAE.

Raviraj,



I am not interfering in your contract conditions; however, I would like to draw your attention to the following points; (presuming it is a building construction):



- (Negative lags not allowed + SF not to be used). I encountered this situation in one previous contract; however I convinced the consultant it is not wise to restrict the relationships. The relationships should reflects as close as possible what really happen in practice and real life. "Hard Relationships" -driven from technical requirements- should be respected. Consider the following example: Concete and Blockwork, it should be FS with -ive lag (in order to expedite the blockworks); not SS with +ive lag. What if u start updating the schedule; and the blockwork is going faster while the concrete is delayed. You may end up with forecasted completion date for the blockwork; earlier than the forecasted completion date for the concrete.



- Activity duration not to exceed 21 days. (How are you going to include the long lead items? most likely they take more than 21 days. Moreover; how will you plan in details the lift and facade works? you need to have the shop drawings and approvals for the systems. Usually I use "Rolling wave planning: plan now whatever you CAN PLAN" for these items. Once they are determined, I prepare detailed sub-programs for them, fitting nearly their original durations.



- Calendars: How are you going to deal with the shortened working hours in Ramadan (6 hrs/day), and also with realistic reduction of productivity in July and August (I usually make these 2 months 6 hrs/day; in order to reflect the realistic productivity).



Anyhow, good luck in your project.



Regards,

Andy,



On teh current project i m working on (In Dubai, UAE), following r d restrictions on d programming part. We hav put this as a Schedule to teh Conditions of Contract.



- Negative lags not allowed

- SF relationships not to be used

- Activity Duration not to exceeed 21 days.

- Only 2 calenders r allowed

a) Calender 1, 8 hours per day with 5 day working week

b) Calender 2, 10 hours per day with 6 day working week.



And so on.



Normally, after award of Contract we have planning workshops wherein we define our WBS structure, Life cycle phases, S-Curve & Manpower Format and the layout of program and other sequence of works.



All to be submitted in 3 coloured hard copies with 1 full copy in native electronic format on CD.



Cheers,



Rav