09 MANAGING PROJECT PROGRESS

• 09.5.3.1.3 Adding Activities to the CPM Schedule 

• The above suggestion to leave the original logic in place by the GPC is wrong, leaving deleted activities as well as leaving the original logic in place among other issues:
• 1. will distort resource leveling
• 2. will distort cost loading
• 3. will distort schedule updates on activities no longer existing
• 4. will be confusing and misleading
• 5. will miss necessary logic revisions common when as a result of change in scope it dictates a need for a change in logic, among others, such as necessary logic revisions common when preferential logic is used. 
• 6. GAO Schedule Assessment Guide Best Practices for Project Schedules suggests keeping deleted activities and logic while setting duration to 0. But this is not fail safe and error prone as can be if you miss the impact of still active lag in progress or any other remaining lag as well as if you miss to delete any fixed cost assignment. 
• http://www.ronwinterconsulting.com/Making_CPM_Transparent.pdf
• In-Progress Lag Report and Value: Remaining Lag should be displayed just as remaining duration is shown and editable. The CPM feature of Remaining Duration was added so that Schedulers could monitor and change this calculated duration result. Lags are to relationships what durations are to activities.
• 7. Spider Project allows you to display deleted activities on a conspicuous way when comparing schedule versions and without the risk of interfering with current schedule. Easy, everything is transparent, no need to tweak schedule versions. If your software lacks enough functionality it is no excuse to promote such misleading and error prone practice. 

• https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/earned-value-simplistic-explanation-carm…
•  
• 7/2/2016
• Rafael Davila
• Consulting Engineer
•  
• I am against the idea of mandating EVM as well as the use of the CPM as a payment application tool with complete disregard of the implications. If the trend gets outside the boundaries of USA Federal Government it will become a heavy burden to our State/Municipal/Private contracts.  
•  
• www.planningplanet.com/forums/guild-project-controls-gpc/591073/09-mana…

In our state and municipal construction jobs as wel as in private construction jobs it is not unusual to allow some flexibility with regard to the billings cutoff date.

Say that during a given billing period 100% of billable work is zero because no billable activity was not realized. Such can be the case of concrete on a mat foundation delayed a couple of days because of rain. All preparation activities that are non-billable was done during the financial period but the pouring happened a couple of days after the end of the financial period. Here it is not unusual to allow some flexibility with regard to the billing period. The contractor will be allowed to submit a payment request for a slightly different financial/billing period and not forced to wait until next billing period. This causes no problem with the time phased data if using Excel or Spider Project that allows for flexible financial/billing periods, on the other hand if using P6 or MSP software as a payment tool you will not have such flexibility.

1. How does the GPC proposes to deal in a reasonable way with this issue when P6 is used when is dependent on a single fixed financial periods definition? 
2. How does the GPC proposes to deal with P6 if using a common database when there are multiple jobs requiring different financial periods?
3. MSP being less functional in this regard will present more challenges to tackle such issues.

The same happens with other similar concrete pouring preparation activities where no payment is allowed until concrete is placed.

Everything is becoming too complicated for the average job, too many restrictions on the use of the tool as if every job will end in court.

• For the settling of ordinary change orders and scheduling issues it is common for those who will make the decision not to rely on a schedule and software intricacies they cannot understand and use common sense.
• If a job ends up in court it will be to the expert analyst to fix the schedule as for it to be valid as a claim tool; once again most judges will end up doing the same, not to rely on a schedule and software intricacies they cannot understand and use some common sense. 

No wonder most field supervisors as well as many Contractors disdain and dislike formal scheduling procedures to the point they prefer to outsource it to meet contractual requirements and use manual methods and electronic worksheets to plan their own work. 

If the GPC wants to elevate how others view the CPM Schedule it would be good not to forget there is another side of the coin. 

PP Admin,

How can we help?  Please email PP Admin with what you want on there and we will update it.  As I said in my earlier post; the top thread must have (1) the GPCCAR text that you are questioning, (2) how YOU feel the text should be presented in order to be correct and (3) your logic / reasoning for it.  

• There is so much said within my already segregated posts that I doubt the space provided will be enough, I do not know how I can adequately fix it other than to cross reference the discussions prior to GPC Admin segregating them all as well as rolling back the title to the original title before it was segregated. 
• A better solution would be to roll back until all segregated discussions return to where they started to where thy belong but this is out of my hands. It was very simple everything I wanted to debate about Section/Chapter 9 in a single open discussion. 
  • http://www.planningplanet.com/forums/guild-project-controls-gpc/586276/090-managing-project-progress-and-bobbys-world
• This would never happened if not by the insistence of GPC Admin to invade other domain and take over PP FORUM as if having their own GUILD CLOSED FORUM full of restrictions is not enough.
  • OPEN TO ALL PP MEMBERS
  • 
  • CLOSED - OPEN ONLY TO THE GUILD MEMBERS
  • 
• I am posting in what I believe to be an OPEN FORUM not in a GUILD CLOSED FORUM/DOMAIN along with their particular rules you are applying to my discussion within PP OPEN FORUM.
• My interest is to have open discussion in an OPEN FORUM that have no such requirements. Such as an OPEN FORUM that does not require an "open source" published reference for each statement you make. All I am asking is a place to present my views and debate it without so many restrictions. Same as PP FORUM was before, same as it is currently applied to other discussions in PP OPEN FORUM. 
• If the GPC do not want their paper to be discussed then they should keep it within the GUILD and not make it available to anyone outside the GUILD. As soon as they make it public then it becomes a concern of anyone that can be impacted by its adoption.
• Currently only about 2% of construction jobs in the USA are mandated to use CPM Schedule as a payment tool and close to 0% of construction jobs are mandated to use EVM. Construction contracts are radically different to defense development contracts, the DOD recognizes the reality but the GPC do not. The adoption of GPC ideas by our state and municipal agencies can be detrimental to our practice. 
• To the GPC there is no distinction by location or industry sector.  The GUILD says - "The Guild of Project Controls Compendium and Reference (GPCCaR) to all intents and purposes defines the subject matter that the Global Project Communitybelieve to be neccessary in order to be a fully-rounded practitioner irrespective of Location or industry Sector." 

Best Regards,

Rafael

Paul,

You might have disagreement with the USA DOD but you are so biased that you publish within the GUILD a one side version about mandating EVM and a one sided version about mandating the CPM Schedule as a Payment tool. 

You said - Rafael, IF you or any other contractor, whether in the USA or Indonesia or Outer Mongolia or the Antarctic is being paid for the work they have physically completed (which is almost certainly 100% of us) then they are using SOME FORM of "Earned Value Management".

• Your statement misses that there is an abysmal difference between EV and EVM, here a single letter makes a huge differene. By the same token EV and PV look similar but represent different concepts.
• There is an abysmal difference you are unable to see and accept, a difference the DOD understands. 
• EVM attempts to integrate Cost and Schedule time element using simplified approach that is very poor as it does not distinguish between critical and non-critical activities. Basic EV does not attempt to mix schedule time element, does not attempt to mix oil and water.  

Your article are wrong, your call for ambiguous practice is wrong.

• To promote ambiguous versions of any standard is wrong. The correct approach would be to use different standards/specifications. In some cases the correct approach would be not to mandate standards not applicable to the particular case. 
• Any further EVM as well as for ES [Earned Schedule] limitations such as their dependency on a Baseline that in many cases is ever changing may be inherent to the concepts.
• Private sector uses EV without using the unnecessary acronyms EVM depends so much.
• To say private sector uses EVM is wrong, a few do, many do not.
• To say private sector across the board uses ANSI 748 is wrong.
• To pretend mandating use of EVM without disregard to contract type and volume threshold is foolish, no one size fits all.
• There is no such thing as multidimensional WBS in use, all are vertical structures, the needed to have different views or different WBS structures is another thing. What you call dimensions can be represented by different WBS levels. Any CPM software can handle more than 3 WBS levels, calling for only 3 levels is not a good call. 
• To say the primary driver for government contractors appears to be compliance to protect the contractor in the case of a government audit is not true, cannot be substantiated by wishful thinking, until the requirement is taken out of the contract it cannot be quantified and substantiated.
• If only 1.7% of the contractors partially meet the NDIA requirements it shows there is no desire of private contractors to use it and makes a statement in favor of the primary driver for government contractors to be compliance with the mandated contractual conditions.
• I take no side regarding LOE Activities as the software I use do not have such thing. Spider Hammocks and LOE activities are not the same and the differences are documented.

The DOD do not recommends EVM except for Development Contracts that meet specific thresholds and discourage its use on firm-fixed-price [FFP]contract to the extent it would require a waiver by the DOD for it to be used on FFP contracts, it is your inability to recognize USA practice that is an issue.

I do not want to add something else to Section 9 of the GUILD document, I would like it to be corrected by someone else that is not so biased as you are.   I do not want to be part of it but to raise my independent voice about the many wrong things (I think) it promotes.

My experience with the AACE International when at one time I was considering becoming part of it was that as a condition I would be required to abstain criticizing the AACE International. By asking me to abstain criticizing the GUILD unless I become part of it you are showing the same attitude, not everyone wants to be part of a group that promotes ideas they do not agree and find extreme/biased. I have no interest in becoming part of the GUILD. 

Your frequent references of articles of your authoring as to substantiate your own work seems to me a poor choice, too much of self-promoting yourself.

Best Regards

Rafael

• In the USA the requirement to use the CPM as a payment tool in public construction contracts is for practical purposes exclusively mandated on federal contracts, in less than 2% of our total volume of construction contracts. In over 35 years bidding for hundreds of jobs I have never seen it outside federal contracts.
• In the USA the requirement to use the CPM as a payment tool in private construction contracts is for practical purposes nonexistent. In over 35 years bidding for hundreds of jobs I have never seen it in private construction contracts.
• In the USA the requirement to use EVM in private construction contracts is for practical purposes nonexistent. In 35 years bidding for hundreds of jobs I have never seen it in private construction contracts. 
• In the USA the requirement to use EVM is for practical purposes exclusive on federal development contracts, this essentially rules out all construction contracts.

By looking at the US Census on Construction we can estimate what is the USA collective wisdom.

• https://www.census.gov/construction/c30/c30index.html 

If you calculate the percentage by volume of work of all construction contracts that mandate the CPM as a billing tool you will have that in less than 2% [100 x 22,043/1,133,932] of USA CONSTRUCTION contracts the CPM schedule is mandated to be used as a payment tool. 

Because for practical purpose no single construction contract falls into the category of "Development Contracts" where EVM is required by Federal Government then for practical purposes in 0% of USA CONSTRUCTION contracts EVM is mandated.

The results of this simple mathematical exercise are overwhelming. 

To say that the collective wisdom in the USA does not matter is nuts. That over than 98% of USA construction contracts value do not mandate the CPM as a billing tool and that for practical purposes 100% of construction contracts do not mandate EVM is a clear message of what is our collective wisdom. In the USA many of us agree with the wisdom of over the 98% of our construction contracts that do not require the use of CPM as a billing tool in construction contracts, many of us agree with the 100% of our construction contracts that do not require formal EVM in construction contracts. As a general rule we do not make use of what we find of little or of no justified value. 

I do not pretend to say USA wisdom/practice is near perfect, it is not. While 75% of our construction volume is private work where the contractor have real bargaining power in the remaining 25% it is common for the Agencies to require CPM software by brand specification, illegal in theory but rarely enforced. This practice is creating an oligopoly of a couple of software vendors that have no interest in providing good enough resource modeling capabilities.  This 25% is way too much of an imperfection. 

The collective wisdom in the USA is the opposite of the GUILD collective wisdom. 

• Paul said - "Context is everything and what works under one set of circumstances or for one sector or application may not work in others.  There is no “one size fits all” .
• The GUILD says - "The Guild of Project Controls Compendium and Reference (GPCCaR) to all intents and purposes defines the subject matter that the Global Project Community believe to be neccessary in order to be a fully-rounded practitioner irrespective of Location or industry Sector."  

Best Regards,

Rafael 

Paul and the GPC,

1) Update the schedule with all Actual Finishes as of the Billing Closing Date; 2) Reconcile any Out of Sequence Progress by showing the correct logic as it actually happened and include that reconciliation in the billing package (along with soft copy of the updated CPM schedule).

I do not see any DRAFT watermark on the GUILD document, so I read it as a finished product, unless it will forever be a DRAFT and therefore forever useless. 

I have mentioned multiple times that changing the schedule any change in the schedule  for whatever reason it shall be subjected to a long revision procedure and that non approved schedules will be rejected right away, it goes beyond your whims.

In USA practice it might be a handful of Federal Government Agencies require the CPM as a payment tool as it was in my only such experience at a Navy Job. Such requirement became a nuisance to the point it was agreed:

• waiving the contractual requirement to use retained logic and use progress override,
• waiving fixing all OOS logic keeping all activities with pending payment items open no matter how small as it was not as detrimental to the payment process and use progress override with all the implications this have in the usefulness of the schedule as a planning tool.

Here private jobs as well as state and municipal government jobs are not required to use the CPM as a payment tool. It is practical and sensible compromise that keeps away the need for too much granularity and the frequent revisions of the CPM model that using the CPM as a payment tool requires. Such approach in any way prevent us from issuing our payment applications and schedule updates that meet the requirement to represent true progress but without the complication the requirement to use the CPM as a payment tool creates.

3) Filter out ONLY those activities which have an actual finish from the last billing closing date to the current billing closing date; (The rest of the unbilled activities showing the status of the entire project are included in the soft copy of the schedule which we also submitted with the billing).

This is just a report filter good for those having knowledge on the CPM software, but here many responsible of approving the Application for Payment do not have knowledge of the software.  

Here everyone knows and understand Excel but not Primavera P6, MSP, Asta PP, Spider Project or perhaps a GUILD favorite. It would be irresponsible on their part to require CPM software as a payment application tool and not use it to verify the payment application calculations as well as the required schedule changes when activities must be split as to fix out-of-sequence caused by the requirement to use the CPM as a payment tool.

What CPM software are you advocating to be imposed to the Contractor who is responsible for the means and methods and all the other parties having some say in the submittal and approval of the payment application in order to prevent the payment process becoming a Tower of Babel?

4) Because (consistent with GAO’s “Best Practices” ) we keep our activity durations to less than a single billing period (in most cases, 30 days) so we can use the 0% - 100% rule, meaning we can only bill for those activities which are PHYSICALLY 100% complete, which means “normal” (not serious) punch list items do not count as that is covered by the retention. This results in an added "big push" to finish as many activities as possible before the billing closure date, which is good for both the owner as well as contractor).

We do not use 0%-100% rule it makes no sense at all either for billing or for schedules that are to be resource leveled. Say a $150,000 equipment unit is 90% installed, such nonsense rule means no payment or full payment. Acceptable in Indonesia but not in the USA.

By splitting activities resource leveling can schedule them apart instead of contiguous. Acceptable in Indonesia but not in the USA. I had no idea the GUILD oppose to BEST resource leveling models. 

Big push makes not much sense, if unattainable it can promote delaying the activity to start early during next payment period. The emphasis on managing the schedule though the payment application is not a good management approach. 

Your prior statements about how bad some US Government performs is erratic and self-serving: the US DOD by your standards is bad while the GAO is a US Government Agency is a good reference; only when convenient it is good reference, when not convenient it is a bad reference. If GAO scheduling practice is so good why taking the effort to make a duplicate of it unless something is wrong? Why re-invent the wheel?

Many of us consider DOD reference and its assessment of no requiring EVM in firmed-fixed-price contract based on years of experience and a good assessment, on the other hand I do not believe the GAO reference is a flawless reference, similar to the GUILD it is biased in favor of some flawed theories like placing artificial limits to activity duration. Many such as The American Bar Association believe other references adopted by the GUILD, such is the case of AACE International RP for forensic analysis is nonsense. 

The danger with the GAO reference is on their lack of making it clear it is intended as a management guide for the agencies not to be imposed to their private contractors. It would be easy for morons with initiative to copy and paste it in into private contractor contracts. We do not need more cookie cutter guidelines that people have a tendency to view as black and white when referenced in our contracts become a legal mandate. Mandating the contractor such strict control on their means and methods by incorporating such references into our contracts is an intromission not welcomed by everyone here, different to Indonesia/Jakarta.

•   http://wbia.pollub.pl/files/83/attachment/1914_3_2.pdf
•   http://www.cpmiteam.com/assets/ABA_ForumRPpaper_final.pdf
•   http://barbaconsulting.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/fall-2009-const-lawyer-w-judd_001.pdf

5)  We review the proposed billing with the project manager and/or contracting officer who agree that it is acceptable to them. (Informally unless there is an issue).

In our practice prompt payment is very important and we have no time for informal process we do not recognize, the vast amount of out-of-sequence events that using the schedule as a payment tool will create a vast amount of issues to be solved by a lengthy formal review of the changed schedule, changes that will require a change in the Contract Baseline activities no matter if EVM is required or not. In public contracting formal informal changes are not recognized and prohibited by law, different to private practice. Different to Indonesia/Jackarta were there are no requirement for formal changes no matter if public contract. 

6) We compile the supporting documentation to prove that the work has been completed in substantial compliance with the technical specifications. (i.e. concrete break test reports, NDT test results etc). 7) We provide any supporting documentation to establish that we have met of fulfilled all the “shall” clauses in the contractor, which most often meant certified payrolls and having met the minority set aside requirements;

So do we, but this can be a frequent source of OOS issues that must be solved and submitted for a lengthy approval process when the CPM is required to be used as a payment tool. On a 10,000 thousands activity schedule it is to be expected a few such occurrences will happen on every payment application. 

8) We officially submit the bill, which has already been pre-approved and within 30 days, we get paid.  Assuming the paperwork is in order, IF we are not paid within 30 days, we are entitled to bill a late payment penalty of (back then 16% per year).

We have similar requirements but the paper work will not be in order until all OOS issues are formally submitted and approved after a lengthy process.

9) Having outlined this process, the question is whether this process is or is not necessary for a projecct control professional with less than 5 years experience to "Know and Understand".  (See Module 02.2- Developing the Project Control Career Path Development Plan, Figure 3 http://www.planningplanet.com/guild/gpccar/develop-project-controls-career-path-development-plan.

Your outline might be good for Indonesia/Jakarta but does not automatically apply to the USA where the practice is so different.  To understand USA process as outlined in my answer does not require more time than submitting a couple of applications under the supervision of an experienced PM. If between these two applications there is a month period a month shall be enough to figure it out how OOS events can delay the payment process if the CPM is required as a payment tool.

10) IF the Fellows, who are the Peer Review Committee, believe the answer is YES then we include it.  If not it is expected that this information is picked up through reading and understanding the SUPPORTING information which in this case is the GAO's "Best Practices in Capital Budgeting's section on Earned Value Management," the GAO's  "Best Practices in Scheduling"  along with the NDIA , NASA and other referenced documents.

That the Fellows believed the answer is YES with regard to mandating EVM and use of CPM as a billing tool tells me the Fellows are unqualified to make judgments on how things are done in the USA and what is best to USA.

That GAO call it “Best” many of us find it wrong as if there are no other better practices. As if mandating artificial limits to activity duration is best practice when it is not a universal truth.

While NDIA does not specifically distinguish between firm-fixed-price contracts as to determine when to apply EVM in DOD contracts it does increases the threshold. Because NDIA partnered with DOD and does not make any comment against the DOD discouraging the use of EVM in firm-fixed-price [FFP] contract it shall be interpreted as that they are in agreement. The GUILD makes reference to NDIA which partnered with the DOD but says DOD is not good and do not mention their agreement/disagreement with NDIA with regard to the thresholds and application to FFP contracts, this is weird.

• http://www.ndia.org/Divisions/Divisions/IPMD/Documents/OtherDocuments/2…;
• https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=DARS-2006-0007-0001

Hope this makes sense to you so that you can better understand the USA processes and the practical and legal constraints we are working under my jurisdiction, a USA territory.

Best Regards,

Rafael

Vladimir,

The GUILD never adequately addressed the issue of what to do when a pay item within a CPM activity is not finished or accepted for full payment while some or all of the activity successors can start crating a distorted CPM schedule that requires a schedule fix. This schedule fix is usually required by our agencies to be re-submitted and approved before being accepted for any purpose because of the legal implications creating a serious issue for the submittal of the Payment Application. This does not happen in our private jobs as there the use of CPM as a payment tool is not required and it is accepted to declare finished an activity if all its successors can start no matter if a few pay items are on hold for payment. 

• It does not requires much experience or thinking to imagine the above issue even if you are a rookie and never experienced it before.
• It is hard to imagine someone can miss such possibility.

It means that the documents and the reasoning used by the GUILD are poor and as a result the GUILD is a poor reference for developed countries like the USA, as it does not consider what happens in the USA where use of EVM is discouraged on Firm-Fixed-Price contracts and the use of CPM as a payment tool is extremely rare in private jobs. 

Best Regards,

Rafael

Vladimir,

Thanks for your prompt reply, it will take me some time to absorb what implications it has in our practice on a 10,000 activities CPM if on average there are four pay items per activity. Because it is possible on any given activity all successors can start even if the four pay items are not completely finished then the use of 4 additional activities might be required, and this adds up to 50k activities instead of 40k, WOW quite a CPM updating challenge. I will continue the discussion in due time at Spider forum.  

Regarding:

1. work could be done and still not approved - is not uncommon here, it happens, a good call that in our case would require a Ghost Schedule until work is formally approved, common situation when client issues a change directive. An alternate mechanism for directing the contractor to perform additional work to the contract when time and/or cost of the work is not in agreement between the owner and contractor performing the work.
2. advance payments are usual - not uncommon for material on site but not recognized as work performed and kept separate under our payment application forms. In our practice we do not schedule any amount for material on site [MOS] on the payment application template, we plug them when need be. The value of MOS accepted is not a pre determined value but the actual invoice value. Needless to say I will eventually ask the GUILD for their recommendations on how to deal the MOS issue when CPM schedule is used as a payment tool. 

Best Regards,

Rafael

PP Admin,

The continuous re-editing and continuous relocation of my discussions is what created this mess.

My differences with the GUILD are abysmal so I doubt I will ever be in agreement with it, all I will be able to do is to raise my dissenting opinion in this and any forum I see the GUILD is present or referenced.

I doubt the GUILD will ever be adopted by our local private sponsors are they are not so picky as to use or require EVM or to use the CPM as a payment tool.

On the other hand I see much bias on the GUILD in favor of EVM and the use of CPM as a payment tool that I find it detrimental to our practice if it is ever adopted by reference by some of our Agencies.

• The GUILD advocates everywhere for the use of EVM but cannot understand and cannot accept the US DOD is against the use of EV in firm-fixed-price [FFP] contracts and declare irrelevant whatever the US DOD say. 
• The GUILD advocates for the use of the CPM as a payment tool but do not adequately address the issue of what to do when a pay item within a CPM activity is not finished or accepted for full payment while some or all of the activity successors can start crating a distorted CPM schedule that requires a schedule fix. This schedule fix is usually required by our agencies to be re-submitted and approved before being accepted for any purpose because of the legal implications creating a serious issue for the submittal of the Payment Application. This does not happen in our private jobs as there the use of CPM as a payment tool is not required and it is accepted to declare finished an activity if all its successors can start no matter if a few pay items are on hold for payment. 

The reluctance by the GUILD expressed in this debate to recognize how things are done in the USA, the reluctance by the GUILD to recognize how the US DOD is against the use of EVM in FFP contracts and call it irrelevant we call it stubbornness, similar to the UK Cambridge dictionary definition.

We use the figure of the mule to represent stubbornness and therefore I do not believe it to be unprofessional to use it as an illustration especially when the GUILD have demonstrated much stubbornness with regard to EVM and the CPM as a payment tool. 

Best Regards,

Rafael

PS - Happy father's day.

Rafael Davila answers are in Bold.

Let me respond to your comments one at a time but for the future PLEASE try to keep your posting to a single topic as it makes it easier to respond. 

Because you took the initiative to ask me how to submit my posts I will take mine and ask you to PLEASE do not segregate my postings as it is more difficult to follow the multiple postings every paragraph will generate, it might take you a bit longer but keeps some order. 

How did G703 get into the discussion?

If you ever read G702 you will notice G703 is the continuation of G702. No discussion about G702 is complete without addressing G703 or its equivalent. 

• http://aia.org/contractdocs/AIAS076752
• http://www.cptitle.com/docs/disbursement/g703.pdf

Do you really think this is a "best tested and proven" practice"?

Do you really think the idea of billing by CPM activity is a "best tested and proven" practice"? A practice that is so granular that can yield a 40,000 line billing document on a 10,000 activities CPM with an average of 4 pay items per activity. The proposed practice I consider too granular, excessive micro management when current practice in the USA have been not to require the use of the CPM as a tool to be married to the billing document because of the issues it creates when all activity successors can start but not all pay items are fully closed.

I asked you to tell me how do you propose to handle the out-of-sequence issue each occurrence creates and how to handle the contractual requirement for any changes in the CPM as well as the billing document be duly submitted and approved before they can even be considered for review as a billing document.  I will appreciate if you address this issue in accordance to USA contracting practice once and for all.

On February 23, 1857, 13 architects met in Richard Upjohn's office to form what would become the American Institute of Architects.

All this is nice information but what does it add to the discussion or debate?

It adds to the discussion because it shows that for decades, if not for centuries contractors in the USA have been billing without use of CPM, a practice that is most common today. Only a few Agencies require such marriage and my experience in a single job in over 35 years representing contractors was so bad that the job ended in court and the contractor was awarded a substantial amount. The billing process was a nightmare.

[PDG] No, this is your misinterpretation.  As noted in the GPCCAR we can only bill for work which has fulfilled three criteria

No this is a misinterpretation by you and the GUILD who have no understanding on how billing documents are required to be presented in the USA.  For your knowledge in the USA it is required that once the billing template is approved it shall be submitted in full, meaning no single line will be omitted no matter if no work have been performed on this line. It is a standard requirement we in the USA understand and accept while the GUILD do not. The document must be submitted unfiltered for it to be available to the view of those who have to stamp their approval, many experts in construction issues but not hooked into particular CPM software. It is not uncommon for them to be given a full PDF unfiltered version of the application.

[PDG] OK I understand what you are saying but because the GPC advocates Activity Based Costing, what you describe would not happen, at least not as part of the billing process.  If you go to Module 08.6

Well it might not happen in Jakarta but it does in the USA where it is not uncommon for many CPM activities to include several pay items. One such example was already provided in the discussion. As a reminder it refers to the case when a Lighting Fixture installation activity includes the installation of several fixtures of different types, each type with different quantity and different unit price. Then I posted an example of how this is done within P6 and asked Vladimir about how this is done within Spider Project as it only allows for a single volume of work per activity while in my example each lighting fixture have their own volume of work within the activity.

I know how to make the 40,000 lines document for a 10,000 activites schedule with an average of four different pay items per activity in SureTrak. A piece of cake just a few trees required for the paper documents required, we are not 100% paperless as it look it is the case in Jakarta, especially with legal and pay documents, computer files are not good enough for everything. Seems like module 08.6 is equally biased on the one sided view that billings via CPM is a good idea.

[PDG] Now this is a rude and totally unnecessary statement. Having survived as a union contractor for 18 years and with the exception of South America, having worked all around the world, says that I have at least some understanding of “how things are done” as a private sector, for profit contractor working on firm fixed price or unit in place contracts.  Are there other experiences or contexts?  Absolutely. Are yours different from mine? Want to share them? Then you are welcome and encouraged to submit them via the templates developed and made available for that purpose.

It is not a rude statement as long as it is true. I am sharing the experience in a forum discussion I hope will not be censored. I do not want to submit my comments via a template to a closed membership club.

[RD] You said: "Note the grayed out cells (5000 to 10,000 activities) represent what the reference cited by you recommended as the typical or ideal size of CPM schedule, which I do agree with." This is not correct, I said it is not unusual, and that is different to typical, my most common activity count is close to 900 activities and each would contain several/many cost codes if used to generate payment applications.[PDG] I was only quoting from the reference that YOU cited.  You need to be very careful about your citations.  Putting on my Academic’s hat, I look at every reference your provide to see if it does or does NOT support the point you are trying to make, So if you cite something, you had better make certain that is supports your statements. In this case your reference did NOT support what you asserted.

I never said a 10,000 activities schedule is typical, I said it is not uncommon, typical and not uncommon have different meanings in the English language.  In any case you need to be very careful about your calls. Putting in my non-academic but snobbish hat my reference do not pretend to support typical and ideal size is not the same, knowledge of the English language is enough.

If there are no financial constraints there is no value in linking payment application to figure out an overly detailed cash flow. Optimum cash flow management requires consideration of financial constraints, calculating NPV of a poor portfolio selection is not good enough.

No NPV required, just applied common sense to a very simple problem that in order to make it very simple it is not required to consider NPV. Are you still wondering if NPV is to be considered in my sample problem? For your information NPV is not relevant in short duration schedules.  Then apply common sense to the sample schedule and show the value of your Hat.

[RD] Following an approved Baseline makes no sense as soon as there are changes in the scope of work, any change matters as was disclosed in the infamous BIG Dig job where contractors were required to follow an always obsolete baseline schedule. [PDG] Then why bother having an approved baseline at all? This is why the GPCCAR advocates that we REBASELINE whenever the original baseline no longer accurately represents what is happening in the field.

I advocate for having an approved baseline as a reference but not as an active management document.  I am against the urge to tie payment applications to a CPM Baseline doomed to always be obsolete. Tying payment application to EVM is wrong because EVM requires the baseline to be approved.

And having brought up Boston’s Big Dig, although we were not a contractor on that project, I know of several of my fellow contractors who were and given this was an unmitigated disaster in terms of project management, I would hardly hold that out as an exemplar of “best tested and proven” practices, but more an example of what NOT to do.

This job is an example of why the idea of using Baseline Schedules and EVM as a tool to manage a job is a bad idea and belongs to any discussion the pushes so much for such a flawed idea.

PDG] Yes, I agree that there are weaknesses in using EVM and over the years, many of them have been addressed.  Have you taken the time to look at the NDIA document we incorporated by reference into the GPCCAR?  Well worth doing as they have fixed a lot of the weaknesses.

A lot of BS into the NDIA document, it do not adequately address the fact that EVM do not distinguish between critical and non-critical activities in their EV calculations.

At the same time, I know of no other method which so clearly and unambiguously links performance and payment.

Well it is not needed; it can be done without the need of EVM that is so dependent on a Fixed Baseline. The micro management of the schedule as proposed by the GUILD can be done within the CPM using regular cost loading directly into the current schedule.  The fundamental issue of distorted schedule as the result of successor activities started when the activity is not finished because some pay items are not is not automatically solved by either approach. A problem that is exacerbated by the common contractual requirement for the payment document not be changed until approved. The advocated procedure to tie the CPM to the payment application generates the need for a changed payment document even in the absence of a change in scope of work.

Once again it appears to me that you are trying to find excuses or justification for “Business as Usual”  practices, while common, are NOT “Best Tested and Proven” practices but the kind of BS that PMI advocates in their PMBOK Guide(from page 3 or page 5, using “those practices used on most projects, most of the time”.)  That is NOT what the GPCCAR was designed to be. We worked hard by doing extensive research to ensure that what the GPCCAR was advocating was BETTER or to a higher standard than the PMBOK Guide OR AACE’s RP’s advocate……

It looks to me you are trying to find excuses to push your one sided agenda for "New Flawed Business Practice" worse than “Business as Usual”.  Not everyone is a blind advocate of the PMBOK, I am not one such advocate. Of course I do not fund it as bad as the AACE Forensic RP.

http://barbaconsulting.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/fall-2009-const-lawyer-w-judd_001.pdf

I do not buy everything I read. 

• http://www.goaztech.com/media/documents/evmigoct06.pdf
• 2.2.3.7 Exclusions for Firm Fixed Price (FFP) Contract Type. The application of EVM on FFP
  
  contracts and agreements is discouraged, regardless of dollar value. 

Vladimir, 

In our jobs it is not unusual for some activities to include several pay items, each with a different quantity, different unit price, different dollar amount. How do you account for this under your proposed method?

We are required to show in a transparent way the quantity [volume of work], the unit of volume, the unit price, the extended dollar amount for budget, total to date and current period for every pay item. 

In the case of activities such as elevated slab forms it might have different pay items such as forms, electrical, mechanical, reinforcing steel, each with different quantity, different unit of work ... but multiple pay items and their corresponding activity must be modeled under the same activity as to keep the resources working as a team. 

I have not figured it out within Spider Project no matter if using cost loading at the activity level, at the resource level or material resource. It looks like an easy task if using P6. Looks easy but it do not solve the issue when an activity is 100% finished for purpose of successors to start but some pay items are not finished. It do not solve the contractual requirement for any changes in schedule to be approved prior to submittal of any updated schedule that include unapproved changes. 

I have seen the requirement to use the CPM Schedule as a billing document on a Federal Government job and the experience was a disaster. We used SureTrak and to include several pay items on a single activity was easy. The inspector did not understood the need to address the out-of-sequence issue with a changed "divorced" schedule whenever an activity is 100% finished for purpose of successors to start but some pay items are not finished. This was the Hangar Job I have mentioned you before and that maybe you recall. The only job requiring the CPM as a tool for payment application in my over 35 years experience preparing payment applications for my construction work jobs.

It was a relatively small remodeling job, perhaps less than $3M US dollars. Because of the paper reduction act we were not required more paperwork at time of submitting the payment application along with the schedule update. It was enough to submit 7 copies, each on a 2in binder and close to 400 pages, making it a box of about 2ftx2ftx2ft. It was fun to see the documents being rejected and asked to resubmit them because of a minor disagreement. They never understood the legal concept that any item in disagreement should be deducted but the payment shall not be placed on hold by requiring to resubmit the application. 

I wonder how it would be if a $20M dollar job not uncommon for my client, maybe over 2,500 pages per binder, a huge binder. Uncle Sam is second to none in bureaucratic paperwork, give them any excuse to add to the paper work and they will take it as if paper is more important than the end result. 

Best Regards,

Rafael

Rafael Davila answers are in Bold.

PS Rafael as a follow up to my comments on the damage delayed payments are causing, here are two articles from ENR:

One of the undocumented causes is the obstruction some procedures impose on the contractor as well as on those approving the payment requisitions. An utterly detailed payment application linked to a CPM schedule that is distorted as soon as a an activity payment item is not approved but the successors are allowed to start as said many times before is one such case I experienced in the Hangar Job.

There are also no shortage of credible academic research published on this topic, which is why I believe it is ESSENTIAL to stop following the US Government divorcing payment from performance and get back to implementing earned value as was developed during the 17th and 18th century, was formalized by Henry Gantt around 1910 or so and is still in use in the private sector, "hard money" contracting as well as modern factories from the maquiladora of Mexico and Honduras to the Nike and Reebok factories in Bangladesh and Vietnam.....

The EV theory developed in the 18th/19th century is very different to EVM developed during the mid 1900’s where a crude attempt to tie CPM time element to EV was done by the PERT team, a crude attempt that misses to distinguish EV by critical versus non-critical activities as if it does not matter. In any case as said before it is a fallacy EVM is needed to use the CPM as a payment tool. 

Given contractors live and die by our cash flows, nothing serves as a better incentive than to enable us to enhance our cash flows by doing what you the owner want, which is to finish as many activities as soon as possible.  But to make it work, the payment has to be closely linked to and made as soon after the activity is done as possible.

Given that contractors live and die by our cash flows we welcome simplified procedures that meet the need and do not get into obstructing the payment procedure.  An utterly detailed payment application linked to a CPM schedule that is distorted as soon as an activity payment item is not approved but the successors are allowed to start is not welcomed here.

EVM promotes the blind idea to finish as many activities as soon as possible without any consideration to the delaying effect it can have on critical activities when resources are scarce. A wrong approach promoted by the above statement. 

For those passionate about Project Controls and wish to become part of the decision making team, to help shape what the Guild Commnity collectively consider to be best practice guidelines, you are cordially invited to Join the Guild where you will have a voice in making these kinds of decisions.

The call for the postulates to represent BEST is SNOBBISH & WRONG.

I have seen other publications claiming theirs to represent GOOD practice but do not recall any claiming to be THE BEST.

I recall those who advocate strict adherence to be the subject of much criticism by those of us that believe there are many alternatives as good or better.

Many of us believe such Flat Earth theories are wrong and promote a monopoly on knowledge and that anyone who objects is deemed to be wrong. 

Well the Earth is not Flat.

Some humility by the GUILD in all its modules would do no harm while none will eventually cause much harm when those who adopt it and enforce it by reference into our contracts and make literal interpretations because that is preciselly what it promotes by being so biased and stubborn. 

My apologies to the Founders of Planning Planet, but this is far from what it was years ago. 

The following is another unilaterally closed post on the FORUM tab the GUILD is taking possession as if their own tab is not enough. 

http://www.planningplanet.com/forums/guild-project-controls-gpc/591410/…

Dear Rafael,

Thank you.  These two statements are specific and actionable and as such have been recognized and are being reviewed and analyzed by the Guild Members.  When any changes / improvements to the module are agreed to by the peer review teams, we will post notice of those findings once a decision has been made.  

Because you have chosen to post your thoughts here and not via the GPCCaR Change Formsuggestion template I will have to close this thread so its content can be actioned as a specific and defined scope of work for the review teams.

Thanks and Regards, GPC Admin (@Jason)

For those passionate about Project Controls and wish to become part of the decision making team, to help shape what the Guild Commnity collectively consider to be best practice guidelines, you are cordially invited to Join the Guild where you will have a voice in making these kinds of decisions.

It looks like the GUILD have intention to unilaterally close and censor all my discussions they are in disagreement. As I said before I do not have the required published, open-source references and in addition I want is to be an open discussion, not a closed discussion.

Planning Planet is no longerr the same open forum that encouraged diverse opinions and their open discussion. It looks new Admin members are taking over and are changing the rules. 

The following is the last unilaterally closed post on the FORUM tab the GUILD is taking possession as if their own tab is not enough. 

http://www.planningplanet.com/forums/guild-project-controls-gpc/591071/gpccar-m09-4-assessing-interpreting-progress-data-introduci

Dear Rafael,

Thank you.  These statements were specific and actionable and as such have been recognized and have been reviewed and incorporated by the Guild Members.  

• Module 09.4 - Assessing and Interpreting Progress Data
• Module 09.5 - Project Performance Forecasting

Details of the changes will be communicated to Guild Members.

Because you have chosen to post your thoughts here and not via the GPCCaR Change Form suggestion template I will have to close this thread so that this change is concluded; any new comments should be made via the aforementioned Change Form or a new duscussion thread.

Thanks and Regards, GPC Admin (@Jason)

For those passionate about Project Controls and wish to become part of the decision making team, to help shape what the Guild Community collectively consider to be best practice guidelines, you are cordially invited to Join the Guild where you will have a voice in making these kinds of decisions.

• Paul,

• We have no problem at all with the AIA G702 I have used for over 35 years, it is our billing template.  But we do not make use of CPM activity link for every line. About AIA G703 we find it not good enough as it does not provide columns for quantities but only for dollar amounts. 

• We do not have a standard that substitute this form. It is not difficult to figure it out some better alternatives, AIA G703 we find it archaic. We use Excel worksheet and calculate Total to Date Dollar Amount from total to Date Quantities and agree unit prices, then Work this Period Amount is calculated as Total to Date Amount minus Previous Period Total to Date. 

• AIA billing forms have been in use long before CPM software was widely available, AIA was in existence before CPM was coined in the 1950's, about a hundred years before CPM. Construction have been in existence much longer. We link payment application to production process items that can span several/hundereds of CPM activities, frequently we detail the pay items per area but not by all CPM items the area includes. In any case we can track them via cost accounts that can can span several/hundereds of CPM activities but it is considered an unnecessary burden, in general we keep unmarried the CPM and the Payment Application. 

• http://www.aia.org/about/history/AIAB028819

• "On February 23, 1857, 13 architects met in Richard Upjohn's office to form what would become the American Institute of Architects."

• You said: "Given that I used the AIA G702 form for the 18 years I was a contractor  and never had any problems with the number of pages, I took the liberty of redoing your calculations in a way that made more sense"

• Well here your interpretation does not make any sense at all, here once approved the schedule of values template it must be submitted in full without a single line being omitted no matter if some or no progress is reported, it must still add the total contract amount.
• I got different numbers because in the case of a 10,000 activities it frequently happens that many pay items occur within a single activity, each with a different quantity and different price. Therefore a 10,000 activities schedule that will disclose the need to account for different quantities and unit price if an average of 4 lines per activity will result in a 40,000 schedule of values, a 1,290 pages document which in some jobes might be more.
• Your statements shows your complete lack of understanding how things are done in other places. 

• You said: "Note the grayed out cells (5000 to 10,000 activities) represent what the reference cited by you recommended as the typical or ideal size of CPM schedule, which I do agree with."

• This is not correct, I said it is not unusual, and that is different to typical, my most common activity count is close to 900 activities and each would contain several/many cost codes if used to generate payment applications.

• You said: "The contractor is enhancing his/her cash flows by billing by activity rather than against milestones, which tend to be way too far apart for optimum cash flow management".

• If there are no financial constraints there is no value in linking payment application to figure out an overly detailed cash flow. Optimum cash flow management requires consideration of financial constraints, calculating NPV of a poor portfolio selection is not good enough. The following is a very simple example of how financial constraints affect optimum schedule. As a proof that you practice what you preach I suppose you can give us at a blink of the eye your optimal or near optimal schedule, should be a piece of cake for you. 
• 
• Following an approved Baseline makes no sense as soon as there are changes in the scope of work, any change matters as was disclosed in the infamous BIG Dig job where contractors were required to follow an always obsolete baseline schedule.
  • http://warnercon.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/AContinuouslyChanging1.pdf

• EVM as a prediction tool has been subjected to much questioning, every EVM advocate has its own correction method. Also one of the well known flaws of EVM is that it does not distinguishes work done on critical activities versus work done on non critical activities and promotes wrong sequnecing of activities.
  • http://www.spiderproject.com/images/img/pdf/Project%20Control%20Methodology.pdf
  • "It motivates project managers to do expensive tasks first delaying cheaper activities that could have higher priorities.
  • "It suggests to forecast future performance basing on past experience that may be wrong if resources that planned to be used in the future are not the same as in the past,"
• It is wrong to imply EVM tied to a baseline schedule is required to calculate billings, billings can be calclated using current schedule budgets for payment accounts. 

• You get better predictions if using current CPM model projections with adjusted production rates, a reflection of true plan, better than if using a fixed in time baseline. These cost as well as time/duration projections and trends can be further enhanced if using schedule risk analysis. 
• The reference to failure rates is for new companies. Here such new companies do not make it to public contracting or to high value jobs. Our bidding requirements for such jobs usually requires proven experience above 5 years on the specific type of work being procured, this rules out 100% of those failed companies. 

• GPC Admin,

• Your experience do matter as much as the experience of everyone, to follow the point of view of a single person would be wrong.

• Best Regards,
• Rafael

Convergence is defined by hard logic not by cost unless you are leveling financial constraints that will create the temporal soft links something neither P6 or MSP can do. In the absence of financial leveling the cost link to the CPM is passive.

Using milestones as a mean to get a 100% divorce the time distributions will be very rough and unreliable. In such case the model will not yield reliable financial resource leveled schedules. 

• If using milestones as a mean to get a 100% divorce the payments time distributions distributions will be very rough and unreliable.  
• This milestone approach kills the purpose for the use of the CPM schedule as a payment tool.

I am still waiting for a satisfactory answer by the GUILD to the fundamental question of how you approach a distorted  CPM schedule when the timing of payments do not follow the intended logic of the schedule. The so called Divorced Schedule requires the submittal and approval of a revised schedule as well as a revised baseline required for EV calculations, a time consuming effort that takes a substantial amount of time. 

For many activities the breakdown quantities per activity must be broken down into further detail to account for cost differences. Take for example lighting fixtures, a single lighting fixtures installation activity might have several fixture types some costing several times the cost of other fixtures included under the same activity. Or for example an elevated slab avtivity where different trade and WBS resources must be included within same activity as to keep them working as a team under resource leveling. Such single elevated slab activity will include form work, reinforcing steel, electrical and plumbing rough-in pay items that must be quantified in order to substantiate the billing cost. 

Because project sponsor or his representative do not know the activity details and what pay items are included until the CPM is submitted and approved they will have to make a take off on their own to verify each quantity after the 10,000 activities schedule approval. On a 10,000 activities with several pay items per activity, say four/activity it means 40,000 items must be quantified and revised against the contractor estimate.

How much time and effort do you believe such endeavor will take?

• In the US it is not uncommon for payment applications be delayed for the most simple of excuses, most notably a small mathematical error used as to determine the invoice was in error. The best Contractor advocates groups have gotten is for some states to enact a prompt payment act that applies to private jobs but not surprisingly do not apply to jobs where public funds are used, perpetuating thir poor performance. If on top of this you add any procedure that makes complex payment application to be in error, no matter how small they will have their excuse to delay payment. 
• http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=0fe3763a-4002-4fe5-a13b-2916414cc542
• Not surprisingly as stated in the above reference "... provisions that are most frequently subject to override in private contracts include: requirements on invoicing "
• https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41230.pdf
• 25 See H.Rept. 97-461, 97th Cong., 2nd sess. 108 (1982). See also David M. F. Lambert & Nancy B. Wilson, The Prompt Payment Act: Requiring Government Agencies to Pay Their Bills on Time, 42 Nat’l Pub. Acct. 1 (January/February 1997) (referencing a 1978 study by the Government Accountability Office which found that government agencies paid up to 30% of their bills after their due dates).

Johannes and Vladimir,

Thanks for taking the time to debate and challenge my points of view. Thanks for your tolerance and understanding that while debating is confrontational in nature it is necessary when there are opposing views. 

Best Regards,

Rafael

Johannes

I am still waiting for a satisfactory answer to the fundamental question of how you approach a distorted schedule when the timing of payments do not follow the intended logic of the schedule. The so called Divorced Schedule requires the submittal and approval of a revised schedule as well as a revised baseline required for EV calculations, a time consuming effort that takes a substantial amount of time. 

Probably in your country revised schedule an revised baseline do not require approval but here it is a contractual requirement. Be reminded that here the acceptance of a revised baseline have legal consequences in the USA. 

In an industry where margins are razor thin, the mandated procedures of a payment application via CPM schedule are not understood by everyone and that will inevitably delay the processing of payment applications until the revised schedule as well as a revised baseline are duly approved as per our standard contract conditions resulting in slower payments that can can be devastating.

Best Regards,

Rafael

Johannes,

• How you handle the issue when activity successors can start but not approved as 100% because some cost elements are not approved for payment. Maybe this issue as presented in the AACE paper is just the imagination of someone but it never happens except at my location or Vladimir's.  I had no idea the author of the paper was from Bayamon, PR. or perhaps Russian where such scenarios are not uncommon. 
• Here payment application must be checked to the cent, all application columns must add exactly to the decimal point as shown in accordance to our accounting standards, approximations are not allowed and will be rejected. Here the inspector and the architect must  verify, certify and sign the application but none are CPM software experts as it happens in your location. I am interested to know how CPM based payment applications at the activity level are processed in your location. 
• Can you tell us how you handle different financial periods payment applications within same portfolio and provide some examples.
• Can you provide some examples of 10,000 activity schedule payment applications for a couple of sequential applications. Just change activity descriptions to "Activity" as to safeguard the confidentiality and post the xer files on a file hosting service. Here without proof such bold statements are not acceptable.

Best Regards,

Rafael

Vladimir,

No scheduling software meets our accounting standards and no one here runs company accounting using a CPM software.

• I have never seen an Accounts Payable report within a CPM Schedule.
• I have never seen an Accounts Receivable Report within a CPM Schedule.
• I have never seen a Payroll report that includes all payroll contribution accruals within a CPM Schedule.
• I  have never seen a General Ledger report within a CPM schedule.
• I have never seen the periodic reports businesses must submit to the IRS and Social Security.
• I have never seen a Trial Balance coming out of a CPM schedule.
• I have never seen standard Payroll and Income Tax reports to be submitted to local agencies coming out of a CPM schedule.
• I have never seen a company that do not keep accounting using specialized software, manual accounting is long gone. 
• I have seen some companies that do not use CPM but basic Gantt schedules and if asked for a CPM they just hire an outsider.

I am not an accountant and many reports shall be missing from the previous list.

• For project time management we usually use CPM software, at times simple Gantts, at times tlime location charts. 
• For accounting and project costing we always use accounting software.
• For Schedule of Value billings we use Excel, a software everyone knows. We do not use a schedule of values linked line by line to a CPM list of activities, we find it too granular for this purpose. 

In an industry where margins are razor thin, the mandated procedures of a payment application via CPM schedule not understood by everyone resulting in slower payments can be devastating. So I wonder how the GUILD tacles all the issues I mentioned in my prior postings. I'm all ears waiting for the GUILD. 

Best Regards,

Rafael

• Many of CPM software in use today have issues with the calculation of time phased cost distributions unless the user pre-define financial periods. The distorted distribution will impact activity in progress and therefore last period values if no strict adherence to the financial periods is followed. Fixing data entry errors in the financial periods table can be a nightmare. Each sponsor as well as each contractor contract might require different financial periods but Oracle/Primavera P6 user can define a single financial periods dictionary per database. 

• What are the recommendations of the GUILD to tackle this issue? 

I do not believe the Banks and Sureties will accept partial solutions that do not adhere to accounting principles. A schedule generated payment breakdown that do not matches current period invoice is not an acceptable solution. 

To my knowledge Spider Project do not have this issue, maybe the GUILD is to endorse it as the only software capable of tracking payment applications in accordance to accounting principles.

Even if the GUILD require software capable of generating payment application reports that do follow accounting principles I do not believe the idea is practical. I am still waiting to see some documentation by the GUILD showing several 10,000 activities schedules used as basis for payment where all issues that I have mentioned are tackled. Needless to say I want to see several payments applications for a couple of projects on same portfolio using different financial periods. No doubt a piece of cake for the GUILD, I am not asking for too much as this is how the GUILD says it is regularly done. 

GPC Admin,

I am not into publish-or-perish approach by the GUILD that requires published open source references. 

My interest is on challenging the assertions of closed membership clubs that represent the interest of a few. Dangerous assertions that many times are adopted in our contracts as if the only acceptable way. Someone got to be an independent critic, if I become part of it then I must be in substantial agreement with the GUILD, but I am very far from being in agreement with a substantial amount of the GUILD assertions. 

For a start I am in complete disagreement with the GUILD assertion that using the CPM schedule as a payment tool is good practice because it misses the practical implications of such idea. The only published reference I have regarding the issues with the use of CPM as a payment tool falls short of providing a good answer and in addition I do not believe is "open source". 

Best Regards,

Rafael

____________________________________________________________________________

When the GUILD Admin decided to segregate my postings into several and moved some of my comments and questions it looks like some important questions just disappeared. Some are starting to be included but it is becoming very difficult to track all these changes.

Best Regards,

Rafael

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. 

GPC Admin  (Jason),

What is wrong with my approach under this specific thread? 

He who asserts must prove. In order to establish an assertion, he must support it with enough evidence and logic to convince an intelligent but previously uninformed person that it is more reasonable to believe the assertion than to disbelieve it. Facts must be accurate. 

Sorry if you do not like the confrontational nature of any debate but I see absolute lack of supporting evidence and logic on the GUILD assertions I am contesting as mistaken or wrong.

Best Regards,

Rafael