You don't need to be an expert to answer this question. Of course you need to reflect everything that may impact your original plan (baseline schedule). Otherwise, what's the purpose of planning anyway? Plans (baseline schedules) don't always turn out exactly, the way you originally planned them. Comparison between Baseline Schedule vs. Current Schedule is essential. And that's the elementary of planning that must not be misconstrued. To answer the originator: Reflect everything in the "current schedule" (by planner's instinct). Of course your "baseline schedule" remains as is (until deemed necessary for changes). And how do you validly determine the requirement for "change orders" by the way? Again (for me), the comparison between baseline schedule vs. current schedule is essential.
Member for
21 years 8 months
Member for21 years8 months
Submitted by Rafael Davila on Sun, 2019-03-31 12:44
For a better response to this question I suggest posting the question about ongoing delay events under Forensic Claims Analysis Forum. This is very complex issue, contract conditions are key, advise from the experts should be welcomed, expect differing opinions.
Zoltan Palffy, I agree with your response. In accumulating potential impact durations in the schedule and comparing back to the baseline for Variance, the impact durations that have not been approved by executed change order must be filtered out of the variance report, yes?
Member for
21 years 8 months
Member for21 years8 months
Submitted by Rafael Davila on Fri, 2019-03-29 13:22
The USACE / NAVFAC / AFCEC / NASA UNIFIED FACILITIES GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS (SECTION 01 32 01.00 10 PROJECT SCHEDULE) is an example of such dumb specification in the USA.
3.3.13 Added and Deleted Activities - Do not delete activities from the project schedule or add new activities to the schedule without approval from the Contracting Officer.
Yes – it happens, and as we say Monkey see Monkey do, frequently such requirement is pasted into other specifications.
Dumb owners/consultants/specifications do happen they cannot understand there is a difference between an update that does not represent a change and an approved baseline/re-baseline schedule. I guess there are still many monkeys writing specifications that make no sense at all. I have seen many such occurrences.
As you just said some specifications/contracts include the following 2) Do not add time to the schedule until approved by change order.
In such case it is not an option but considered by some as mandatory contract condition.
Dumb owners/consultants will not allow you to make such changes to schedule updates, you might have no other option than put in record a you are not allowed to do so, that you are submitting your schedules under protest, and reserve the right to make a claim and make use of the Ghost Schedule.
Fortunately frequently new specifications mandate for you to show real conditions. Problems still happens when someone paste old specifications into new contracts.
Most old specifications do not allow for baseline to show early completion. This can prevent you from increasing the probabilities of meeting contract target dates. For the good, some new specifications mandate for some Terminal Float.
In the NEC3 Engineering and Construction Contract (ECC), it is a requirement in clause 31.2 for the contractor to show provisions for time-risk allowance on each programme submitted for acceptance. It conversely becomes a valid reason under 31.3 for the project manager not to accept a programme if it is not shown.
you have to go with option #1 because a delay my NEVER turn into a change notice.
the whole point of adding the impact is to give everyone a heads up of a possible impact and to provide possible work arounds or not even issue the change notice.
for example you can put in a potential change notice and you may determine that due to your limiited manpower thsi may delay the project. So now you need to make the owner aware of this potential impact and give him the ability to say do not do the change notice I will give it to someone else to do.
The point here is that if you do not reflect the potential delay or impact then you are not giving the owner the opportunity to make an intellegent decision on the impact or change.
Member for
21 years 8 months
Member for21 years8 months
Submitted by Rafael Davila on Sat, 2019-03-23 13:33
Member for
19 years 1 monthYou don't need to be an
You don't need to be an expert to answer this question. Of course you need to reflect everything that may impact your original plan (baseline schedule). Otherwise, what's the purpose of planning anyway? Plans (baseline schedules) don't always turn out exactly, the way you originally planned them. Comparison between Baseline Schedule vs. Current Schedule is essential. And that's the elementary of planning that must not be misconstrued. To answer the originator: Reflect everything in the "current schedule" (by planner's instinct). Of course your "baseline schedule" remains as is (until deemed necessary for changes). And how do you validly determine the requirement for "change orders" by the way? Again (for me), the comparison between baseline schedule vs. current schedule is essential.
Member for
21 years 8 monthsThe following might be of
The following might be of interest regarding your question about ongoing delay events.
https://docplayer.net/63332650-Time-impact-analysis-presented-by-abe-nejad-and-cody-belcher.html
Time Impact Analysis in Windows - Concurrency Analysis Lucia Vernon - 2018 AACE® INTERNATIONAL TECHNICAL PAPER CDR.2849
http://www.long-intl.com/articles/Long_Intl_Reservation_of_Rights_to_Make_a_Cumulative_Impact_Claim.pdf
http://www.long-intl.com/articles.php
For a better response to this question I suggest posting the question about ongoing delay events under Forensic Claims Analysis Forum. This is very complex issue, contract conditions are key, advise from the experts should be welcomed, expect differing opinions.
I will be following what the claim experts say.
Good Luck
Member for
6 years 7 monthsZoltan Palffy, I agree with
Zoltan Palffy, I agree with your response. In accumulating potential impact durations in the schedule and comparing back to the baseline for Variance, the impact durations that have not been approved by executed change order must be filtered out of the variance report, yes?
Member for
21 years 8 monthsThe USACE / NAVFAC / AFCEC /
The USACE / NAVFAC / AFCEC / NASA UNIFIED FACILITIES GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS (SECTION 01 32 01.00 10 PROJECT SCHEDULE) is an example of such dumb specification in the USA.
3.3.13 Added and Deleted Activities - Do not delete activities from the project schedule or add new activities to the schedule without approval from the Contracting Officer.
Yes – it happens, and as we say Monkey see Monkey do, frequently such requirement is pasted into other specifications.
Member for
6 years 7 monthsThanks for the responses and
Thanks for the responses and links!
Member for
21 years 8 monthsDumb
Dumb owners/consultants/specifications do happen they cannot understand there is a difference between an update that does not represent a change and an approved baseline/re-baseline schedule. I guess there are still many monkeys writing specifications that make no sense at all. I have seen many such occurrences.
As you just said some specifications/contracts include the following 2) Do not add time to the schedule until approved by change order.
Fortunately frequently new specifications mandate for you to show real conditions. Problems still happens when someone paste old specifications into new contracts.
Most old specifications do not allow for baseline to show early completion. This can prevent you from increasing the probabilities of meeting contract target dates. For the good, some new specifications mandate for some Terminal Float.
Member for
16 years 3 monthsyou have to go with option #1
you have to go with option #1 because a delay my NEVER turn into a change notice.
the whole point of adding the impact is to give everyone a heads up of a possible impact and to provide possible work arounds or not even issue the change notice.
for example you can put in a potential change notice and you may determine that due to your limiited manpower thsi may delay the project. So now you need to make the owner aware of this potential impact and give him the ability to say do not do the change notice I will give it to someone else to do.
The point here is that if you do not reflect the potential delay or impact then you are not giving the owner the opportunity to make an intellegent decision on the impact or change.
Member for
21 years 8 monthsIf you are prevented to
If you are prevented to manage your own schedule taking into account current events consider using a Ghost Schedule.
GHOST SCHEDULES
Impossible to get a reliable schedule without taking into consideration changed conditions.