By Paul Levin, PSP
In the March 20 issue of ConstructionPro Week, we reported on changes in the February 2015 update of the “Project Schedule” clause of The Unified Facilities Guide Specifications (UFGS) Division 01 – General Requirements, Section 01 32 01.00 10. We would like to point out that the “preparing agency” for the Project Schedule document is the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). There are two other UFGS schedule clauses in the UFGS; the preparing agency being the Navy Engineering Facility Command (NAVFAC). These are UFGS-01 32 16.00 20 - Small Project Construction Progress Schedule and UFGS-01 32 17.00 20 – Cost-loaded Network Analysis Schedules (NAS). While the “Project Schedule” states it can be used for “construction projects” or “design-build” projects, the two NAVFAC clauses specifically state they are for use on design-bid-build projects. This week, we look at the “Small Project” schedule specification.
The prior update of UFGS-01 32 16.00 20, titled “Construction Project Documentation” is from November 2009 and is five pages long. The clause states that it is for projects expected to be less than $750,000 and contract duration is expected to be less than six months. The clause provides for use of a bar chart or a CPM schedule. If the government agency opts for the CPM schedule, the specified software program to be used is Primavera P3 or Primavera Suretrak.
The February 2015 version of the specification, increased to from five to nine pages in length, is distinguished by the following factors:
- New Title: Small Project Construction Progress Schedule
- Project Criteria: There are no defined criteria for a “small project” except that the agency should determine the project would not benefit from a cost-loaded NAS as required by Section 01 32 17.00 20.
- Specified Software: CPM software specified as either Primavera P6 or Microsoft Project 2010. The specification does include the same Primavera P6 settings and parameters as spelled out in the UFGS Section 01 32 16.00 10 -Project Schedule (covered in last week’s article). For Microsoft Project, the two requirements listed are that the Network must have a minimum of 30 construction activities and that no on-site construction activity can be in excess of 20 working days. The document notes that the Microsoft Project Settings and Parameters paragraph is expected to be expanded as additional setting requirements are established.
- Other Additions to the Specification:
- Increase requirements for the monthly updates, to include a narrative report.
- For projects using NAS schedules (CPM), the requirement to submit a Time Impact Analysis (TIA) for each time extension request. [No reference to AACE standards as appeared in the Project Schedule spec.] This includes the requirement to identify each delay as excusable, inexcusable or compensable. It also defines three types of concurrent delay and their treatment:
(a) Excusable Delay and Compensable Delay results in Excusable Delay
(b) Excusable Delay and Inexcusable Delay results in Inexcusable Delay
(c) Compensable Delay and Inexcusable Delay results in Excusable Delay
[Editor’s note: These definitions may not be consistent with prevailing treatment of delays on government projects by the boards of contract appeals and federal courts. Generally, the contractor has the obligation to try to apportion concurrent delays. In addition, an inexcusable delay and excusable delay also results in excusable delay -- a contractor cannot be assessed liquidated damages for a concurrent delay, for example.* We have contacted UFGS for clarification of this point.]
- The requirements for 3-week Look Ahead schedules, and for referencing “All correspondence (e.g., e-mails, meeting minute items, Production and QC Daily Reports, material delivery tickets, photographs)…” to “…Schedule Activities IDs that are being addressed,” have been changed from “shall” to “must.”
The evolution of these various specifications reflect a compromise to keeping up with schedule software product development as well as the extreme range of experience contractors have with using these various products. More important, however, is that creating a good schedule and producing accurate monthly updates is critical both to successful job completion as well as the ability to recover costs and/or time for project delays. Read the RFP/IFB documents carefully and request clarification for any uncertainties in the specifications that actually end up in each project that you are bidding on.
*The following excerpt is from the decision in Appeals of All-State Construction, Inc. ASBCA Nos. 50513, 50516, 54681:
Moreover, for purposes of assessing liquidated delay damages, the rule is well established that “if an excusable cause of delay in fact occurs, and if that event in fact delays the progress of the work as a whole, the contractor is entitled to an extension of time commensurate with the delay, notwithstanding that the progress of the work was concurrently slowed down by a want of diligence, lack of proper planning or some other inexcusable omission on the part of the contractor . . . .” See Sun Shipbuilding & Drydock Company, ASBCA No. 11300, 68-1 BCA ¶ 7054 at 32,610.
