I cannot see why the authors do not take the challenge and respond to my claims the source of the GUILD postulates I am challenging is poor, nonexistent and wrong.
If the GUILD makes some postulates and there is sustaining evidence why not present it?
If the GUILD makes some postulates and are questioned with some reasoning behind why not the courtesy to answer with some good reasoning?
What is being said at the GUILD can be adopted by some contract authors that do not understand how wrong some statements are and therefore dangerous.
I tried long ago to get some real answers on my initial postings and all I got were poor answers or none. I find in such abominable error some of what is being said at the GUILD that I find it dangerous and therefore my strong response.
Because you have split original thread into many, following your approach I have no other option than to ask what is wrong with my approach under this specific thread?
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.
Member for
21 years 8 months
Member for21 years8 months
Submitted by Rafael Davila on Tue, 2016-06-07 14:44
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.
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.
Member for
21 years 8 monthsGPC Admin,I cannot see why
GPC Admin,
I cannot see why the authors do not take the challenge and respond to my claims the source of the GUILD postulates I am challenging is poor, nonexistent and wrong.
I tried long ago to get some real answers on my initial postings and all I got were poor answers or none. I find in such abominable error some of what is being said at the GUILD that I find it dangerous and therefore my strong response.
Because you have split original thread into many, following your approach I have no other option than to ask what is wrong with my approach under this specific thread?
Best Regards,
Rafael
Member for
11 years 4 monthsHello Rafael,Refer
Hello Rafael,
Refer here http://www.planningplanet.com/forums/guild-project-controls-gpc/591070/gpccar-m09-3-capturing-progress-updating-schedule-data-coll#comment-85525
GPC Admin (Jason)
Member for
21 years 8 monthsIt looks like the authors of
It looks like the authors of the GUILD have no interest on debating when questioned or challenged.
Member for
21 years 8 monthsUsing the CPM as a basis for
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?
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?
Member for
21 years 8 monthsThe following links provides
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.
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.