The Value Engineering (VE) Process and Its Uses in Various Development Phases of a Construction Project

Posted on May 20, 2022May 20, 2022 by Adroit

Amin Terouhid, Ph.D., PE, PMP, VMA

Abstract

This article describes the value methodology, explains how this methodology can be used in various development phases of a construction project and identifies the benefits of value engineering and value analysis studies in various stages of a construction project. The construction process is typically divided into the five essential development phases of planning, conceptual design, detailed design, construction, and close-out. Value studies are conducted in each of these development phases with a slightly different set of objectives. This article will discuss the types of values studies that are performed in each phase and discuss some of the key considerations necessary to perform such studies.

Introduction

“The Value Methodology (VM) is a systematic process used by a multidisciplinary team, led by a qualified VM Facilitator, to improve the value of a project, product, process, service, or organization through the analysis of functions (SAVE International, 2020, p. 2).

The Code of Federal Regulations defines Value Engineering (VE) analysis as the “systematic process of reviewing and assessing a project by a multidisciplinary team not directly involved in

the planning and development phases of a specific project that follows the VE Job Plan and is conducted to provide recommendations for:

(1) Providing the needed functions, considering community and environmental commitments, safety, reliability, efficiency, and overall lifecycle cost (as defined in 23 U.S.C. 106(f)(2));

(2) Optimizing the value and quality of the project; and

(3) Reducing the time to develop and deliver the project.” (The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR): Title 23 CFR Part 627.3 Highways, 2020)

Although the value methodology (VM) is often referred to as value engineering, value analysis and value management, these terms are often used in a slightly different way. The term VA is typically used when the VM applies to an existing application (e.g., manufacturing or construction project) whereas VE applies the VM to a new project. Nevertheless, these terms overlap, and the use of more than one term might be appropriate in some cases. Therefore, the terms value methodology, value engineering, value analysis, and value management are often used interchangeably. Yet, no single term is universally accepted. The community of practitioners seems to struggle to use a consistent approach in using a single term. In this article, the term value methodology is used throughout for consistency. What is important to note, however, is that value improvement is the main focus irrespective of the specific term used.

Since enhancing the value of a project, product, process, service, or organization is central to value enhancement efforts, it is important to first define the term “value”. Value is typically defined as an “expression of the relationship between the performance of functions relative to the resources required to realize them” (SAVE International, 2020, p. 153) which is expressed as:

Value = (Function Performance) / Resources

The more we gain in equivalent money, usefulness, or a fair return on services, goods, or products while spending fewer resources, the more overall value is gained. A correct understanding of the term “function” is critical to the definition above. Function is the primary or intended purpose that a project or scope element aims to serve. In value studies, the value team can perform function analysis by:

Assessing the functions of key project components and evaluating alternative solutions that satisfy functional requirements
Appraising value-enhancing, cost-saving, and/or time-saving opportunities

Say a value team is investigating a highway project with certain elements such as a turn lane and a frontage road. To perform function analysis, the team can investigate how the turn lane can have the same function but in a way that the overall cost decreases. For example, the function of a turn lane in a highway project is to allow for shifting traffic to the left. In a highway project, a turn lane can serve the same function if the original concept remains unchanged, but the team shifts the westbound turn lane to the ramp further west to avoid the Right of Way acquisition. As another example, the function of a frontage road is to divert traffic. A frontage road may serve the same function if the team decides to re-use existing frontage roads in specific segments of the highway versus reconstructing them in their entirety.

In construction, the value methodology is used to improve a construction project by optimizing costs while maintaining or improving quality and performance. The use of value methodology has a wide range of benefits for construction projects. The key benefits include:

Applying the value methodology facilitates reaching time and cost objectives,
Assists in saving time and cost with assessing the project function and different alternatives, and
Aids in improving the construction performance.

Various Development Phases of a Construction Project

The development phases of projects that follow a process-based approach are typically organized using the following steps (PMI, 2021, p. 171):

Initiation: In this stage, a new project or a new phase of an existing project is defined. To achieve this objective, authorization is obtained to commence the project or phase.
Planning is required to establish the scope of the project, refine the project objectives, and establish the course of action needed to achieve the project objectives.
This stage aims to complete the scope of work established in the previous development state to meet the project requirements.
Monitoring and controlling. These processes, which are performed concurrently within the execution, are needed to monitor, review, and control the work progress that is made to achieve project objectives. They help to evaluate the performance of the project team in completing the scope of work. Project monitoring and controlling help the project team to compare the project performance with what was planned to ensure deviations are identified and proper actions are taken to minimize deviations. The outcome of project monitoring and control is typically a series of action plans / corrective actions to better achieve the project objective.
In the end, closing steps are taken to formally complete or close the project. The closing phase may involve different aspects/components. Examples include project document updates, final product transition, a final report, and organizational process asset updates. Some of the main activities during the closing phase include financial/payment closeout, releasing resources, documenting lessons learned, administrative closures and conducting project reviews.

The construction process, however, is often divided into a different set of steps as an organizing structure. They are typically divided into the following essential development phases:

Planning,
Conceptual design (as part of preconstruction),
Detailed design,
Construction, and
Close-out.

Value studies are conducted in each of these development phases with a slightly different set of objectives. A typical value study is conducted according to a Job Plan which is a” sequential approach for applying the Value Methodology, consisting of the following eight phases: 1) Preparation, 2) Information, 3) Function Analysis, 4) Creativity, 5) Evaluation, 6) Development, 7) Presentation, 8) Implementation” (SAVE International, 2020, p. 153). Each value study aims to address each phase in the VE Job Plan; however, the level of analysis performed, and efforts spent in each VE Job Plan phase may be adjusted not only based on the needs of each project but also based on the needs of the project’s current development phase.

In the following section, the main focuses of value studies in each of the typical development phases of construction projects are identified and the details of such studies are discussed:

Value Studies in Various Development Phases of a Construction Project

It is important that value studies are conducted at the right times. To achieve this objective, the value team needs to be aware of the benefits of value studies in each of the development phases of a project, and determine what parts or types of studies can be performed in each stage. As noted in the VM Guide, “oftentimes projects are too far along in their development when a VM study is performed. A VM study performed for a project that is 95 percent designed, and nearly ready for construction will not fully realize the benefits of VM had the VM study been performed at the 10 – 15% design level” (SAVE International, 2020, p. 145).

In theory, value studies can be applied to any construction project irrespective of its current development phase. However, as noted above, the earlier these studies are performed, the more effective their outcomes are expected to be. Nevertheless, the main focuses of value studies in each of the typical development phases of construction projects are slightly different.

The main focuses of value studies in each of the following essential development phases of a construction project are described below:

1- Planning

The application of value studies starts during the planning phase of a construction project. During this phase, the scope of the project is established, project objectives are refined, and the course of action needed to achieve the project objectives is recognized. In this phase, the ability to influence changes in design is relatively high and the cost and effort needed to implement those changes are relatively low. Because the ability to influence changes in design is relatively high in the planning phase, value studies can be conducted with minimal concerns about incurring undue expenses for a redesign. Therefore, value studies conducted during the planning stage have a remarkable potential for enhancing value. The value study can bring a fresh outside view of alternate solutions from other similar projects (Cullen, 2021).

In the early stages of the planning phase, value scoping can be performed to determine the mission and direction of the value proposal. Such studies can establish the scope and mission of value studies. Once value scoping is delineated, value studies can start to be implemented. These efforts can help the project owner establish their requirements and define needs and expectations that value studies can satisfy.

2- Conceptual design

Conceptual design is characterized by a large number of design alternatives and a continuous, evolutionary change to the design which requires iterative cycles of idea generation and evaluation. In the early phases of conceptual design, the alternatives evaluation is performed to assess available possibilities and form a basis for design. In this phase, the design has not been frozen yet and design alternatives are being considered. Since the majority of budgetary costs will be committed by project sponsors once the design is frozen, many opportunities are still available during the conceptual design phase to influence the design and reduce or avoid unnecessary costs. The earlier in the design phase value studies are conducted, the greater the opportunities will be to reduce or avoid unnecessary costs. For instance, changing the geometry or boundaries of a highway is much easier in the early stages of the design work than changing them in the later stages of the design.

3- Detailed design

As previously noted, the design is evolved in the early stages of the design work. However, as the design is further developed, the design is solidified and it is ultimately frozen during the detailed design phase. Once the design is frozen, the final design is achieved. This design stage is characterized by the efforts focused on the preparation of final construction plans and detailed

specifications for the performance of construction work.

The detailed design phase is the phase in which most value studies are initiated when the design has at least made it to the schematic stage. Most public agencies require at least one value study to be conducted at the design stage on projects over a certain dollar amount. Value studies are often conducted after the completion of the design process. It is important to note, however, that such studies are preferred to be conducted before the design is complete to allow the design team to incorporate the option of using alternative materials and methods. The Federal Highway Administration (2021) defines VE analysis as a systematic process of review and analysis of a project, during the concept and design phases. According to SAVE International, “typically, 70 percent of costs are committed by the time the design is frozen” (SAVE International, 2020, p. 146). According to Anderson et al. (2007), “value engineering is most successful when it is performed early in project development. A value engineering study should be performed within the first 25—30% of the design effort prior to selecting the final design alternative” (p. A-165).

The use of the value methodology mindset throughout the design phase can help the project team benefit from the advantages of value studies while maintaining project requirements. In this phase, formal value studies are typically conducted in value workshops by an experienced, multi-disciplinary team of subject matter experts (SMEs) prior to freezing the design. Formal value studies are typically conducted by a team led by someone highly experienced in leading value studies and workshops, usually a Certified Value Specialist (CVS) who ensures the value methodology process is properly used throughout the study. The workshop typically takes three to four days but may take longer depending on the project size and specific needs of the project and/or expectations of project stakeholders. The time and effort spent on the workshop have an insignificant impact on the final project schedule and redesign costs.

Typically, in the initial phases of detailed design, a team of independent SMEs, a value methodology facilitator, and often project stakeholders is formed to attend a workshop to conduct value studies in accordance with a Value Engineering (VE) Job Plan. As previously noted, Job plan is a systematic action plan for performing value studies and documenting the outcomes in an organized manner.

To follow the action plan delineated in the VE Job Plan, the following phases are completed one after another (SAVE International, 2020):

Preparation: in this phase, preparatory activities are performed to reach common ground among the members of the value team while facilitating team building.

Information: project information including scope, objectives, project commitments, and constraints are collected and shared among the members of the value team. In this phase, value team members aim to identify various aspects of the project which are most likely to yield value improvement. To achieve this objective, the team members will utilize a variety of tools and techniques including cost engineering techniques, FAST (Function Analysis Systems Technique), expert judgement and information gathering techniques to identify opportunities for value improvement. These opportunities will be the focus areas of the VE/VA team going forward.

Function Analysis: the project is analyzed to understand the required functions of various scope elements. To achieve this objective, the value team collaborate and achieve consensus as to the needed functions. This phase serves as an essential component of each value study, and aims to evaluate each selected element (i.e., opportunity for value improvement) to determine its basic and secondary functions. It also aims to assess the costs of the element and the way the costs are distributed among its functions.

In this phase, the FAST diagramming technique is used extensively to perform function analysis. This analysis allows a multi-discipline team to collaborate and achieve consensus as to the needed functions (basic and secondary functions along with other functions such as all-time functions), in preparation for generating innovative ideas about how best to achieve the intended functions. In this phase, the team’s collaboration and interactions play central role in identifying functions and assessing value improvement opportunities. The team members collaborate and achieve consensus as to the needed functions in preparation for generating innovative ideas about how best to achieve the intended functions. In this phase, the team’s collaboration and interactions play central role in identifying functions and assessing value improvement opportunities.

Creativity: the value team generates ideas on ways to accomplish the required functions while enhancing the project’s performance, quality, and/or lower project costs. In this phase, the facilitator encourages the members of the value team to use brainstorming techniques to think creatively to generate ideas. The intent is for them to individually and collectively, come up with creative ideas and creatively identify value improvement opportunities by accounting for the functions identified in the previous phase.

Evaluation: Evaluate VE recommendations and select feasible ideas for development. During this phase, the value team aims to reduce the list of ideas to those most reasonable and feasible by analyzing advantages and disadvantages of each idea. To achieve this objective, a variety of techniques are used to evaluate and prioritize ideas. Examples of these techniques include weighting techniques and life-cycle cost assessment techniques. The facilitator plays a key role in facilitation discussions among the team members to assess the viability and reasonableness of value improvement ideas.

Development: Develop the selected alternatives into fully supported recommendations. The phase involves the advancement of the VE/VA team’s ideas to the level of value improvement recommendations. The selected recommendations will ultimately be presented as the outcomes of the value study. In this phase, the value team uses a variety of techniques to further develop the ideas. Examples include:
Diagramming,
Sketching,
Perfuming calculations,
Preparing graphics,
Furnishing reports,
Reaching out to other specialists or stakeholders to obtain supplemental information, and
Present the selected recommendations as to the outcomes of the value study.

In doing so, each team member will contribute to a written report. In general, the value study team will also prepare and deliver a brief presentation at the completion of the study to present the recommendations and share their findings with the executive decision team and other project stakeholders.

Presentation: In this phase, the outcome of the development phase will be presented on the final study day to project stakeholders and decision-makers who were not directly engaged in value studies. In this phase, the members of the value team collaborate and interact with each other to develop the agreed-upon recommendations for presentation to the project stakeholders and the executive decision team. Team members will present value improvement recommendations in their areas of practice or expertise. They present value improvement recommendations they personally assessed and developed during the study. This information will be incorporated into the final report.

Implementation: This phase focuses on determining the disposition of the value recommendation and validating its impact on the value of the project.

The above-noted steps outlined the main phases of a Job Plan that needs to be followed like an action plan to achieve the objectives of a value study. The following section explains how value studies might be used during the construction phase.

4- Construction

During the construction phase, value studies may still be conducted in different forms. The need for conducting value studies arises during the construction phase primarily in the following two situations:

Often a value study performed in the previous development phases of a construction project identifies that further studies should be performed on certain elements of the project scope of work once the work has further progressed. For example, a new construction material is often identified by a value study in the conceptual design phase as a material that potentially results in cost savings. However, such decisions cannot often be finalized unless further investigation is performed during the construction phase to ensure the new material has the characteristics that the design requires.

Often a construction contractor identifies elements of the scope of work that can be improved if a value study is performed. In some cases, performing such studies is among the contractual requirements. Because of its potential benefits, some government agencies or project owners have made value studies a required component of construction projects. For example, incentive clauses of some construction contracts often allow for sharing cost savings between a contractor and project owner if the contractor performs a value study and find creative ideas for alternative ways to accomplish the required functions of a work element. Examples of these contract clauses include the value engineering incentive clauses and the value program requirements clauses.

Value engineering incentive clauses are utilized for soliciting contractor or vendor inputs. To do so, their inputs as obtained in the form of a change proposal using a mechanism that is referred to as a value engineering change proposal (VECP). The VM Guide defines VECP as a “change submitted by a contractor, pursuant to a contract provision, to improve the value of the project or product under contract. VECPs are a vehicle to incentivize contractor innovation and are commonly used in public sector contracts” (SAVE International, 2020, p. 139)

The Code of Federal Regulations defines VECP as a “construction contract change proposal submitted by the construction contractor based on a VECP provision in the contract. These proposals may improve the project’s performance, value and/or quality, lower construction costs, or shorten the delivery time, while considering their impacts on the project’s overall life-cycle

cost and other applicable factors.” (The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR): Title 23 CFR Part 627.3 Highways, 2020) On some projects, the bidders can suggest alternative means and methods and design features to meet the goals of the project at a lesser cost and/or time of performance.

Cost savings resulting from approved and implemented VECPs are typically shared (i.e., typically a 50-50 sharing rule is used unless the contract parties agree otherwise) between the project owner and contractor. According to SAVE International, an “acceptable VECP must

meet two tests: it must require a change in some contract provision, and it must reduce the contract price. A complete VECP should contain information similar to a VM

proposal” (SAVE International, 2020, p. 148).

Value program requirements clauses are slightly different. Such clauses aim to ensure continuous consideration of potential innovations and improvements over the course of the project. Value program requirements clauses require the construction contractor to conduct value studies that are going to be funded by the owner as a separate line item of work under the contract. They may still allow for incentive sharing for each proposal but typically the contractor’s proportion of cost savings is smaller than under an incentive provision because the cost of such studies is typically paid by the project owner.

5- Close-out

During the closeout phase, the outcomes of value studies performed over the course of the project are documented and lessons learned are recorded. In addition, organizational process assets are updated based on historical records of value studies, and administrative closures are taken place.

Conclusion

This article described the value methodology, explained how this methodology can be used in various development phases of a construction project, and identified the benefits of value studies in various stages of a construction project. It was explained that the construction process, is typically divided into the five essential development phases of planning, conceptual design, detailed design, construction, and close-out. Value studies are conducted in each of these development phases with a slightly different set of objectives. A typical value study is conducted according to a Job Plan, and each value study aims to address each phase in the VE Job Plan; however, the level of analysis performed, and efforts spent in each VE Job Plan phase may be adjusted not only based on the needs of each project but also based on the needs of the project’s current development phase.

List of References

Anderson, S. D., Molenaar, K. R., & Schexnayder, C. J. (2007). Guidance for cost estimation and management for highway projects during planning, programming, and preconstruction (Vol. 574). Transportation Research Board.

Cullen, S. W. (2021). Value Engineering. Whole Building Design Guide. https://www.wbdg.org/resources/value-engineering

FHWA. (2021). The Value Engineering (VE) Process and Job Plan. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ve/veproc.cfm

PMI. (2021). The Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide) – Seventh Edition. Project Management Institute.

SAVE International. (2020). VM Guide: A Guide to the Value Methodology Body of Knowledge.

The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR): Title 23 CFR Part 627.3 Highways. (2020). Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-2020-title23-vol1/pdf/CFR-2020-title23-vol1.pdf

Variation and Variation Orders: Important Considerations

Posted on March 27, 2019March 27, 2019 by Adroit

Introduction

A variety of reasons may increase or decrease the amount of work required by a contract. These increases or decreases are either directed or constructive. This article briefly describes each of these main categories of variation. It also outlines the potential implications of variations and variation orders from the time and cost management perspectives.

In general, owners have the contractual right to make changes to the work outlined in the original contract. The terms variations, modification, and changes are often used interchangeably.

Variation types

Since variations not only impact contract scope of work but also they potentially have time and cost implications, it is important to identify various types of variations and recognize potential effect of each type of variation on contracts. Examples of the most common variations include:

Changes in means and methods or material to be installed
Differing or unforeseen site conditions not envisioned in the original contract price
Modifications that change the planned work sequence as originally envisioned
Changes to the scope of work due to constructability issues or conflicts between work elements
Changes in plans and specifications
Corrections made due to errors or omissions
Modifications as a result of the actions or inactions of third-parties

Directed variations

A directed variation is issued when the owner specifically directs the contractor to make a change. This type of variation may or may not affect the contract price. A directed variation that influences only the schedule is an example of a directed variation with no effect on the contract price. As another example, a directed variation that impacts a project’s configuration, work sequence, or space requirements may adversely influence labor and equipment productivity on-site. A directed variation with cost impact may reduce or add the contract price. Directed variations are typically not complicated because the owner specifically directs the contractor to make a change and as such, directed variations are easier to deal with.

Constructive variations

Constructive variations, on the other hand, occur as a result of non-owner-directed events that implicitly necessitate a variation. Unlike directed variations, the owner does not specifically direct the contractor to make a change in case of a constructive variation. Instead, as a result of non-owner-directed events or actions or inactions of the owner, the contractor is forced to modify the scope specified in the contract or incur additional costs. Typically, constructive variations are not easy to recognize because they generally occur due to non-owner-directed events or circumstances. In addition, in case of a constructive variation, the owner does not typically have an explicit acknowledgment of a variation to the original scope of work set forth in the contract. Examples of the most common types of constructive variations include:

Verbal communications that implicitly necessitate making changes
Deficient drawings or specifications
Ambiguity in architect-provided responses to information requests
Differing site conditions
Over-inspection

Implications

Although deductive variations exist, variations typically increase contract prices. This increase is due to increases to direct material, labor, and equipment prices. Nevertheless, the impacts of variations are often not limited to direct costs. Variations often result in the loss of efficiency and as such, the adverse effects of variations need to closely be examined to ensure their consequences are fully evaluated.

Conclusion

It is important to identify variations in a timely manner, especially in case of constructive variations whose effects are not explicit and readily recognizable. The reasons for each variation need to properly be identified and documented in proper tracking logs. Moreover, the effects and implications of each variation need to properly be documented to ensure sufficient documentation and historical records are readily accessible to substantiate contractual entitlements.

Author: Dr. Maryam Mirhadi, PMP, PSP | CEO and Principal Consultant

If your project has been affected by multiple variations or variation order and they have adversely affected labor or equipment productivity on-site, or if you are interested to investigate the extent of time and cost impacts due to variation orders, Adroit will be able to assist in assessing these impacts. For more information, please contact us.

Evaluating Activity Logic Relationships: A New Perspective

Posted on March 25, 2019March 27, 2019 by Adroit

Project schedules are among the key project artifacts that are used as a basis for project control. They are one of the most effective ways that a project team can use to coordinate their activities. Project schedules play a key role in making such coordination and to facilitate achieving a project’s time objectives. However, project schedules can play this role only if they are prepared in a reasonable manner. The reasonableness of project schedules can be evaluated from various perspectives including consistency, clarity, completeness, and feasibility of construction plans.

The following are some of the main considerations that need to be given to developing project schedules to ensure they are reasonable:

The schedule is complete and entails all the activities that are needed to successfully implement the scope of work
Proper logical relationships (including finish-to-start, start-to-start-, start-to-finish, or finish-to-finish relationships along with proper lag and lead values) are used in creating the project network
An appropriate combination and choosing of activity relationships (including mandatory, preferential, and scenario-based relationships) are created to define activity dependencies
The schedule accounts for the technical, physical, and technological constraints of performing the work
The schedule meets proper contractual milestones, identifies all interim and ultimate contractual deliverables, and satisfies time and resource constraints outlined in the contract
The schedule is clear, reasonable, and complete
Different sections of the schedule are consistent in terms of the timeline, work priorities, and work sequence

As noted above, activity dependencies are among the key main considerations in developing well-prepared schedules. A project network not only contains project activities but also defines activity dependencies (also known as activity ties or activity relationships). A variety of activity dependencies exists, and activity relationships are categorized in different ways.

Activity dependencies can be categorized based on the nature of dependencies that exist between project activities. From this perspective, activity dependencies are often categorized into the following two types of dependencies:

Mandatory dependency (also known as hard logic): This relationship represents a dependency that is necessary or inherent in the nature of the work.
Discretionary dependency (also known as soft, preferred, or preferential logic): This type of dependency represents preferential logic that is used to establish a desired sequence of work despite alternative sequences that are acceptable.

It is important to note, however, that mandatory and discretionary relationships are not the only activity relationships that are used in project schedules. To better identify activity dependencies, it is suggested that activity dependencies are further categorized as shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Activity relationship types

As this figure shows, mandatary relationships can further be broken down into the following three types:

Imposed relationships: Imposed relationships are those relationships that need to be built into a project schedule to satisfy legal, regulatory or contractual requirements. An example includes a contractually-imposed requirement that mandates using a phased approach (where a portion of work has to be implemented after another portion) in completing certain elements of work.
Physical relationships: This relationship represents a dependency that has to be established between two or more activities due to the nature of the work. An example of dependencies that are inherent in the nature of the work is the need to place a foundation first before erecting a column atop the foundation.
Safety relationships: This relationship represents a dependency that has to be established between two or more activities to ensure safety considerations are accounted for in sequencing project activities. An example of a safety relationship is the need to avoid concurrent logic in scheduling two activities that cannot be undertaken simultaneously because of safety concerns (e.g., a crew that cannot work on the second floor of a building because of the ongoing work on the first floor).

Sometimes, project scheduling professionals use scenario-based relationships to define dependencies between project activities. The current article uses the term scenario-based to characterize these relationships because depending on the implementation strategy chosen to execute a project, scenario-based relationships may or may not be used in defining work sequences. Resource relationships are examples of scenario-based relationships. Resource relationships are often added to the project schedule due to resource management concerns (e.g., resource constraints).

For example, if a contractor needs to implement two non-causally-related activities, each of which requiring a crane, the contractor may decide to add a finish-to-start relationship between the two activities if the contractor has only one crane in its possession. In this example, the two activities are not causally related; however, based on the scenario described, the contractor has established a relationship between these two activities to satisfy its resource constraint. If the contractor had two cranes in its possession, defining a dependency between the two activities was unnecessary because as noted above, the activities are presumably not causally linked. Therefore, it is reasonable to recognize the above-referenced activity relationship as a scenario-based relationship because these relationships may or may not be used depending on the implementation scenario or strategy used.

Not all scenario-based relationships are resource relationships; therefore, in Figure 1, scenario-based relationships are broken down into the two main types of resource relationships and others. An example of other scenario based dependencies includes a dependency that is established between two activities based on an assumed what-if scenario to manage a likely change in the project scope of work. This relationship may or may not be required to be established depending on whether the change occurs or not.

The last category of activity relationships is improper relationships that consist of redundant, incorrect logic, and logic loops. Incorrect logic relationships can further be categorized into errors, missing logic, out-of-sequence, and improper use of lags and leads. These relationships will be described in greater depth in a future article.

Planning and scheduling professionals need to make informed decisions in selecting and using the right relationship type. In general, it is suggested that only mandatory relationships are used in developing project schedules unless the use of discretionary or scenario-based relationships is justified. Similarly, the use of preferential relationships may not be appropriate in demonstrating that a schedule follows a reasonable logic. It is recommended that, instead of resource constraints, planning and scheduling professionals use resource leveling techniques to ensure the schedule is not bounded by too many dependencies that could have otherwise been accounted for.

Assessing activity relationships is critical in preparing or investigating time extension requests or delay assessments because a proper delay analysis has to be based on a reasonable schedule. A delay analysis based on a project schedule that contains questionable activity relationships is defective. Project planning and scheduling, forensic scheduling experts, and claim management professionals need to ensure project schedules are free of improper relationships. Otherwise, the schedule will not be reliable or reasonable and it may not serve its purpose.

Author: Dr. Amin Terouhid, PE, PMP, PSP | Principal Consultant

If you are interested to find out more about the main considerations in developing or evaluating project schedules, please contact us. Adroit’s consultants have demonstrated their expertise in developing, updating, constructability review, and forensic evaluation of project schedules and will be able to assist. You may also be interested to read the following articles:

Schedule constructability review, what does it entail?

Schedule constructability review, what does it entail?

Assessing Concurrent Delays: A Challenging Exercise

Posted on January 28, 2019January 28, 2019 by Adroit

Concurrent delays frequently occur in construction projects, especially in complex construction projects in which various contracting parties implement and are responsible for a variety of activities over the project life cycle. Assessing concurrent delays is among the most challenging forensic delay analysis practices because, contractual, legal, and technical considerations add several layers of complexity to cases of concurrent delays.

A project network not only contains project activities but also defines activity dependencies (also known as activity ties or activity relationships). Two or more delayed activities in a project network may be identified to be concurrent when they, partly or wholly, overlap one another. Therefore, a project network is a key tool to identify what activities partly or wholly overlap and what their dependencies are. Courts, boards of contract appeals, and experts, however, are inconsistent in their approach to defining concurrent delays.

Definitions

Experts rely on different references for the definition of concurrent delays. In the United States, one of the technical references that is commonly-cited in delay claims is AACE International Recommended Practice (RP) 10S-90, entitled Cost Engineering Terminology. RP 10S-90, however, does not offer one single definition of concurrent delays. Two of these definitions are provided below (AACE International, 2017, p. 21);

(1) Two or more delays that take place or overlap during the same period, either of which occurring alone would have affected the ultimate completion date.

(2) Concurrent delays occur when there are two or more independent causes of delay during the same time period. The “same” time period from which concurrency is measured, however, is not always literally within the exact period of time. For delays to be considered concurrent, most courts do not require that the period of concurrent delay precisely match. The period of “concurrency” of the delays can be related by circumstances, even though the circumstances may not have occurred during exactly the same time of period.

Another commonly-cited technical reference is AACE International RP 29R-03, entitled forensic schedule analysis. RP 29R-03 identifies that the following tests must be proven to ensure concurrent delays exist (AACE International, 2011):

Two or more unrelated, independent delays exist. One of these delays can a delay arisen from a force majeure event.
None of the delays identified in Step 1 can be a voluntary delay.
Not all delayed activities identified in Step 1 are the responsibility of only one contracting party.
The project completion date would have been delayed in the absence of any of the delays identified in Step 1.
The delayed work has to be substantial (i.e., not easily correctable).

The meaning of concurrent delay is different in the English Law. The following are two excerpts that help illustrate the meaning of concurrent delay under the English law:

True concurrent delay is the occurrence of two or more delay events at the same time, one an Employer Risk Event, the other a Contractor Risk Event, and the effects of which are felt at the same time… In contrast, a more common usage of the term ‘concurrent delay’ concerns the situation where two or more delay events arise at different times, but the effects of them are felt at the same time. In both cases, concurrent delay does not become an issue unless each of an Employer Risk Event and a Contractor Risk Event lead or will lead to Delay to Completion. Hence, for concurrent delay to exist, each of the Employer Risk Event and the Contractor Risk Event must be an effective cause of Delay to Completion (not merely incidental to the Delay to Completion) (The Society of Construction Law, 2017).
Concurrent delay is used to denote a period of project overrun which is caused by two or more effective causes of delay which are of approximately equal causative potency (Marrin, 2012).

Entitlements

Concurrent delays typically entitle contractors to time extension, but not time-related delay damages. In other words, if a contractor is able to demonstrate the presence of concurrent delays, it may be entitled solely to time extension for the net period of the concurrent delay.

It is important to note that in some cases, two or more delays occur concurrently (overlap one another to some extent), all of which are the responsibility of one single contracting party. In that case, the net effect of the concurrent delays have to be taken into account in assessing delays. For instance, if two overlapping 5 day owner-caused delays exist, entirely overlapping each other, the contractor is only entitled to a single 5-day time extension. As another example, if a contractor is found to be responsible for a 10-day delay, 7 of which are concurrent with another contractor-caused delay, the contractor is ultimately responsible for 10 days of delay, not 17 days.

In a similar way, if both an owner and a contractor concurrently contribute to the occurrence of a critical path delay (i.e., a delay that ultimately results in the delay of the project completion date), none of the contracting parties is typically entitled to collecting delay damages from the other party unless delay responsibilities can be apportioned between the parties.

In the event of a concurrent delay, the time impact of a contractor-caused delay on a project’s longest path may be greater in magnitude than the time impact of an owner-caused delay. Under such circumstances, it is sound to expect that the owner is entitled to collect delay damages for the excess impact. Conversely, the time impact of an owner-caused delay on a project’s longest path may exceed the time impact of a contractor-caused delay. Thus, it is critical to perform forensic schedule analysis and closely examine the cases of concurrency to properly allocate responsibilities for delays and specify proper entitlements.

Although definitions of concurrent delays exist in the literature, any assessment of concurrent delays has to start with performing a liability analysis (i.e., entitlement assessment) based on contractual rights and duties of contracting parties. Performing such liability assessments is necessary because the contract may specify how the cases of concurrency are characterized and how they are supposed to be assessed and/or dealt with.

The lack of clear contractual procedures for concurrent delays increases the likelihood of delay-related disputes. As noted above, courts, boards of contract appeals, and experts are inconsistent in their approach to characterizing and assessing concurrent delays. Therefore, it is important that the parties exercise due diligent in preparing unambiguous contract language that facilitates successful resolution of delay-related matters before they result in a conflict.

Moreover, if a party is in a position to negotiate over the provisions of a contract, it is recommended that it negotiates to reach an agreement, prior to signing the contract, on definitions of and procedures for assessing various types of delays including concurrent delays. Such definitions and procedures combined with the use of sound forensic schedule analysis techniques can play key roles in minimizing and/or successful resolution of delay-related disputes.

References:

AACE International. (2011). Recommended Practice No. 29R-03 Forensic Schedule Analysis. Morgantown, WV, USA: AACE International®.

AACE International. (2017). Recommended Practice No. 10S-90 Cost Engineering Terminology. Morgantown, WV, USA: AACE International®.

Marrin, J. (2012). Concurrent Delay Revisited 2. Presented at the Society of Construction Law Meeting, London, England (December 4, 2012).

The Society of Construction Law. (2017). Delay and Disruption Protocol, 2nd edition (DDP2). Retrieved from https://www.scl.org.uk/sites/default/files/SCL_Delay_Protocol_2nd_Edition.pdf

Author: Dr. Amin Terouhid, PE, PMP, PSP | Principal Consultant

Amin Terouhid is a construction claims expert and a Principal Consultant with Adroit Consultants, LLC. He was a recipient of the 2018 AACE Technical Excellence Award.

Note: If you are interested to find out more about the main considerations in assessing concurrent delays, please contact us. Adroit’s consultants have demonstrated their expertise in performing delay analysis and will be able to assist. You may also be interested to read the following articles:

Adverse effects of schedule deficiencies on claim administration

Mandatory, Discretionary, Scenario-based, and Improper Activity Relationships: Theoretical and Practical Considerations

Posted on January 16, 2019January 16, 2019 by Adroit

Project networks play important roles in carrying out construction activities in a timely manner, and they are among the key means of communication that project teams use to coordinate their efforts throughout the process of construction. Project networks are also among the key project artifacts that are used for preparing or investigating time-related claims and for determining entitlements to time extensions and/or delay damages. Therefore, it is important to have a more in-depth knowledge of activity dependencies and their types.

Activity dependencies are among the key characteristics and building blocks of project schedules. A project network not only contains project activities but also defines activity dependencies (also known as activity ties or activity relationships). A variety of activity dependencies exists, and activity relationships are categorized in different ways.

The four main types of activity dependencies include Finish-to-Start (FS), Start-to-Start (SS), Start-to-Finish (SF), and Finish-to-Finish (FF). The following briefly describes these relationship types:

Finish-to-Start (FS): The successor activity cannot start unless the predecessor activity finishes.
Start-to-Start (SS): The successor activity cannot start unless the predecessor activity starts.
Start-to-Finish (SF): The successor activity cannot finish unless the predecessor activity starts.
Finish-to-Finish (FF): The successor activity cannot finish unless the predecessor activity finishes.

Activity dependencies can also be categorized based on the nature of dependencies that exist between project activities. From this perspective, activity dependencies are often categorized into the following two types of dependencies:

Mandatory dependency (also known as hard logic): This relationship represents a dependency that is necessary or inherent in the nature of the work.
Discretionary dependency (also known as soft, preferred, or preferential logic): This type of dependency represents preferential logic that is used to establish a desired sequence of work despite alternative sequences that are acceptable.

To better identify activity dependencies, it is suggested that activity dependencies are categorized as shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Activity relationship types

As this figure shows, mandatary relationships can further be broken down into the following three types:

Imposed relationships: Imposed relationships are those relationships that need to be built into a project schedule to satisfy legal, regulatory or contractual requirements. An example includes a contractually-imposed requirement that mandates using a phased approach (where a portion of work has to be implemented after another portion) in completing certain elements of work.
Physical relationships: This relationship represents a dependency that has to be established between two or more activities due to the nature of the work. An example of dependencies that are inherent in the nature of the work is the need to place a foundation first before erecting a column atop the foundation.
Safety relationships: This relationship represents a dependency that has to be established between two or more activities to ensure safety considerations are accounted for in sequencing project activities. An example of a safety relationship is the need to avoid concurrent logic in scheduling two activities that cannot be undertaken simultaneously because of safety concerns (e.g., a crew that cannot work on the second floor of a building because of the ongoing work on the first floor).

Assessing activity relationships is critical in preparing or investigating time extension requests or delay assessments because a proper delay analysis has to be based on a reasonable schedule. A delay analysis based on a project schedule that contains questionable activity relationships is defective. Project planning and scheduling, forensic scheduling experts, and claim management professionals need to ensure project schedules are free of improper relationships (i.e., redundant, incorrect logic, and logic loops). Otherwise, the schedule will not be reliable or reasonable and it may not serve its purpose.

Author: Dr. Amin Terouhid, PE, PMP, PSP | Principal Consultant

Note:

Adverse effects of schedule deficiencies on claim administration

Schedule constructability review, what does it entail?

The Key Issues with Dangling Activities

Loss of Productivity in Construction – Some Considerations

Posted on December 17, 2018 by Adroit

During construction projects, a contractor’s scope of work may be influenced by a wide range of factors with an adverse effect on the contractor’s labor or equipment productivity. In these cases, it is said that the contractor is facing a loss of productivity in performing its scope of work. The loss of productivity is considered a type of disruption. According to the Society of Construction Law (2017), disruption is “a disturbance, hindrance or interruption to a Contractor’s normal working methods, resulting in lower efficiency. Disruption claims relate to a loss of productivity in the execution of particular activities. Because of the disruption, these work activities are not able to be carried out as efficiently as reasonably planned (or as possible).” (p.44)

Some Considerations

It is important to note that a loss in productivity may or may not result in project delays. For example, if a contractor has not been able to achieve its intended productivity rate due to productivity factors that are in a client’s control, the loss of productivity may result in delays if some activities end up taking more than expected due to decreased levels of labor productivity. However, delays may not be caused in some cases of disruption. An example is the case of acceleration, which has a possible disruptive effect on a contractor’s work. If instructed, a contractor may accelerate its work using a wide range of methods such as by increasing project resources (e.g., labor) that are allocated to activities or by elongating working hours. For instance, an owner-issued acceleration order does not cause delays but instead, the contractor incurs additional costs to accelerate the work. Therefore, an owner instruction for acceleration may give rise to a claim for requesting additional compensation and seeking productivity-related damages if the contractor believes it has not been fairly compensated for the damages incurred as a result of an acceleration.

Assessment Methods

To properly analyze cases of disruption from the contractors’ perspective, the main causes of disruption need to be closely analyzed. In addition, the time periods in which disruptions have occurred and the activities that are influenced should be identified. For this type of analysis, a cause-and-effect analysis will provide proper insight into the underlying causes of disruption. However, further investigation will be required to identify the extent productivity factors have impacted the work or resulted in additional costs. Some of the common methods of disruption analysis that may help in identifying the extent of impacts include the following (Society of Construction Law, 2017):

Measured mile
Earned Value
Program analysis
Work or trade sampling
System dynamic modeling
Estimated vs. incurred labor
Estimated vs. used cost

Keeping detailed project records over the course of a project plays an important role in properly evaluating disruption claims. Some of the documents that need to be recorded include daily job-site reports, detailed performance reports, daily logs containing actual man-hours spent, details of change orders and the basis of calculating proposed time and cost proposals for executing change orders, and correspondences between the contracting parties.

Conclusion

In sum, the main causes of disruption need to closely be analyzed in disruption cases. For this type of analysis, cause-and-effect analyses provide proper insight into the underlying causes of disruptions. Further investigations that make use of loss of productivity assessment methods will identify the extent productivity factors have impacted the work or resulted in additional costs.

Reference:

Society of Construction Law. (2017). Delay and disruption protocol. Society of Construction Law.

Author: Dr. Maryam Mirhadi, PMP, PSP | CEO and Principal Consultant

If your project has been affected by disruptions and if changes have adversely affected labor or equipment productivity on-site, or if you are interested to find out more about productivity in construction projects, please contact us. Adroit’s consultants have demonstrated their expertise in the use of the loss of productivity assessment methods and will be able to assist. You may also be interested to read the following articles:

Cumulative Impact Claims

https://www.adroitprojectconsultants.com/2018/10/29/cumulative-impact-claims/

Adverse effects of shiftwork on labor productivity

https://www.adroitprojectconsultants.com/2018/03/24/adverse-effects-shiftwork-labor-productivity/

MCAA Labor Productivity Factors

https://www.adroitprojectconsultants.com/2018/11/24/mcaa-labor-productivity-factors/

MCAA Labor Productivity Factors

Posted on November 24, 2018November 24, 2018 by Adroit

Changes that are made to a contract scope of work and modifications of work conditions are among the key causes of conflict in construction projects. When a contractor is faced with changed conditions or needs to work under circumstances that force the contractor to work while its productivity is less than what it expected, the contractor is, in fact, working in the state of inefficiency. The loss of productivity results in monetary damages because working inefficiently forces contractors to incur labor or equipment costs more than what they originally expected. One of the references that claim administration professionals use for quantifying the adverse impact of change on labor productivity is the MCAA labor productivity factors.

The phrases inefficiency and loss of productivity can be used interchangeably. Proving and quantifying the adverse impact of change on the labor productivity of a contractor is, in fact, one of the most challenging topics in construction claims. One of the references that is often used to quantify the adverse impact of change on labor productivity percentages of contractors is a reference published by the Mechanical Contractors Association of America (MCAA) within which labor productivity factors are identified.

MCAA focuses on the special needs of the firms that are involved in heating, air conditioning, refrigeration, plumbing, piping, and mechanical service. In 1971, MCAA published a reference entitled Management Methods Manual, in which it identified factors affecting productivity. The latest MCAA publications, including the 2018 edition of MCAA’s guideline, entitled, Change Orders, Productivity, Overtime—A Primer for the Construction Industry, still contains these labor productivity factors [1]. These productivity factors have also been endorsed by other professional associations including the Sheet Metal & Air Conditioning Contractors’ National Association’s (SMACNA).

The MCAA factors are also known as MCAA labor productivity factors. These factors identify the major causes of labor productivity loss experienced by mechanical contractors. As such, they can be used not only to estimate the adverse effects of particular productivity factors on labor productivity levels but also to measure the extent a contractor has incurred damages as a result of estimated losses of labor productivities encountered over the course of a project.

The MCAA labor productivity factors include factors such as the following:

Stacking of trades
Crew size inefficiencies
Site access issues
The ripple effect, and
Overtime and shift work

Some critiques indicate that the MCAA factors are not based on the outcome of empirical studies to determine the percentages of loss of labor productivity arisen from specific productivity factors. However, the MCAA factors have successfully been used in many cases brought to courts or reviewed by boards of contract appeals. An example of these cases is the case of CLARK CONCRETE CONTRACTORS, INC., v. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, in which, the use of the MCAA factors is described as follows:

To assess the impact of unanticipated conditions on productivity …, P&K used a manual published by the Mechanical Contractors Association of America (MCA). This manual was the same one P&K used, with reference to labor rates, in constructing its bid for the project. P&K has used it on other projects to measure similar impacts, and the publication is generally accepted in the mechanical industry for this purpose… We have previously accepted the use of this manual for this purpose as well. Stroh Corp., 96-1 BCA at 141,132; see also Fire Securities Systems, Inc., VABCA 3086, 91-2 BCA 23,743, at 118,902. The manual lists various types of impacts and, for each, a percentage of labor costs which represents loss of labor productivity under each of minor, average, and severe impacts. [2]

It is important to note that MCAA factors can be used both prospectively and retrospectively. In using the MCAA factors prospectively, a contractor may use the MCAA guideline to price a lost productivity element of a change order proposal to quantify the extent that the labor productivity of the contractor may be impacted as a result of a change. In using the MCAA factors retrospectively, a contractor, however, may use the MCAA guideline to retrospectively quantify the impacts of change on the labor productivity as experienced by a contractor. A retrospective quantification of the impacts of change on a contractor’s labor productivity may become necessary because no other method might be available to measure labor productivity of the contractor over the course of the project due to the lack of detailed records of labor hour tracking.

It is important to use the MCAA productivity factors properly. The method is relevant to the work of mechanical contractors but the use of this method for contractors that work in other disciplines may not be appropriate. In addition, if a contractor has maintained proper, detailed records of labor hour tracking over the course of a project, the use of the MCAA labor productivity factors may not be the best choice of the loss of labor productivity assessment method. That is because the presence of detailed records of labor hour tracking over the course of a project may enable a contractor to use a method such as the measured mile method which may be identified to be a more appropriate method depending on the specifics of a case. The measured mile method measures labor productivity levels during a relatively un-impacted reference period with performance on the same or similar work (similar in type, nature, and complexity) during an impacted period. This method then calculates the productivity for both periods of time and identifies the difference between the two as the productivity loss attributed to the impact.

It is important that claims administration professionals assess the circumstances that have given rise to a claim for loss of labor productivity and decide whether the use of the MCAA labor productivity factors is appropriate. Although the MCAA guideline is not based on the outcome of an empirical study to determine the percentages of loss of labor productivity arisen from specific productivity factors, it has successfully been used in many cases brought to courts or reviewed by boards of contract appeals. However, claims administration professionals and experts need to apply the MCAA guideline with careful consideration once the facts surrounding the claim have closely be examined.

References:

[1] Mechanical Contractors Association of America [MCAA] (2018) Change Orders, Productivity, Overtime—A Primer for the Construction Industry, MCAA. Retrieved 24 November 2018, from https://www.mcaa.org/resource/change-orders-productivity-overtime-a-primer-for-the-construction-industry-2/

[2] CLARK CONCRETE CONTRACTORS, INC., v. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION. Retrieved from https://www.gsbca.gsa.gov/appeals/w1434015.txt

Author: Dr. Amin Terouhid, P.E., PMP | Principal Consultant

If your project has been affected by change orders and if changes have adversely affected labor or equipment productivity on-site, or if you are interested to find out more about labor productivity factors, please contact us. Adroit’s consultants have demonstrated their expertise in the use of this method and will be able to assist. You may also be interested to read the following articles:

Cumulative Impact Claims

Types of Change in Projects

UAVs (i.e., Drones) and Their Applications in Construction

Posted on November 18, 2018 by Adroit

One of the emerging technologies in the construction industry is the use of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) or drones. In recent years, the use of UAVs in the construction industry is becoming more commonplace and a variety of applications for these devices have started to emerge. Some of the applications of UAVs in the construction industry include project monitoring, project status reporting, surveying, generating maps, and inspection activities.

UAVs significantly facilitate site monitoring of large construction projects by capturing real-time or as-built data. Additionally, as Liu et al. stated in their article, pictures, and videos that UAVs capture help to collect progress data, monitor and control safety practices, and perform inspection, especially for the areas that are hard-to-reach and are not easy to be inspected (as cited in Ham et al., 2016). Some examples of the tools that can be attached to UAVs include high-resolution cameras, RFID readers and laser scanner (Moud et al., 2018).

Despite their several advantages, UAVs may expose their users to some negative risks. In addition, the use of UAVs may be challenging under certain circumstances. For real-time project monitoring and control, UAVs need to collect large amounts of visual data in one single flight. This collected data then needs to be processed, analyzed, and linked to construction elements and activities. Some of the other challenges that users may encounter in using UAVs include independent path planning, the security of UAVs and their in-flight information that is collected, and data collection configuration management to ensure all needed information has properly been captured.

UAVs have also direct and indirect safety hazards for construction site workers. An example of direct hazards of UAVs for construction work include objects that may fall as the result of the collision of a UAV with an element onsite. UAVs may also pose hazards on-site in an indirect manner such as distracting workers due to the movement and sound of UAVs on a construction site (Moud et al., 2018, Ham et al., 2016).

Overcoming technical and managerial challenges that are associated with the use of UAVs in the construction industry requires the use of inter-disciplinary approaches that focus on the applications of these devices in construction and evaluation of particular uses of these devices in construction-related activities. As an example, UAVs are able to recognize the key construction elements and some of their attributes based on a 3D model of a construction site or a facility. Incorporating the data that UAVs collect on a construction site into Building Information Modelling (BIM) platforms may significantly facilitate the process of data analysis, may help reduce safety hazards and/or negative risks associated with using UAVs.

Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) or drones are increasingly used in the construction industry for project monitoring, project status reporting, surveying, generating maps, inspection activities, and many other applications. A familiarity with the capabilities of these devices and assessing both the threats posed by these devices and the opportunities that they bring about are important to ensure these devices are used in the most effective manner on construction sites.

References

Ham, Y., Han, K. K., Lin, J. J., & Golparvar-Fard, M. (2016). Visual monitoring of civil infrastructure systems via camera-equipped Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs): a review of related works. Visualization in Engineering, 4(1), 1.

Moud, H. I., Shojaei, A., Flood, I., Zhang, X., & Hatami, M. (2018, July). Qualitative and Quantitative Risk Analysis of Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Flights over Construction Job Sites. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Advanced Communications and Computation (INFOCOMP 2018), Barcelona, Spain (pp. 22-26).

Author: Maryam Mirhadi, Ph.D., PMP | CEO and Principal Consultant

Schedule constructability review, what does it entail?

Posted on November 12, 2018November 12, 2018 by Adroit

Dr. Maryam Mirhadi, PMP, PSP

Project schedules play important roles in coordinating the efforts of project team members and identifying the priorities in performing the work. A project work is decomposed into smaller, more manageable pieces of work once work breakdown structures are prepared. The project schedule is then developed to ensure all responsible parties and team members take each and every step that is needed to achieve time, cost, and scope objectives. But an important question that needs to be answered once a project schedule is prepared is how a project team can ensure the schedule is prepared in an appropriate manner? How can project teams make sure the project schedule is reasonable and contains all necessary elements and logical relationships that the project team needs to successfully implement the project? Schedule constructability reviews are expected to answer such questions. Such reviews aim to build confidence in the project schedule by evaluating it and creating a basis for further improvements. This article aims to define what purposes schedule constructability review intends to serve and how a schedule constructability review is performed.

A schedule constructability review verifies that the schedule under investigation meets and/or exceeds the minimum requirements of preparing project schedules. It aims to assess project schedules to ensure they properly represent the steps that need to be taken in implementing the project and verify the feasibility of the construction plan. Schedule constructability reviews aim to closely examine project schedules and determine if they satisfy the requirements outlined in the project scope of work, and confirm that they meet the needs and expectations of project stakeholders, and satisfy technical and contractual requirements of performing the work.

The Construction Industry Institute (CII) defines constructability as “the optimum use of construction knowledge and experience in planning, design/engineering, procurement, and field operations to achieve overall project objectives.” (Construction Industry Institute, 1986) In a similar way, AACE International defines constructability as a “system (process) for achieving optimum integration of construction knowledge in the construction process, balancing various project and environmental constraints to achieve maximization of project goals and performance.” (AACE International, 2017, p. 23) These definitions can be adopted and be used in the context of assessing project schedules to determine the types of evaluations that need to be performed when a schedule is assessed for constructability. Based on these definitions, it is expected that a schedule constructability review identifies schedule deficiencies such as poor logic, improper duration estimates, omissions, inconsistencies, and conflicts to ensure the schedule is reasonable and sound.

Similar to the way constructability reviews are performed to evaluate construction documents for consistency, clarity, completeness, reasonableness, and feasibility of construction plans, schedule constructability reviews are performed to ensure that a schedule meets the following requirements:

Project work packages and activities are properly identified
The schedule is complete and entails all the activities that are needed to successfully implement the scope of work
Proper logical relationships (including finish-to-start, start-to-start-, start-to-finish, or finish-to-finish relationships along with proper lag and lead values) are used in creating the project network
An appropriate combination and choosing of activity relationships (including physical, preferential, resource, and safety relationships) have been created to define activity dependencies
The schedule accounts for the technical and technological constraints of performing the work
The schedule accounts for site restrictions and physical and space constraints
The schedule meets proper contractual milestones, identifies all interim and ultimate contractual deliverables, and satisfies time and resource constraints outlined in the contract
The schedule is clear, reasonable, and complete
Different sections of the schedule are consistent in terms of the timeline, work priorities, and work sequence
The schedule accounts for preparation times, material and equipment lead times, and preparatory steps that need to be taken or prerequisite work that needs to be completed prior to the succeeding work elements

Since project schedules are prepared at different levels of detail in different stages of progress, schedule reviews need to be performed periodically to ensure project schedules meet the minimum requirements over the course of a project. Project schedules are progressively elaborated over the project lifecycle. In other words, as new information is obtained and scope is further developed, project schedules evolve into more detailed schedules that reflect an appropriate level of detail for that specific planning cycle. Therefore, project teams need to perform schedule constructability reviews periodically to ensure the schedule remains a reliable tool that is reasonable, well-thought-out, and compliant with the technical and contractual requirements.

References:

AACE International® (2018). Recommended Practice No. 10S-90 Cost Engineering Terminology. Morgantown, WV: AACE International. Retrieved from http://library.aacei.org/terminology/

Construction Industry Institute (CII). Constructability; A Primer, Publication RS3-1 (July), CM, Austin, Texas, 1986.

Note: Our competent experts have been the primary authors of two industry guidelines, entitled AACE International Recommended Practice 91R-16 Schedule Development and 89R-16 Management Summary Schedule. These industry guidelines are two of the key references used by cost engineers and project management professionals. If your firm is looking for experts who can assist in developing project schedules or performing schedule constructability reviews; and would like your schedules to be prepared using the best practices of project planning and scheduling, please contact us for a free consultation session.

The Key Issues with Dangling Activities

Posted on October 29, 2018October 31, 2018 by Adroit

Dr. Amin Terouhid, PE, PMP

Dangling activities (also known as dangles) are loosely-tied activities in project schedules. They are activities with either open start dates or open end dates. All activities, except the first activity of a network, need to have a predecessor; otherwise, they will have open start dates. Similarly, all activities, except the last activity of a network, need to have a successor; otherwise, they will have open end dates (also known as open-ended or open-end activities).

As noted above, every project activity and milestone except the first and last ones must have at least one predecessor and one successor. An example of the first activity of a network is the notice to proceed milestone and an example of the last activity of a network is the milestone that represents the project completion date. It is recommended that any project schedule starts with a start milestone and finishes with a finish milestone to ensure proper logical ties can be built into the network.

A project schedule that contains dangling activities has deficiencies because its logic is incomplete. This flaw makes the schedule unreliable and inaccurate because the schedule has not fully developed and some activity dependencies (i.e., logical ties) have not been properly identified. The four main types of activity ties include finish-to-finish (FF), finish-to-start (FS), start-to-start (SS) and start-to-finish (SF).

Here are the main issues with dangling activities:

In the event that a schedule contains a dangling activity, one cannot ensure that the projected start or finish dates accurately represent the planned dates because one or more logical ties are missing. For example, an activity with no predecessor (assuming that the activity is not the first activity of the network) has either been forced to be started or completed on particular dates using activity constraints or has been left fully unrestrained. The downside of the former is that instead of a logical tie, one or more constraints have been added to the schedule preventing the schedule from being flexible due to the use of activity constraints in place of activity ties. Schedules need to remain dynamic to ensure the time impact of a delay or a change to an activity’s duration can properly be transmitted to the rest of the project schedule. The disadvantage of the latter is that leaving the activity fully unrestrained allows the activity to move freely every time that the schedule’s as of date (i.e., data date) is changed.

Similarly, an activity with no successor (assuming that the activity is not the last activity of the network) makes the schedule unreliable because one cannot have confidence in the accuracy of the projected start and finish dates (e.g., the finish date of the network). This shortcoming is present because, in the event of a delay that adversely affects the dangling activity, the impact of this delay does not properly transmit to the rest of the schedule and as such, no activity in the network will be delayed as a result because the dangling activity has presumably no successor. In other words, the schedule will not properly be indicative of the impact of a delayed dangling activity because the network’s logic is incomplete. The same issue may become the case when an activity duration is changed because the time impact of a change to an activity’s duration is not properly transmitted to the rest of the project schedule due to the missing ties. A well-prepared project schedule must provide a full network that projects how the project schedule changes in case of a change to activity durations or in the event of delays.

Another issue with dangling activities may surface when delay claims arise. If a dangling activity is negatively affected by one or more delays, the adverse effect of these delays cannot properly be shown by the schedule. In other words, a schedule with an incomplete logic may not be a reliable tool to show the time impact of delays because the schedule logic is flawed. This deficiency results in underestimating the impact of delays. It is generally accepted that networks are reliable when they are fully developed because in this case, the activity ties define the dependencies between activities and accurately determine the projected start and finish dates.

In sum, every project activity and milestone except the first and last ones must have at least one predecessor and one successor. It is recommended that any project schedule starts with a start milestone and finishes with a finish milestone to ensure proper logical ties can be built into the network. The schedule model must identify all logical relationships to generate a full network. Schedules need to remain dynamic to ensure the time impact of a delay or a change to an activity’s duration can properly be transmitted to the rest of the project schedule. Loosely-tied activities are examples of schedule deficiencies that prevent schedules from properly showing the impact of delays or changes to the schedule on the rest of the network.

If you are in need of schedule development services or would like to monitor and control your schedules in an effective manner, Adroit will be able to assist. For more information, please contact us.