By Steve Rizer
Just because an analysis of productivity in a construction project may be called a “Measured Mile” analysis, “don’t believe it,” Trauner Consulting Services Inc. Director Mark Nagata advised a target audience of contractors, public and private owners, subcontractors, construction managers, owner representatives, architects, and others during a webinar that WPL Publishing held last week. “Dig into the details. Understand exactly how the calculation is being performed. I evaluate a number of different claims with inefficiency components, and in almost all instances, the analyst or contractor calls those calculations ‘Measured Mile’ analyses when they’re really not.”
The Measured Mile analysis is an analytical comparison between A) two periods of time on the same project for the same or similar work, and B) the productivity achieved before the change with the productivity achieved after the change, or C) the unimpacted (unchanged) or least impacted (least changed) period of work with the impacted (changed) period of work.
In stressing the need to “dig into the details” of a purported “Measured Mile” analysis, Nagata recalled that “in one instance, … the basis of measurement was the percent-complete-of-a-[progress-payment] item, and the contractor tried to use the first period of performance of the first 25 percent earned on [payment] as the basis of measure when, in reality, there was no work performed on site and the 24-25 percent was payment of stored materials.”
Nagata described another scenario whereby “the contractor tries to use [bid cost, not actual cost] as the basis of [the] Measured Mile.... When measuring productivity and when an analyst or contractor says they’re performing a Measured Mile analysis, we always have to ensure that they’re measuring productivity by comparing the work completed by the resources expended to complete that work.”
When attempting to measure productivity or inefficiency, always try to use the Measured Mile analysis, Nagata said. If that cannot be done, then the next preferred method is a comparison of achieved productivities of other projects “and using other projects as the unimpacted period as the basis of measure.”
If neither of those options is viable, “then jump to the bids,” Nagata said. “Some of the hurdles that a contractor has to overcome when using the bid as the basis of measuring productivity or measurement of inefficiency is that [it has] to demonstrate and prove or show that the planned rates of productivity in the bids were reasonable and achievable. If [that is not done], then it’s really, if you’re using the bid as the basis of measurement, it’s just a veiled total cost claim.”
During his presentation, entitled “A Case Study: Documenting and Evaluating Inefficiency,” Nagata discussed “the essentials of productivity and inefficiency,” methods for calculating inefficiency, litigation involving the Measured Mile method, the use of experts and industry standards, and other topics.
To purchase a recording of the 90-minute webinar, visit http://constructionpronet.com/Products/1064.aspx.
