Trauner Consulting Services, Inc.

Incorporating Weather Days into Your Project’s CPM Schedule

June 20, 2018

An often-debated question is “How should a project schedule incorporate the workdays that might be lost to adverse weather?”

While there is not one perfect solution for all projects, there are at least three approaches to incorporating weather into your CPM schedule. These approaches are:

  • Incorporating non-workdays into the schedule’s work calendars to represent the workdays that might be lost to adverse weather.
  • Increasing the durations of weather-sensitive work activities to represent the workdays that might be lost to adverse weather.
  • Adding an “adverse weather” activity at the end of project with a duration that equals the number of workdays that might be lost to adverse weather.
  • (Of course, there is always a fourth option, which is to assume that every day lost to weather will be made up by working on Saturdays or by working overtime. If this is the assumption upon which both your costs and your schedule are based, and both your contract and your other team members are on board, then you may not have to bake any weather into your schedule at all.)

    Each of these three options (except the one in which you do nothing to the schedule) will be discussed in more detail below.

    1. Incorporating Adverse Weather Workdays in Work Calendars

    In CPM scheduling software packages, users have to create or modify work calendars that identify when the contractor plans to work. For example, the most common work calendar is an 8-hour-per-day, 5-day workweek calendar that includes holidays and weekends as non-workdays. Each schedule activity is assigned to the work

    What If The General Contractor Wants To Scrap The Baseline Schedule?

    March 18, 2018

    In our questions and answers series, we’ll answer some common questions that we receive from readers of our Ideas & Insights section. Here’s the first question.


    Let’s say a General Contractor is weeks behind schedule on a 12-month project and has replaced the Site Superintendent and Project Executive. The new Project Executive would like to scrap the baseline and start anew. If the owner were to entertain this suggestion to develop a new schedule, what would be some things we would likely need to have clear before proceeding? If the revised schedule is approved, would this mean the owner has inadvertently provided a time extension and therefore could not assess liquidation damages?


    The first piece of good news here is the contract has gotten rid of the Project Executive and Site Superintendent that weren’t performing. And the new Project Executive sees the schedule as an important management tool. The schedule is a management tool. If it doesn’t reflect the contractor’s plan to complete the work, it’s useless. If the Project Executive wants to update the schedule so that it reflects his (or her) plan for completing the project, then I think you should be supportive of this effort, particularly if the contract completion date has already passed. By the way, it is common for contractors that have fallen behind schedule to revise the schedule for completion of the work. These are often called revised, recovery, or completion schedules.

    Here are some of the things you need to be careful about:

  • The revised schedule might not be in compliance with the contract requirements or good scheduling

  • Prescriptive vs. Performance Specifications in Construction

    February 18, 2018

    Today’s Ideas & Insights is about two different ways to write specifications: prescriptive and performance. I’ll tell you about them, why they are different, and what you should consider before choosing them.

    Prescriptive Specifications

    The first one, which we are very used to using in the design-bid-build world, is what we call prescriptive specifications. If you were to look at a standard highway construction contract, you would see the owner sometimes even telling the contractor what pieces of equipment to use and how to use them.

    Prescriptive specifications are recipes: do this, then do this, then do this, etc. If you do all those things, you know we will accept whatever the results are. That can be a successful way to specify work on a design-bid-build project. It has been used for centuries. But it doesn’t fit very well within the design-build process, where you are not entirely certain exactly what you’ll be getting.

    Performance Specifications

    The kinds of specifications that might fit a little bit better with design-build projects are what we would call performance specifications. These specifications aren’t recipes. They don’t tell the contractor how to do the work. What they tell the contractor is what we want.

    For example, a prescriptive specification would tell the contractor exactly what size motor we want to drive the vacuum cleaner. In contrast, a performance specification would tell them what kind of suction we want at the other end. Then, it’s the design-builder’s decision as to how to size the motor to meet our performance objectives.

    The Challenge

    Design-Build: Why Not?

    January 18, 2018

    In the last Ideas & Insights, we discussed the advantages of design-build. But there are things to consider when thinking about adopting design-build. We can call these disadvantages or challenges.

    Limited Competition

    One of the challenges, particularly for public agencies, is there may be a limit on the competition that you can get from local firms on design-build projects. However, as design-build becomes more popular, there are going to be more teams capable of executing a project on a design-build basis.

    Your Risks and Role are Different

    Another important consideration is that the risks can look very different. If you are used to your designer being the owner’s advocate on a construction project, then what you are going to find, in the design-build scenario, is that’s definitely not the case.

    Here’s a quick example. I have a good client and friend who was involved with the construction of a public hospital using design-build. His inspectors noted that a component of the project was not being constructed as required by the specifications. In other words, the standards were not as set forth in the specifications. Dutifully, the inspectors identified the deficiency and made the owner’s representative aware of the problem.

    The owner contacted the design-builder and said, “Look, we’ve got an issue out in the field. The contractor isn’t executing the project according to the specifications. We are going to reject it and we thought you should know.”

    A quick response came back from the design-build entity. It basically said, “Yeah, we went out and took a look

    How Could Owners Benefit from Design-Build Construction?

    December 18, 2017

    Ideas & Insights There are several perceived advantages to using design-build. In this Ideas & Insights, I want to look at those potential advantages from the perspective of the owner. Even if you are a contractor, I think it’s important, when discussing design-build, to consider the owner’s perspective.

    Single Point of Responsibility

    One of the most basic advantages is that the owner enjoys a single point of responsibility for both design and construction. Ultimately, this could limit the owner’s exposure to errors and omissions. That design-build team is responsible for both the design and the construction. If there are any errors or omissions in that design, it becomes the responsibility of the design-build entity. The owner would often stand between the designer and the contractor in the design-bid-build approach.

    Accelerated Delivery

    You can get accelerated project delivery results. One of the reasons for this is you can “fast track” the design and construction (meaning you can design at the same time you are constructing the facility). This is of course phased or staged. For example, the design of the foundations precedes the design of the building superstructure; which precedes the design of the guts of the building. Once the design for the foundations is completed, it can go out to bid and construction of the foundations can begin before the design of the superstructure or the guts of the building is completed. This is possible in the design-build process because the designer and the contractor are one entity. In

    The Pitfalls of a New Schedule Delay Analysis Standard, Getting Paid for Changes, and Publication of the Third Edition of Construction Delays

    October 29, 2017

    Usually, our Ideas & Insights provide information on a single topic that helps you avoid, evaluate, or deal with problems on your construction projects.

    Instead of focusing on one particular topic, in this Idea & Insight posting we’ve provided three new resources that we hope you find helpful.

    How ASCE’s New Schedule Delay Analysis Standard May Impact Owners

    One trend in the construction industry is the attempt to define delay analysis guidelines by professional organizations. Engineering News Record recently published a viewpoint by Mark Nagata that looks at a major flaw in the American Society of Civil Engineer’s new Schedule Delay Analysis Standard. The article discusses why this standard is unfair to owners.

    Click the following link to read the full viewpoint:

    How Subcontractors Can Get Paid for Changes and Claims

    Subcontractors sometimes struggle with compiling the necessary documentation that they need to make their change orders and claims submissions complete and, most importantly, successful. Bill Haydt provided some subcontractor-specific advice on eSub’s blog.

    Click the following link to read the entire article:

    Construction Delays, Third Edition, Recently Published

    Ted Trauner wrote the first edition of Construction Delays in 1990. In the following decades, the analysis of delays on construction project has become a common and more sophisticated practice.

    Mark Nagata, Bill Manginelli, Scott Lowe, and Ted Trauner spent over a year revising and adding new sections to this third edition of Construction Delays. The newly released third edition is not just an update of the prior two publications, it provides practitioners with everything they need to know

    How Retained Logic, Actual Dates, And Progress Override Deal With Out-Of-Sequence Progress

    February 07, 2017

    In this Ideas & Insights, we’re going to look at an issue that may arise when you are either preparing or reviewing a schedule update. In particular, we’re going to look at how your scheduling software may address “out-of-sequence” progress.

    In construction scheduling, “out-of-sequence” progress occurs when activities begin, progress, and finish earlier than expected (based on the logic and activity durations in the latest schedule).

    Oracle’s Primavera P6 Project Management (P6) scheduling software provides users with three different options with which to handle out-of-sequence progress. The Retained Logic and Progress Override options are carry overs from P3. However, there appears to be a significant amount of confusion among schedulers and construction professionals as to how the third option (Actual Dates) deals with out-of-sequence progress. Let’s look at how each of the three options deal with out-of-sequence progress in different situations.

    To show how these scheduling options work, Figure 1 depicts a simple, four-activity schedule. The activities are connected to one another with Finish-to-Start relationships in sequence. Figure 1 illustrates how P6’s Retained Logic and Progress Override options deal with out-of-sequence when an activity begins earlier than expected and makes progress.

    Figure 1.

    actual dates out of sequence progress

    In Figure 1, the blue bars represent completed work, the red bars represent critical path work, and the green bars represent remaining work that is not critical. The dates identified in the schedule calendar correspond to the dates of the

    What Management Structure Should You Put In Place On A Typical Construction Project?

    March 06, 2016

    In our questions and answers series, we answer some common questions that get sent to us from Ideas & Insights readers.


    What management structure should I put in place on a typical construction project to handle communication issues?


    Communication Flow

    The focus of all communication is typically the project manager. The project manager is the person responsible for the project. On small projects, one project manager might have several projects and handle all the communications on all of these projects.

    On larger projects, the project manager might be responsible for one project and might handle all the communications on that project. On very large projects, there might be a Project Executive, a Project Manager, an Assistant Project Manager, and Superintendent (or more).

    Each would have specific responsibilities regarding communication. For example, Superintendents would traditionally communicate with other Superintendents, non-working foremen, and other folks in the field.

    Project Executives might communicate primarily with the client and then only on matters that relate to the agreements between the parties.

    Project Managers will typically run meetings and prepare or direct the preparation of minutes. Others may draft letters, but all letters will typically go out with the signature of the PM.

    Emails and Texts

    E-mails and texts might be sent by anybody, but should be governed by protocols developed internally and on the project. The person responsible for responding should be clearly identified to minimize confusion and duplication of effort.

    Schedules, RFIs, and Daily Logs

    Schedules are usually prepared by the scheduler, the Project Engineer, or the Project Manager. However, every schedule should

    What if the General Contractor Doesn’t Submit Proposed Changes Correctly?

    February 07, 2016


    What if the General Contractor does not submit proposed changes using a correct time impact analysis, changes are collected together irrespective of their effect on the schedule, and requirements for fragnets are ignored?

    Do you have any suggestion on how to make the contractor recognize his obligations to adhere to the contract requirements?


    Even on big projects, sometimes the contract and schedule don’t get pulled out until there is a problem. To me, that makes sense with regard to the contract. The contract is more for handling problems than it is for day-to-day administration.

    I’m often surprised by how little project participants know about the contract. However, it’s a bit more problematic with regard to the schedule.

    Our thumb rule is that if you can keep track of a project in your head, the schedule isn’t necessary. Beyond that, however, the schedule becomes more important.

    One thing everybody needs to understand is that the schedule matters when it comes to sorting out disputes. That’s because contemporaneous documents (the documents prepared as the project work was being performed) often trump oral recollections or analyses prepared after the fact. Contemporaneous documents are often perceived as being less biased and more reliable. Oral recollections are sometimes viewed as having an over-reliance on selective memories.

    After-the-fact analyses are often perceived as being biased towards the desired outcomes of the analyst.

    With regard to the schedule, here are some things to consider:

    The Schedule Is NOT Part Of The Contract

    It is a management tool. That’s it.

    The scheduled completion date of the project is

    Should Transportation Agencies Approve Early Completion Schedules?

    January 10, 2016

    I’ve been involved in many discussions with transportation agency staffers over the years regarding the merits of early completion schedules. It’s not an easy subject and there are many conflicting opinions based on a lot of undocumented assumptions about contractor behavior.

    In general, transportation agencies sometimes don’t realize that, given the way many of them have written their contracts, the contractor is entitled to payment for delays even if the contractor is projecting an early completion date.

    Unlike some private sector development, there is not really much of a downside to completing a highway construction project early. It just means that the contractor and owner can move on to the next project sooner and the public gets to use the new roadway sooner.

    I feel there is possibly a hierarchy of options. They might go like this:

    A+B Bidding

    A + B bidding is the best approach, perhaps, in that it ensures that the contractor’s scheduled completion date and the contract completion date are the same date. It also gives the owner a little warning, at least, regarding the resources that will have to be mobilized to support the administration and inspection of the project. I suspect, however, that the concern that A + B bidding favors larger contractors may be real.

    If A+B Bidding Is Not Possible

    If A + B bidding is not possible, and my guess is that it usually is not, then the first step is for the agency to do a great job of estimating the appropriate contract duration.

    This is a real