Why Sharing the Float is No Utopia, But Should Be
ENR Art Dept.
In CPM scheduling, sharing dominates but it hasn't proven to be the perfect solution yet.
ENR Art Dept.
Is Owning Float an Absurdity? Options and Motives Cited by Contractors and Construction Managers in Project Scheduling Decisions. William A Manginelli and his colleagues at Trauner Consulting Services say that manipulating or gaming the amount of float in a critical-path method schedule is difficult and perilous for contractors. But contractors and construction managers suggest that many of the decisions about how float is treated in contracts and the strategies used in preventing disputes over delays are based on worries about float ownership, hidden float and possible manipulation of the schedule.
We live in a new era of construction cooperation. When it comes to project float, sharing it between the contractor and owner is in, while exclusive float ownership by either party is out.
Although float is generally understood in the industry as extra time or leeway for completing a project schedule, its use remains controversial. At stake in the float debate are hundreds of millions of dollars lost or won in timely completions or delays. Some fervently support float sharing, believing it epitomizes fairness and harmony.
Others say float calculations are fraught with deception. Even if calculated honestly, float rightfully belongs to the owner or contractor for their exclusive benefit.
No wonder some contractors seem to be of two minds about the situation. "In the best of all possible worlds, if we were only looking out for ourselves, we would want to own the float," says Ronald Cortes, a vice president of Pittsburgh-based Mascaro Construction Co., a general contractor. "But we have to look out for our clients."
With some notable exceptions, contracts and U.S. courts that take up the issue of float are most likely to treat it as a shared resource. Federal contracting boards of appeal support shared float, and standard contract agreements used by the California Dept. of Transportation use a version of sharing. While courts in England haven't dealt directly with float ownership, the delay protocol used by England's Society of Construction Law suggests that, generally, the project owns the float.
And as one consultant put it, judges have shown a tendency to support sharing for the good of the project, probably because it emphasizes the civic, public character of construction.
Even James J. O'Brien, a pioneer in the critical-path method, blessed the shared-resource approach in his 1993 book, "CPM in Construction Management."
But 18 years later, not everybody thinks the shared approach is a Shangri-La for construction.
Stephen A. Hess, an attorney with Sherman & Howard LLC in Colorado, subjected the shared-resource rule to a withering critique last year in the winter issue of the Journal of the American College of Construction Lawyers.
Sharing of float is rarely clear in case law regarding contracts, Hess argues, and it harms contractors in significant ways. By depriving contractors of use and control of the schedule they create and execute in carrying out the work, float-sharing cuts the connection between risk, responsibility and control. If timely completion resides in the contractor's domain, Hess claims, control of time belongs there, too.
Float can lead to other problems. Under most shared-resource contract clauses, the first party to need the extra time is permitted to use it. But to Hess, "first come, first served" doesn't seem like a good idea. With much of the owner's design work and preparation taking up time at the start of a project, sharing disproportionately helps the owner; if contractors run into problems later in the work, all or some of the float may have been burned already.
"I never liked the [shared-resource rule] because it assigns pretty important economic ramifications to chance," Hess said in an interview with ENR. It's like using "a chainsaw to do surgery."
The controversy comes at an opportune time. An associate professor of civil engineering at the Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C., Gunnar Lucko is launching a study of risk management as applied to critical-path method (CPM) scheduling. Contractors and CPM experts tell ENR that despite the predominance of the shared-resource rule, contracts and state courts are all over the map on the issue and that float treatment is far from a settled matter.
Presumably Lucko will try to sort out the existential problem that Hess sees: Does float exist if there is no CPM schedule? And if it does, who should use it?
Little is simple when it comes to CPM, and a lot depends on the questions you ask.
Dear Owner - Please explain to the GC how we perform and additional $251M dollars of work in "zero days" when your A/E of Record & the CM delayed critical path activities, D/B portions ...
December 14, 2011
Dear Owner - Please explain to the GC how we perform and additional $251M dollars of work in "zero days" when your A/E of Record & the CM delayed critical path activities, D/B portions of the work for 1-3 years? re: San Francisco International as a classic case study.
The project owner, CM, A/E should never own the float, especially on hard bid projects. Project Delivery methods matter with respect to this question posed by ENR as do the risks inherent in each parties contract.
The classic D/B via RFI & Submittal, issuance of corrective Bulletins while the under-staffed A/E rushes to finish their designs clearly do not work. It does keep the paper producers in business and the manufacturers of ink and copy machines love it, as we tend to kill a lot of trees in the process.
Construction is a mans business, so we have to move past the mamby-pamby world of prescious snowflakes who want hugs & kisses while they screw over the GC's & their Sub's via having them carry the financing of the project while the A/E tries to get its act together.
It always comes down to one word - "liability" and the game, past getting the job done so the tenants get into the faclities on time and begin generating revenue centers on who is going to pay when the schedule is blown. A/E contracts simply do not carry the kind of Insurance necessary to go after them as they rightly should in most cases, so the CM's game always reverts to acting as the parent of the A/E and CM's have been known to resort to many illegal tactics to protect their A/E while simultaneously having no direct liability and profiting by the delays themselves, via their own change orders. That approach is suspect due to the obvious conflict and it is more disturbing when their staffing outguns the GC's by a 5-1 ratio. The point being, Project Owners waste a ton of money on unproductive, make work type jobs for people who are unaccounable to anyone and who more often than not, simpkly get in the way of getting the project done on time & under budget.
Of course, the CM's while always playing this game are never prepared to go to claims in a formal legal setting as that is where they would lose hands down. Everyone in the business knows this as fact. The fallout position especially on a Public Works Project are the leaked stories to the press to cover their tails and the inevitable false claims phony lawsuit...re: the Big Dig amongst others.
ENR should leave this one alone. While it might make a good story, the facts always come out in the end.
The project owner, CM, A/E should never own the float, especially on hard bid projects. Project Delivery methods matter with respect to this question posed by ENR as do the risks inherent in each parties contract.
The classic D/B via RFI & Submittal, issuance of corrective Bulletins while the under-staffed A/E rushes to finish their designs clearly do not work. It does keep the paper producers in business and the manufacturers of ink and copy machines love it, as we tend to kill a lot of trees in the process.
Construction is a mans business, so we have to move past the mamby-pamby world of prescious snowflakes who want hugs & kisses while they screw over the GC's & their Sub's via having them carry the financing of the project while the A/E tries to get its act together.
It always comes down to one word - "liability" and the game, past getting the job done so the tenants get into the faclities on time and begin generating revenue centers on who is going to pay when the schedule is blown. A/E contracts simply do not carry the kind of Insurance necessary to go after them as they rightly should in most cases, so the CM's game always reverts to acting as the parent of the A/E and CM's have been known to resort to many illegal tactics to protect their A/E while simultaneously having no direct liability and profiting by the delays themselves, via their own change orders. That approach is suspect due to the obvious conflict and it is more disturbing when their staffing outguns the GC's by a 5-1 ratio. The point being, Project Owners waste a ton of money on unproductive, make work type jobs for people who are unaccounable to anyone and who more often than not, simpkly get in the way of getting the project done on time & under budget.
Of course, the CM's while always playing this game are never prepared to go to claims in a formal legal setting as that is where they would lose hands down. Everyone in the business knows this as fact. The fallout position especially on a Public Works Project are the leaked stories to the press to cover their tails and the inevitable false claims phony lawsuit...re: the Big Dig amongst others.
ENR should leave this one alone. While it might make a good story, the facts always come out in the end.
Such issues may be why some construction managers continue to see float in terms of legal exposure, not as the objective creation of honestly made arithmetic calculation.<br/><br/>"In m...
December 14, 2011
Such issues may be why some construction managers continue to see float in terms of legal exposure, not as the objective creation of honestly made arithmetic calculation.
"In my opinion, schedule float belongs to whomever [owner or contractor] owns the schedule risk," says Daniel P. McQuade, president of Tishman Construction Corp. of the West, Midwest and New England.
"The benefit and ability to manage float should always follow the responsibility of managing and meeting the schedule," says McQuade. He says float is one of the most important and least understood aspects of project management.
Ask P/B at SFIA, they ought to know. Their personnels fraudulent altering of the records at varying stages cost the Owner substantial sums of money - global acceleration, subcontractor overtime being the cure to their sustained incompetence & denials of time extensions for the duration of the project.
Of course, those stories never made it to the Local Media outlets they utilized to conjure up all sorts of false accusations against the GC & the Subcontractors, and none were ever printed. Meanwhile the lawyers were busy figuring out where to get the money (float more bonds, PFC's etc.) to pay for the delays and even more busy covering it up.
"In my opinion, schedule float belongs to whomever [owner or contractor] owns the schedule risk," says Daniel P. McQuade, president of Tishman Construction Corp. of the West, Midwest and New England.
"The benefit and ability to manage float should always follow the responsibility of managing and meeting the schedule," says McQuade. He says float is one of the most important and least understood aspects of project management.
Ask P/B at SFIA, they ought to know. Their personnels fraudulent altering of the records at varying stages cost the Owner substantial sums of money - global acceleration, subcontractor overtime being the cure to their sustained incompetence & denials of time extensions for the duration of the project.
Of course, those stories never made it to the Local Media outlets they utilized to conjure up all sorts of false accusations against the GC & the Subcontractors, and none were ever printed. Meanwhile the lawyers were busy figuring out where to get the money (float more bonds, PFC's etc.) to pay for the delays and even more busy covering it up.
A more apt question would be who knows how to develop a schedule any more? I see more owners and contractors pushing their agenda with forced relationships, durations, constraints, etc...
December 15, 2011
A more apt question would be who knows how to develop a schedule any more? I see more owners and contractors pushing their agenda with forced relationships, durations, constraints, etc. Once you get past these problems The float belongs to the project.
I could be wrong about this but I did not see the word "planning" anywhere in this article! Without a good plan, a schedule is just dates on paper or output devices for the green compan...
December 15, 2011
I could be wrong about this but I did not see the word "planning" anywhere in this article! Without a good plan, a schedule is just dates on paper or output devices for the green companies out there.
This industry has lost it's ability to plan.
Which means that the word float means "the displacement of water to avoid getting wet."
This industry has lost it's ability to plan.
Which means that the word float means "the displacement of water to avoid getting wet."
The question comes down to who has the schedule risk? If the contract has stiff damages for late delivery which is nothing more than putting the schedule risk onto the contractor, then...
December 15, 2011
The question comes down to who has the schedule risk? If the contract has stiff damages for late delivery which is nothing more than putting the schedule risk onto the contractor, then the contractor owns the float. If the contract does not, then share it or the Owner can own it.
It may be that as "construction" becomes more environmentally and technologically complex,and increasingly risk adverse by all parties, the concept of the "critical" path may be becom...
December 16, 2011
It may be that as "construction" becomes more environmentally and technologically complex,and increasingly risk adverse by all parties, the concept of the "critical" path may be becoming increasingly less significant. It is interesting that the more technically advanced the industry, the less use of CPM.
In fact the critical path even in its purest incantation is only realizable with brute force calculation, and it is an easy calculation to show that in the limit "critical path" calculations give schedules that are twice as long as the optimum schedule.
It is interesting to note that while CPM is used widely in the construction industry, it is not so popular in other industries. It may be profitable to see if explanations for the the selective use of CPM can be found or hypothesized.
Lionel Galway in his 2004 RAND Corporation paper "Quantitative Risk Analysis for Project Management a Critical Review" available on the web, notes that the field lacks a critical literature even to questioning if Quantitative Project Risk Analysis is useful or even feasible. Even if CPM for example does seem to work, it may work for reasons unconnected with CPM as a whole,the notorious example being of course the Polaris program.
I would like to see some serious research done with all industries not just construction, on risk analysis. While other industries may not be using CPM, together with the construction industry they are experiencing cost and schedule overruns.
Meantime be it noted that if the Utopian "critical path" is eliminated from specifications, surely not an impossibility, the impossibility difficult concept of the critical path as "property" property of such an impossible difficult characterization that it transforms that kind of "property" known as "Intellectual" into concreteness. For the "location" of "intellectual property" is known, but the location of "float property" is floating in the ethereal schedule.
In fact the critical path even in its purest incantation is only realizable with brute force calculation, and it is an easy calculation to show that in the limit "critical path" calculations give schedules that are twice as long as the optimum schedule.
It is interesting to note that while CPM is used widely in the construction industry, it is not so popular in other industries. It may be profitable to see if explanations for the the selective use of CPM can be found or hypothesized.
Lionel Galway in his 2004 RAND Corporation paper "Quantitative Risk Analysis for Project Management a Critical Review" available on the web, notes that the field lacks a critical literature even to questioning if Quantitative Project Risk Analysis is useful or even feasible. Even if CPM for example does seem to work, it may work for reasons unconnected with CPM as a whole,the notorious example being of course the Polaris program.
I would like to see some serious research done with all industries not just construction, on risk analysis. While other industries may not be using CPM, together with the construction industry they are experiencing cost and schedule overruns.
Meantime be it noted that if the Utopian "critical path" is eliminated from specifications, surely not an impossibility, the impossibility difficult concept of the critical path as "property" property of such an impossible difficult characterization that it transforms that kind of "property" known as "Intellectual" into concreteness. For the "location" of "intellectual property" is known, but the location of "float property" is floating in the ethereal schedule.
How about we don't build anything anymore! Anybody who believes they own the float is a baby whining about this invisible resource. Owners or Contractor's "owning" the float is as rid...
December 16, 2011
How about we don't build anything anymore! Anybody who believes they own the float is a baby whining about this invisible resource. Owners or Contractor's "owning" the float is as ridiculous as being charged to breath the air around you. In public works contract's it is written as plain as day "Float is not for exclusive benefit of contractor or owner, but is an expiring resource available to both parties". If you don't like the terms of the Contract, then don't bid it or sign it. Let's face it, the CPM schedule is a tool that gives us a way to potentially settle differences, justify change order, time extension. Those who can't settle go to court and spend more money instead of writting off a costly mistake. Love it or hate it, it is here to stay, so find yourself good claims personnel to help get what you believe you are entitled too.
Gee, where is all the commentary from the so called Schedulers around the Country? CPM is a billing tool and that is its primary purpose. The reality of course is that the majority of s...
December 16, 2011
Gee, where is all the commentary from the so called Schedulers around the Country? CPM is a billing tool and that is its primary purpose. The reality of course is that the majority of schedulers throughout the business have zero real world construction experience and most could not tell you how to build a backyard shed.
While they produce pretty Reports and toss in a lot of job progress photos, graphs, charts etc - ever been to an Owner Meeting where this info is being digested and taken a look around the room at the yes, glossing over...that deer in the headlights look from people who are alleged to be intelligent, people with all kinds of fancy degrees, lawyers etc.?
The reality is, while mainly used for monthly billing purposes, past that CPM is all but useless because you cannot translate it to useful information for the field. Projects are built from 2-3 week look ahead schedules which come about as a by-product of the baseline schedule.
CPM is not a science by any stretch of the imagination, but when used properly for billing, it is an art-form. In its purest incantation, it is a billing tool - period. It has nothing to do with environmental issues whatsoever & the same holds for the technological issues. You want to get the jobs done on time - get the nerds off the job who want to write intellectual papers and pretend they're Eistein and hire some people who know how to build from the Ground up.
Construction is very simple...ID problem, Solve problem, Next problem. People fall into 3-General Categories....Make it Happen, Watch it Happen & What happened? The majority of CM firms throughout the industry fall into category 2 & 3. They over-bill project Owners & Developers, they over-staff projects with make work jobs for the incompetent and they get in the way of efficient operations in the field.
The key component to succesful projects is in the hiring. Both sides need to hire from the first group, those who know how to make it happen, those who produce and get results.
While they produce pretty Reports and toss in a lot of job progress photos, graphs, charts etc - ever been to an Owner Meeting where this info is being digested and taken a look around the room at the yes, glossing over...that deer in the headlights look from people who are alleged to be intelligent, people with all kinds of fancy degrees, lawyers etc.?
The reality is, while mainly used for monthly billing purposes, past that CPM is all but useless because you cannot translate it to useful information for the field. Projects are built from 2-3 week look ahead schedules which come about as a by-product of the baseline schedule.
CPM is not a science by any stretch of the imagination, but when used properly for billing, it is an art-form. In its purest incantation, it is a billing tool - period. It has nothing to do with environmental issues whatsoever & the same holds for the technological issues. You want to get the jobs done on time - get the nerds off the job who want to write intellectual papers and pretend they're Eistein and hire some people who know how to build from the Ground up.
Construction is very simple...ID problem, Solve problem, Next problem. People fall into 3-General Categories....Make it Happen, Watch it Happen & What happened? The majority of CM firms throughout the industry fall into category 2 & 3. They over-bill project Owners & Developers, they over-staff projects with make work jobs for the incompetent and they get in the way of efficient operations in the field.
The key component to succesful projects is in the hiring. Both sides need to hire from the first group, those who know how to make it happen, those who produce and get results.
I agree the float should belong to the party with the risk. However, if there is a sharing agreement it needs to be spelled out at the time of bid so that the work can be priced accord...
December 16, 2011
I agree the float should belong to the party with the risk. However, if there is a sharing agreement it needs to be spelled out at the time of bid so that the work can be priced accordingly.
I congratulate ENR for having a discussion about Critical Path Scheduling and am glad it's on the front cover at that! The CPM is developed as a result of the Project Activities being a...
December 25, 2011
I congratulate ENR for having a discussion about Critical Path Scheduling and am glad it's on the front cover at that! The CPM is developed as a result of the Project Activities being analyzed in depth and used to determine multiple project paths,not just those that are on the Critical Path. The practice of this Schedule Network Analysis is the Sum of all its Parts,Float just being one piece of the Whole Chain. Although it should be considered among one of the most critical pieces,(Float) in determining multiple paths, convergent paths,intersections and cross sections of Project Activities. The Activities, Scope and Dependencies can be examined with Cost Benefit Analysis,and carefully considered when implementing any decision about Float into Schedule Compression Techniques. The Critical Path is the path that is Characterized with Zero Total Float, and is derived based upon full analysis of the Project Activities and Project Deliverables. With careful deliberation and constant updates provided by Project Stakeholders the ability to influence the Populated Schedule and the Activities that reside on the Critical Path inside that schedule form the basis of CPM. Float should be constantly revisited when constructing or updating a Project Schedule,and as mentioned above by others,always run through the field personnel tasked with achieving Project Objectives. Float can be built in and Float can be taken out of a schedule with the same, equal,obvious and opposite affects. It should simply be considered a tool in determining logical relationships,leads,lags and other Project Constraints and their dependence upon one another for a Successful Project completion.The result of which should be on time,on budget and OUT of a COURT ROOM,unless the projects' deliverable is a COURT HOUSE!!
This is a great topic thx. There are several issues here. There is "contract" and "proposal-change order" float. Since subs historically are just required to give initial "durations" to...
January 2, 2012
This is a great topic thx. There are several issues here. There is "contract" and "proposal-change order" float. Since subs historically are just required to give initial "durations" to create the contract schedule, proposal work agreed to in the field often does not get updated in the schedule and maybe "float". This makes for essentially stale schedules that look like they are being adjusted/updated correctly but they are really not.
Thx so much this is a great thread. It's not so much the "ownership" of the float that matters it is the ability to clearly "adjust" the float and make it transparent for all to see (b...
January 3, 2012
Thx so much this is a great thread. It's not so much the "ownership" of the float that matters it is the ability to clearly "adjust" the float and make it transparent for all to see (beacuse at the end of the day we do work for the Owners). Our Means and Methods are both proprietary and open. to some degree. Also, in our world it is "proposals" not "proposed change orders" since change orders include many proposals often (and field tickets) so we look at them singularly as to cost, float, etc. not sao much as a group of change orders only It's an emerging area tied in with BIM which I will be discussing in my blog on this site in 2012. Thx!!
Why are talking about float if the non-float baseline is not kept properly? When a proposal that we perform in the field adds to a hypothetical contract baseline "float free" schedule ...
January 10, 2012
Why are talking about float if the non-float baseline is not kept properly? When a proposal that we perform in the field adds to a hypothetical contract baseline "float free" schedule there is no input from the subs as to how to adjust that schedule according to the durations of that "proposal" or individual "proposed change order" (PCO). This is a fantasy world we are living in where the CM/GC is updating the schedule not from sub input but from a "vacuum" where schedulers sit in their silos unrelated to the realities in the field. At our carpentry/drywall company CAS we can provide proposal durations and its effect on the schedule but we are not asked to (who cares?) or if we put it in a letter with the proposal ("this proposal will take...") we are suddenly not the CM/GC's favorite sub! They may say" What you need more time for this?" Yes we need more time and/or more money if we are being compressed!! CAS built the majority of the interiors of the Washington DC Convention Center a few years back in 8 months when it should have been over 2 years, according to the original schedule. They weren't ready for the interiors (the building was not closed in yet) until they had to triple our manpower, compress the schedule and get it open in time for Geroge Bush's inaugural ball. Nothing like a party to get everyone moving!! To the DC Administration's (Owner's) credit they adjusted everyone's contract accordingly to pay for the "new durations, crews and sequencing" changes but try getting that done on a private job or School Construction Authority (SCA-NY) project. It just won't happen!! We need "Eyes Wide Open" here, thx
Lionel Galway of RAND in his 2004 paper notes the lack of an assured methodology in risk analysis, and doubts expressed by the practitioners of the value of the particular methodology t...
January 13, 2012
Lionel Galway of RAND in his 2004 paper notes the lack of an assured methodology in risk analysis, and doubts expressed by the practitioners of the value of the particular methodology they employ.
He notes that"the risk analysis community is rich in experience but that experience is primarily anecdotal" and that the absence of research based on openness on what actually happens during the course of a project's lifetime is a very serious handicap to developing more effective ways of managing projects.
He notes that"the risk analysis community is rich in experience but that experience is primarily anecdotal" and that the absence of research based on openness on what actually happens during the course of a project's lifetime is a very serious handicap to developing more effective ways of managing projects.
Scheduling is planning, for those morons who don't have a clue. We should shoot the next person who wants to talk about planning like it is something special. Get a real job, retard.
January 20, 2012
Scheduling is planning, for those morons who don't have a clue. We should shoot the next person who wants to talk about planning like it is something special. Get a real job, retard.
CAS built the majority of the interiors of the Washington DC Convention Center a few years back in 8 months when it should have been over 2 years, according to the original schedule. Th...
February 2, 2012
CAS built the majority of the interiors of the Washington DC Convention Center a few years back in 8 months when it should have been over 2 years, according to the original schedule. They weren't ready for the interiors (the building was not closed in yet) until they had to triple our manpower, compress the schedule and get it open in time for Geroge Bush's inaugural ball. Nothing like a party to get everyone moving!! To the DC Administration's (Owner's) credit they adjusted everyone's contract accordingly to pay for the "new durations, crews and sequencing" changes but try getting that done on a private job or School Construction Authority (SCA-NY) project. It just won't happen!! We need "Eyes Wide Open" here, thx
Well jrap - welcome to th real world. Were you only responsible for the Interior Packages? It sounds as if your firm may have been in over its head.
Competent GC's don't hire guys with Computer Degrees and re-title them Schedulers. Yes we too can prouduce the pretty reports, all dressed up & ready to go for the press and those who like a nice read. The fact remains, the best GC's hire Project Schedulers with specific engineering experience and we have them in the field on a dialy basis, roll them around in the mud and keep them tightly under wraps and working with the rest of the Project Team.
Also, we do not proceed with the work because some hack CM wants to ticket us to death, prior to a commitment from the Owner that the work will be timely paid. Thta's a good way to bankrupt your sub;s which is the way the non-union sector plays as do many wanna be GC's. The good ones don;t burn their Sub's. We make sur ethey make money and we cover their tail. They in turn worry about getting the work done, per our schedule, not theirs.
As far as your package PCO theory goes, Owners use that tactic for one reason - to avoid timely payments by ensuring that there will be so seperate issues pile into one Change Order, that they can delay payment by 2,3, 4 or more Pay App cycles while they scurry to find ways to pay for it. They also come into an alleged negotiation with the intolerable mindset of taking the GC & Sub's numbers in total and as an example, say it's a $5M dollar package.....they'll play name that Tune & say...well, we'll give you $2M to go away...as a take it or leave oit proposition. Therein lies the problem. along with the fact that many A/E's & CM's ordering such work, always seek no time extension to the schedule.
They do this relentlessly, yet a good GC project team will call them on it every time and refuse to settle this way. In its essence, it is a form of extortion - and it does not fly. Fail to play ball, especially on Public Works and out comes the inevitable bogus story leaked to the press bad-mouthing the GC. It's the std. modus operandi for most on the business and it occurs on provate projects as well.
What the Industry needs and the oweners deserve are clear design, plans & spec's up front and better coordination by the A/E of Record and his sub-consulatnats. Too often the left doesn't know what the right is doing. Arhcitects & Engineers allegedly possess superior knowledge as evinced by their licensure, yet seldom use it, as most, if not all have become specialists.
The end game is always risk shifitng and liability brought about by attorneys, but also by the nature of what I just described. You'd be a foll in today's market not to protect yourself from the scheisters & the charletons in this racket. Top it off with large CM firms who bill by the hour or by the head and its a recipe for disaster. A/E & Design engineers need to be paid more so they can up their staff's and that has to be matched with a corresponding decrease in CM firms who bill & make a ton of money by over-staffing & thus bogging down a Project with meat-heads who otherwise would be unemplyable in the Private Sector, but for the Make Work Programs they create. The sooner Public & Private owners relaize this and up the money to the A/E design Team & decrease the money available to the CM side, the better off all parties shall be.
Well jrap - welcome to th real world. Were you only responsible for the Interior Packages? It sounds as if your firm may have been in over its head.
Competent GC's don't hire guys with Computer Degrees and re-title them Schedulers. Yes we too can prouduce the pretty reports, all dressed up & ready to go for the press and those who like a nice read. The fact remains, the best GC's hire Project Schedulers with specific engineering experience and we have them in the field on a dialy basis, roll them around in the mud and keep them tightly under wraps and working with the rest of the Project Team.
Also, we do not proceed with the work because some hack CM wants to ticket us to death, prior to a commitment from the Owner that the work will be timely paid. Thta's a good way to bankrupt your sub;s which is the way the non-union sector plays as do many wanna be GC's. The good ones don;t burn their Sub's. We make sur ethey make money and we cover their tail. They in turn worry about getting the work done, per our schedule, not theirs.
As far as your package PCO theory goes, Owners use that tactic for one reason - to avoid timely payments by ensuring that there will be so seperate issues pile into one Change Order, that they can delay payment by 2,3, 4 or more Pay App cycles while they scurry to find ways to pay for it. They also come into an alleged negotiation with the intolerable mindset of taking the GC & Sub's numbers in total and as an example, say it's a $5M dollar package.....they'll play name that Tune & say...well, we'll give you $2M to go away...as a take it or leave oit proposition. Therein lies the problem. along with the fact that many A/E's & CM's ordering such work, always seek no time extension to the schedule.
They do this relentlessly, yet a good GC project team will call them on it every time and refuse to settle this way. In its essence, it is a form of extortion - and it does not fly. Fail to play ball, especially on Public Works and out comes the inevitable bogus story leaked to the press bad-mouthing the GC. It's the std. modus operandi for most on the business and it occurs on provate projects as well.
What the Industry needs and the oweners deserve are clear design, plans & spec's up front and better coordination by the A/E of Record and his sub-consulatnats. Too often the left doesn't know what the right is doing. Arhcitects & Engineers allegedly possess superior knowledge as evinced by their licensure, yet seldom use it, as most, if not all have become specialists.
The end game is always risk shifitng and liability brought about by attorneys, but also by the nature of what I just described. You'd be a foll in today's market not to protect yourself from the scheisters & the charletons in this racket. Top it off with large CM firms who bill by the hour or by the head and its a recipe for disaster. A/E & Design engineers need to be paid more so they can up their staff's and that has to be matched with a corresponding decrease in CM firms who bill & make a ton of money by over-staffing & thus bogging down a Project with meat-heads who otherwise would be unemplyable in the Private Sector, but for the Make Work Programs they create. The sooner Public & Private owners relaize this and up the money to the A/E design Team & decrease the money available to the CM side, the better off all parties shall be.
Thx for that comment, Mr. Anonymous, it is interesting with the meathead references and the truth of what you write (mostly). Our firm was the carpentry, wall and ceiling subcontractor...
February 7, 2012
Thx for that comment, Mr. Anonymous, it is interesting with the meathead references and the truth of what you write (mostly). Our firm was the carpentry, wall and ceiling subcontractor and no we weren't in over our heads, the majority of the work was not ready for us to perform until the point I mentioned, at which time we geared up and got the job done with our heads above water thank you. In terms of incompetent people, attorneys and risk sharing problems, that's where industry standards and better procurement laws will take hold.
While I generaly agree that the project owns the float, that which is best for the project is not necessarily synonomous with a first come first served philosophy. Since this topic usua...
February 10, 2012
While I generaly agree that the project owns the float, that which is best for the project is not necessarily synonomous with a first come first served philosophy. Since this topic usually comes into contention with regard to disputes and claims, the ownership of float issue does not necessarily trump the investigation, analysis and demonstration of cause and effect, and the allocation of rsposibility and quantum, whether on a descrete or global basis. Free and total float and EOT is only a part of the overall picture.
As the article notes, when an owner chews up the float on the front end of the project this leaves little to no float on the back end and forces acceleration measures to be implemented. Thus acceleration and stacking of work typically occurs in the later finishes stage of projects. This is relevant to what transpires during the project which is relevant to the timing , sequence and context of impact, disruption, loss of productivity and other issues of causation which have to be considered with regard to mitigation efforts and consequential expenditure.
As a result, there is not now and will likely not be in the future a simple answer to this long debated topic, though the various vested interests form the involved stakeholders would like it otherwise, for the reasons stated by many of the above.
Mark G Cundiff, PSP
As the article notes, when an owner chews up the float on the front end of the project this leaves little to no float on the back end and forces acceleration measures to be implemented. Thus acceleration and stacking of work typically occurs in the later finishes stage of projects. This is relevant to what transpires during the project which is relevant to the timing , sequence and context of impact, disruption, loss of productivity and other issues of causation which have to be considered with regard to mitigation efforts and consequential expenditure.
As a result, there is not now and will likely not be in the future a simple answer to this long debated topic, though the various vested interests form the involved stakeholders would like it otherwise, for the reasons stated by many of the above.
Mark G Cundiff, PSP
