(PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT) 26R-21: Developing or Revising a Scheduling Specification

  • 1.  (PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT) 26R-21: Developing or Revising a Scheduling Specification

    Posted 07-11-2024 05:32 PM
      |   view attached

    (PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT) 26R-21: Developing or Revising a Scheduling Specification

    You may provide your comment by either:

    ·         Posting a message in this thread directly

    ·         Providing mark-up in the PDF file and posting it in this thread

    ·         Providing your comment in the "REVIEWER" columns of the Excel file and posting it in this thread

    This draft RP is open for review and comment until August 24, 2024.



    ------------------------------
    Christian Heller
    Director of Technical Guidance
    AACE International
    cheller@aacei.org
    ------------------------------

    Attachment(s)

    pdf
    PRD_26R-21_2024-07-10.pdf   2.30 MB 1 version


  • 2.  RE: (PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT) 26R-21: Developing or Revising a Scheduling Specification

    Posted 07-16-2024 03:00 PM

    This is a pretty solid document. Kudos to the author team.

    The only elements that I didn't see included, or not explicit enough, are:

    1. The inclusion of a native schedule format, as well as a printed / pdf attachment.
    2. Specific notation of the schedule calculation method, which may be a little software specific. The difference between Retained Logic and Progress Override can be important, and I have had situations occur where there was a disagreement in the methodology to be used (but it was included in the schedule spec, so was resolved fairly easily).
    3. Method of calculating schedule lag (ie which calendar should be used)
    4. Clearly indicating the definition of critical path (total float vs longest path), and if the TF method is used, what criteria should be used to define critical and near critical.
    5. The specific resource loading criteria, ie what is expected in terms of costs, hours, quantities, as well as the level at which resources are loaded (unless detailed, there may only be a loading at the higher WBS level, or via LOE activities that may not provide sufficient granularity.
    6. The use of constraints, and how they are documented. This is included, but I recommend including some explanatory note for each constraint in the schedule to aid in communication. It may also be necessary to define how a constraint, even a contractual milestone constraint, can be changed (there is a story behind that point!)

    These are based on specific items that I have come across at some point in my career.

    Tony



    ------------------------------
    Tony Scott
    Planning Manager
    Portugal Cove St Phi
    tonyscott.cet@gmail.com
    ------------------------------

    Original Message


  • 3.  RE: (PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT) 26R-21: Developing or Revising a Scheduling Specification

    Posted 07-17-2024 02:18 AM

    Dear team,

    In my opinion, I did not find " Commencement Date and effective date" in this document. If you add " Commencement Date of the Project and Effective Date of the Project" in this RP and this will help the parties.

    Rajasekaran Murugesan, MSc, LLM, MRICS,CCP

    Contracts and Commercial Director,

    Middle East Operations



    ------------------------------
    Rajasekaran Murugesan
    Commercial and Contracts Director
    Doha
    salfordraja@gmail.com
    ------------------------------

    Original Message


  • 4.  RE: (PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT) 26R-21: Developing or Revising a Scheduling Specification

    Posted 07-17-2024 06:51 AM

    This looks to cover most things well done. Within the UK/EMEA projects that I've been involved with we also had a section outlining how Risk and Uncertainty is captured/identified within the schedule, (Time Risk Allowance, Min, Most Likely, Max durations, Branch points identified (if the schedule contains options).  This might then allow it to have consistency and synergy with the DRMP guidance.



    ------------------------------
    Jaimie Blagg
    Associate Director
    Laminar Projects
    Coulsdon
    jaimie_b@me.com
    ------------------------------

    Original Message


  • 5.  RE: (PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT) 26R-21: Developing or Revising a Scheduling Specification

    Posted 08-10-2024 02:11 PM
      |   view attached

    Please use this (unlocked) Excel file instead of the previously uploaded one. 

    My apologies for the inconvenience.

    -Christian



    ------------------------------
    Christian Heller
    Director of Technical Guidance
    AACE International
    cheller@aacei.org
    ------------------------------

    Attachment(s)

    xlsx
    USE_THIS_PRD_26R-21_2024-07-10_CommentLog.xlsx   28 KB 1 version
    Original Message


  • 6.  RE: (PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT) 26R-21: Developing or Revising a Scheduling Specification

    Posted 08-25-2024 01:08 AM
      |   view attached

    My comments and recommendations for consideration are attached.  For the most part, very nice job and my compliments for everyone who participated in developing this RP.   I would concur with others that have commented that scheduling specs are becoming a bit onerous, down to specifying the color coding on schedule variance control diagrams.  Recommend a statement at the beginning of the RP that while there are a lot of important aspects that can be addressed in a scheduling specification, care should be used to avoid an unduly overburdened specification requirement and an allowance for a waiver of these requirements can be made at the owner/contracting officer level to match the size and complexity of the project. 

    Other than that, I made a few comments with regard to i) the preliminary schedule that requires expeditious review in order not to render the preliminary schedule moot ii) identifying that the baseline is to show no actual progress and completion within the specified period of performance and iii) emphasizing the importance for timely review of updates.   

    Regards,

    Nickolas Florez CFCC



    ------------------------------
    Nickolas Florez
    Principal
    Las Vegas
    nick@constructioncsi.com
    ------------------------------

    Attachment(s)

    pdf
    PRD_26R-21_2024-07-10 w comments NF.pdf   2.28 MB 1 version
    Original Message


Related Content