This Subject Series addresses the sources and implementation of a contract schedule specification.  The Subject Series structure will be multiple parts and be a logical extension of the series titled MANAGING RISK OF DELAY.

The overview of this series is:

• Managing Risk of Delay – Schedule Preparation and Maintenance (Part 4)
• Managing Risk of Delay – Schedule Specification Sources and Implementation (Part 8)
• Overview (this post)
• Paper by  Making State of the Art Scheduling Specifications Work (presented in multiple parts).

The balance of this post and subsequent ones in this series are/will be from the paper.  In general, this informative work compares two approaches to schedule specification implementation.

INTRODUCTION

The past decade has witnessed an explosion in affordable microcomputer-based scheduling software, a greater appreciation of the importance of CPM schedul­ing techniques in controlling time and cost, and a broader understanding of how to use these techniques within the construction industry.  The past ten years have also seen an increase in CPM schedule related disputes ranging from entitlement to delay damages to termination for default for failing to perform according to the approved progress schedule.  There are almost as many different scheduling specifications as there are construc­tion contracts.  Yet, as just one example, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps ofEngineers), the largest constructor in the world and a pioneer in requiring the use of CPM scheduling techniques on their projects, has not significantly changed its scheduling specification in the last ten years.

The Corps of Engineers scheduling specification has served as a model for many scheduling specifications in both the public and private sectors.  Recently, Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport (DFW) adopted a major revision to the Corps specification.  This paper examines some of the changes and the arguments that they’re designed to resolve.  [Snip]. [Read more…]