UFGS “Cost Loaded Network Analysis Schedules (NAS)” Specification Section

By Paul Levin, PSP

A construction schedule provides the contractor with an analytical tool to help plan and manage the work, and gives the owner a method of tracking its contractor’s progress. It is also the tool of choice to help determine the cause and extent of time extensions, as noted in today’s lead article. Most federal, and many public and private, construction contracts have a schedule clause that specifies the role of the schedule on the project and may go into detail about what software, if any, should be used and the ground rules for its use. This past few weeks we have analyzed recent changes in federal government guide specifications for schedules, as they contain requirements that can affect both the cost and effort a contractor needs to plan and maintain its schedule, as well as nuances that can affect its ability to recover cost and time for delays.

In the March 20 and April 4 issues of ConstructionPro Week, we reported on changes in the February 2015 updates of the “Project Schedule” and the "Small Projects" clauses of The Unified Facilities Guide Specifications (UFGS).  This week we look at the third UFGS schedule specification update - UFGS-01 32 17.00 20 - Cost Loaded Network Analysis Schedules (NAS).  Similar to 01 32 16.00 20, Small Projects, this section is targeted for design-bid-build projects and contains many of the same changes, but specifically naming Primavera P6 as the required software.

The prior update of UFGS-01 32 17.00 20 is from August 2012 (Change 1 - 11/12) and is 11 pages long. That clause was primarily intended for projects greater than $750,000 and contract duration longer than six months. The 15-page February 2015 clause removes the size and duration reference, replacing it with "...applies primarily to MILCON projects and any other similar projects with multiple disciplines working simultaneously."  Here is a rundown of other changes in the February 2015 version:

• Updated Title: "Cost-Loaded" added to the title.  Section 1.1, General, now states that the Project NAS must be cost-loaded and will provide the basis for progress payments.

• Specified Software: Primavera P6 is explicitly listed as the software that must be used, with a listing of settings and parameters to be used by the contractor included in the specification.

• Other Additions to the Specification:
  • Section 1.6.2 Schedule Activity Properties and Level of Detail. 
    Added language: "Minimize redundant logic ties."
    Added language regarding converting activities that are no longer needed in the schedule to milestones for historical purposes. Such changes should be documented in Primavera's "Notebook."
  • Section 1.6.2.1.4 (formerly 1.6.2.1.d).  The following sentence has been removed: "Separate construction activities shall be created for each Phase, Area, Floor Level and Location the activity is occurring."
  • Section 1.6.2.2.3 Substantial Completion Milestone. This is a new section and requires a substantial completion activity be added to the NAS to define when the government can take beneficial occupancy.
  • Section 1.6.2.3 Work Breakdown Structure & Activity Code.  This section, previously titled "Activity Code," replaces the requirement to use activity codes with the requirement to group all activities and milestones within Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) categories.  
  • Section 1.6.2.3.3 Construction Specifications Institute (CSI) MasterFormat Code. This is a new section that requires identifying all activities with its respective Specification Section number.
  • Section 1.6.2.3.4 Drawing Code.  This is a new section that requires identifying all activities with the sheet number of the primary project drawing which indicates work to be performed.
  • Section 1.6.2.4 Anticipated Weather Lost Work Days.  This section now suggests using two days per month if more current or applicable NOAA data is available. The NOAA requirement was further defined to be "...historical monthly averages for days with precipitation, using a nominal 30-year, greater than 2.5mm 0.10 inch amount parameter."
  • Section 1.6.2.5 Anticipated Restricted Delays. This is a new section that provides for five lost workdays per year to be included in the schedule to deal with base access or other restrictions that causes work to be delayed. A time extension will be granted for critical delays beyond five days.
  • Section 1.6.2.6 Cost Loading.  "Lump sum costing is not acceptable" has been added to the requirement for a quantity and unit of measure applied to each activity.
  • Section 1.6.3 Schedule Software Settings and Restrictions. A full page of P6-specific settings have been added in this clause. For the construction schedulers among our readers, these settings have been reprinted at the end of this article to see if they comport with standard industry practices -- your feedback is welcome.
  • Section 1.6.4 Required Tabular Reports - Two new items:
    • Paragraph a. Log Report: Listing of all changes made between the previous schedule and current updated schedule.
    • Paragraph e. Daily Reported Production Activity.  The specification now includes an optional requirement determined by project complexity to provide a monthly spreadsheet file showing daily production activity. Curiously, one of the items to be listed on the report is "billable hours" and one item not listed is production quantity.
  • Section 1.8 Contract Modification.  Similar to Section 01 32 16.00 20 "Small Projects," this section was expanded to include 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 (repeated from previous article): 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 result 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.]

     

  • Section 1.8.1 No Reservation of Rights.  This is an entirely new clause that states: "All direct costs, indirect cost, and time extensions must be negotiated and made full, equitable and final at the time of modification issuance." Some experts will see this as an impediment to timely resolution of change orders, as some impacts of change orders cannot be determined at the time they are negotiated. This could result in contractors adding contingencies in their change order proposals for possible future delays.
  • Section 1.9 Project Float.  The following sentence has been added: "The use of Resource Leveling or other techniques used for the purpose of artificially adjusting activity durations to consume float and influence critical path is prohibited."

As we said in the previous article, some of these specification changes are an attempt to keep up with evolving software. In addition, other changes have been added to reduce abuse, intentional or otherwise, to schedules that can result from various software or activity treatment.  Other changes show a clear intent by the government to control the treatment of time extensions and contract modifications. These changes notwithstanding, we emphasize the importance of reading 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 full specification is found on the Whole Building Design Guide, a program of the National Institute of Building Sciences. Click here to access the NAS specification.

*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.