Quality Evaluation of Contractor’s Schedule in the Bidding Phase
10th Nordic Conference on Construction Economics and Organization
eISBN: 978-1-83867-051-1
ISSN: 2516-2853
Publication date: 1 May 2019
Abstract
Purpose
This paper is based on research addressing quality of construction schedules. The paper aims to structure a Schedule Health Assessment method and present it as a means to carry out the evaluation of construction schedules.
Design/Methodology/Approach
The development of the Schedule Health assessment method can be characterised as constructive research. The structuring of the method is based on analysis of factors forming the overall quality of construction schedules. The method has been tested in a proof of concept study. This comprised a case study in which four master schedules developed by junior production managers were evaluated using the Schedule Health assessment method.
Findings
It is possible to construct a method for the quality evaluation of construction schedules.
Research Limitations/Implications
The completed testing is still rather limited since it is based merely on experiences of junior production managers with a single case.
Practical Implications
The Schedule Health assessment method can in a useful manner make the quality evaluation of construction schedules easy to approach and effective process.
Originality/Value
This research has produced a novel method for the quality evaluation of construction schedules.
Keywords
Citation
Bragadin, M.A. and Kähkönen, K. (2019), "Quality Evaluation of Contractor’s Schedule in the Bidding Phase", Lill, I. and Witt, E. (Ed.) 10th Nordic Conference on Construction Economics and Organization (Emerald Reach Proceedings Series, Vol. 2), Emerald Publishing Limited, Leeds, pp. 171-177. https://doi.org/10.1108/S2516-285320190000002014
Publisher
:Emerald Publishing Limited
Copyright © 2019, Marco A. Bragadin, Kalle Kähkönen.
License
Published in the Emerald Reach Proceedings Series. Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode
1. Introduction
Quality evaluation of a construction schedule can be a complex task for project managers and project supervisors, especially in the bidding phase of design and build projects. In building construction projects, the master or phase schedule developed by the contractor for the bidding phase or after the contract award has to be evaluated by owner’s project managers or consultants for bidding evaluation and/or schedule approval. After approval, the schedule becomes the baseline for project control, and therefore, it becomes one of the most important contract documents. Project supervisors or construction managers frequently use baseline schedule to justify or deny a request of time extensions, or to evaluate process efficiency and the possibility of timely or late completion. Therefore, schedule quality detection can play a major role in this project step. Schedule quality is understood as the level of accomplishment of the schedule and the scheduling process to a set of performance requirements. Based on this quality evaluation approach, a Schedule Health Assessment method has been proposed. The aim of the research work behind this paper is to understand if the Schedule Health Assessment proposed method can be used to evaluate the contractor’s schedule in the bidding phase.
2. Schedule quality: previous work
Few researchers addressed the theme of construction quality assessment, despite the importance given to project scheduling in project control theory. Construction schedule in fact provides a service to the project that no other project management methods can provide. A sound project schedule can be helpful in managing construction production with the purpose of improving productivity and quality through better planning and control. Therefore, schedule quality, meaning quality of scheduling process and of scheduling output, can be very important in the selection of an appropriate project organization form and of the construction strategy (Russell, Tran, Staub-French, 2014). While satisfying the quality requirements does not necessarily mean the schedule is feasible, not satisfying them almost certainly means it is not (Edwards, 2016).
Kenley and Seppänen (2010) indicate that feasibility and predictability of the schedule can give further understanding of the quality concept of a construction schedule, and a list of the needed items for a feasibility check of the schedules is provided. The American Road and Transportation Builders Association – ARTBA (2012) – indicates that a good quality scheduling can be achieved via few elements: work structuring; Work Breakdown Structure (WBS); contract vs scheduled total project duration; schedule maintenance; construction and scheduling knowledge. Huu et al. (2018) search for a correlation between schedule performance and schedule models, and focus on network model complexity and its measurement. The scheduling community has expressed many times the need of schedule development recommended practices for quality assurance of the scheduling processes and of scheduling deliverables in the construction sector (Moosavi and Mosehli, 2014). Some industrial standards exists which cover procedures to achieve schedule quality, but most of those standards are outside the construction context and they do not aim at the baseline approval procedure (PMI, 2007; US-DCMA, 2012).
Generally, the owner has to evaluate the contractor’s schedule before the commencement of works in the building site. The approval of the contractor’s schedule indicates that the requested contract requirements are fulfilled by the promised construction process as described in the schedule, and the approved schedule becomes the baseline of the construction project. De La Garza (1990) defines a subset of scheduling principles to enable construction schedule evaluation process for subsequent automation. Zafar and Rasmussen (2001) highlight the importance of the baseline schedule approval in construction projects and indicate the major baseline scheduling requirements for major public construction projects. The US Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) defines a well-known 14 points metrics aimed at identifying potential problem areas with a contractor's Integrated Master Schedule (DCMA, 2012). Moosavi and Moselhi (2014) define a structured methodology to assist owners in the evaluation and approval of detailed schedule of contractors. In essence, it is a check list that covers a set of 48 requirements for good schedules. Han, Choi and O’Connor (2016) indicate that the quality of a baseline schedule can be evaluated by 49 industry-recognised schedule quality metrics divided into nine groups: general, milestone, duration, calendar, logic, constraint, float, lag and lead.
The Lean Construction scheduling approach is addressed by well-known comprehensive work of Koskela (1992) and its application in the scheduling field of Kenley and Seppänen (2010). Lean approach highlights flow-line suitability for construction project modelling, and recent studies highlight takt time planning, meaning the pace of production process that best suits client need as another feature of schedule quality (Tommelein, 2017).
All these aforementioned approaches to schedule quality mainly focus on schedule mechanics, contract requirements and work-flow modelling with flow-lines. A more complete approach to baseline quality needs to consider these and the other following features.
3. Baseline Schedule approval and quality assessment proposed approach
Baseline schedule approval is based on contract documents and on the contract master schedule or other contract specifications. When approved by the owner’s project team, the contractor’s schedule becomes the baseline schedule. In this context, three major requirements are to be fulfilled by the baseline schedule of the contractor. The first is the total project duration, no late completion is allowed. Early completion can be evaluated if requested in the bidding phase. Some design-build bids evaluate early completion for contract award and can assign an extra (success) fee to reward early completion. As it can be found in all contracts, late completion during project execution is discouraged with penalty (late) fees. The second requirement is about the needed production rate. Generally, the proposed schedule should indicate, in lump sum contracts, the established money value of work to be performed for each complete year from the initiating of works on site. This requirement implies that an average production rate on site must be delivered by the construction process, and shown in the baseline schedule. Therefore, the complete scope of work as described in the Work Breakdown Structure must be included in the schedule, forecasting the requested production rate. The third requirement concerns workflow and health and safety of the construction process. An effective, feasible and safe flow of work must be indicated by the process logic of baseline schedule. No interferences, meaning time-space conflicts of crews are allowed. As the baseline approval procedure is contract-based, all of these three main contract requirements need to be completely fulfilled to obtain owner’s approval.
In the research behind this paper, a Schedule Health Assessment procedure has been proposed for the evaluation of the schedule quality, and it is suggested to adopt the Schedule Health Assessment approach for the contractor’s schedule review and approval (Bragadin and Kähkönen, 2016).
The proposed procedure is based upon five schedule health indicators that group 75 requirements related to the quality of schedule and scheduling process. The indicators are the following: general requirements; construction process requirements; schedule mechanics requirements; cost and resources requirements; and control process requirements.
The development process of a construction schedule consists usually of three phases: preparation of i) master schedule ii) detailed schedule (in the planning phase), and iii) schedule updating (in the control phase). Therefore, quality checking of schedules and scheduling process should be implemented in relation to those phases. If the Schedule Health Assessment is performed in the preparation phase for a master schedule, a set of 55 requirements will be used and weighted to produce an overall schedule quality level. In case of evaluation of a detailed schedule in the bid phase, the cost and resources indicator will be included and the related set of 64 requirements will be applied (Figure 1). If the Schedule Health Assessment is performed in the schedule updating phase, all indicators are needed and the related set of 75 requirements will be applied. The evaluation can be performed easily by checking the specified detailed requirements: for each fulfilled requirement one point is earned; otherwise no points are given. Each indicator has a weight that depends on the number of composing requirements (Table 1).
Relative weights of health indicators for schedule evaluation
| Schedule health indicators: | 1) General | 2) Construction process | 3) Schedule mechanics | 4) Cost and resource | 5) Control process | Total Weight | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Schedule development | PREPARATION PHASE | MASTER SCHEDULE | 31% | 20% | 49% | / | / | 100% | |
| PHASE SCHEDULE | 27% | 17% | 42% | 14% | / | 100% | |||
| UPDATE PHASE | SCHEDULE UPDATING | 23% | 15% | 36% | 14% | 12% | 100% | ||
The proposed approach for baseline schedule quality assessment and approval relies on both the contract-based evaluation and the Schedule Health Assessment method. The contract-based evaluation provides a pass/fail (Yes/No) assessment of the schedule, while the Schedule Health Assessment procedure provides a total health indicator of the schedule for quality ranking. Main contract requirements are summarised as follows:
total project duration: no late completion is allowed;
WBS check: the total scope of work as described in the WBS to be performed in the forecasted time limits of the schedule; cost and resources are loaded upon request;
and process logic: a feasible and safe flow of work to be indicated by the process logic of baseline schedule; no interferences are allowed.
Firstly, the contractor’s schedule has to fulfil all these three baseline pre-requirements. Next, the Schedule Health Assessment method is used to evaluate the proposed schedules detecting the level of accomplishment of evaluated schedules to the needed requirements. In reference to Figure 1 and Table 1, the phase schedule Health Indicators are then used for baseline evaluation.
4. Case study
A case study based on a simulation game concerning an actual building project was used to carry out the proposed baseline schedule evaluation. The case study was the building of a new school in urban area. The total sum of building cost for the owning agency was more than five million euro and the contract duration was 660 consecutive days from project start of on-site activities. Early completion was desirable by the owning agency, and the contract type was public–private partnership. The actual project has been completed before the contract deadline in about 500 days and an early completion bonus has been paid to the contractor. The school building project was chosen for a simulation game in a learning programme for construction project managers and four junior project managers developed four different project schedules. In the simulation game, each construction manager was to prepare the bidding documents of his/her construction company to be submitted for the public bid. Each developed schedule has been evaluated with the Schedule Health Assessment approach and contract pre-requirements. Owing to paper length limits only four results are presented in Table 2.
Case study baseline schedule evaluation
| BASELINE SCHEDULE EVALUATION | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Contract Time | 660 days | ||||||||
| Contract pre-requirements: | Schedule Health Indicators: | ||||||||
| Schedule ID | Total project duration | WBS check | Process logic | 1) | 2) | 3) | 4) | SH index | |
| Schedule #1 | no | yes | yes | 59% | 91% | 81% | 11% | 67% | |
| Schedule #2 | yes | yes | yes | 59% | 91% | 81% | 44% | 72% | |
| Schedule #3 | yes | no | no | 41% | 45% | 67% | 11% | 48% | |
| Schedule #4 | no | yes | yes | 53% | 64% | 74% | 11% | 58% | |
The gained results propose that only one schedule is passing all the three needed contract specifications: Schedule #2. The Schedule Health Assessment produces four different levels of baseline schedule quality (SH index of Table 2) and Schedule #2 produces the best value of quality index (SH = 72%). Schedules #1 and #4 have middle values of SH, but one contract specification is missing, while the worst SH value is the one of Schedule #3 that misses two of the three requested contract specifications indeed. Anyway, in the actual empirical case, the ranking of schedules needed to be weighted with other specific selection criteria, as described in contract and bidding documents. In fact, in the school building project, several aspects had to be evaluated other than schedule, for instance, offered costs and building site design. Each aspect needed to be evaluated by the owner’s committee and weighted for the final ranking of alternative construction companies. Therefore, the application of contract pre-requirements analysis and of the Schedule Health Assessment procedure could have been useful in selecting project participants.
5. Conclusions
Baseline schedule evaluation and approval can be a complex task for owner’s consultants in the bidding phase. Different proposals can entail different baseline schedules, all promising an effective construction process after the notice to proceed. A complete baseline schedule quality assessment is based upon multiple requirements evaluation. Three pre-requirements, concerning total project duration, WBS check and process logic, are used to summarise the main schedule contract specifications. After this, a detailed schedule quality analysis can be performed, evaluating the accomplishment of the selected schedule health indicators. Therefore, the application of the proposed quality assessment approach can be useful for project managers and owner consultants before and during the bid step. Future research work will continue to investigate the Schedule Health Assessment procedure, with the aim of testing the proposed method.
References
American Road and Transportation Builders Association (ARTBA), 2012American Road and Transportation Builders Association (ARTBA), (2012). Representative contractor feedback on the administration of construction scheduling issues 08/2012. www.artba.org (accessed 10/2017)
Bragadin, Kähkönen, 2016Bragadin, M., Kähkönen, K. (2016). Schedule Health Assessment of Construction Projects, Construction Management and Economics, 34(12), pp. 875–897.
De La Garza , 1990De La Garza J.M., (1990), Knowledge-Elicitation Study in Construction Scheduling Domain, Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering, 4(2), pp. 135–153.
Edwards Performance Solutions, 2016Edwards Performance Solutions (2016). DCMA 14-points Assessment for Project Schedule Health, white paper. https://edwps.com accessed 17/09/2018.
Han and O’Connor 2016Han and O’Connor (2016). Quality of Baseline Schedules: Lesson from Higher Education Capital Facility Project, Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, 143(1).
Huu , Yi Su , Lucko Thompson 2018Huu T.H., Yi Su S.M., Lucko G. Thompson R. (2018). Beta Index and Complexity in Schedule Performance Measurement. Proceedings of Construction Research Congress 2018, ASCE.
Kenley , Seppänen 2010Kenley R., Seppänen O. (2010) Location-Based Management for Construction: Planning, Scheduling and Control, Routledge, U.K., Spon Press, U.K.
Koskela 1992Koskela L. (1992) Application of New Production Philosophy to Construction, CIFE Technical Report #72, Stanford University, USA, September 1992.
Moosavi , Moselhi , 2014Moosavi S. F., Moselhi O., (2014). Review of Detailed Schedules in Building Construction, Journal of Legal Affairs and Dispute Resolution in Engineering and Construction (ASCE).
Project Management Institute, 2007Project Management Institute, (2007), Practice Standard for Scheduling, PMI Project Management Institute, Inc. U.S.
Russell , Tran , Staub-French , 2014Russell A., Tran N., Staub-French S., (2014). Searching for Value: Construction Strategy Exploration and Linear Planning, Construction Management and Economics 32(6), pp. 519–546.
Tommelein , 2017Tommelein I. D., (2017), Collaborative Takt Time Planning of Non – Repetitive Work. Proceeding of the 25th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction (IGLC) LC302017 Vol. 2, pp 745–752
U.S. Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), 2012U.S. Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), (2012), Earned Value Management System (EVMS) Program Analysis Pamphlet (PAP). (U. S. Department of Defense DCMA).
Zafar, Rasmussen, 2001Zafar, Z. Q., Rasmussen, D., (2001). “Baseline Schedule Approval”, Cost Engineering; Aug. 2001, Vol. 43, No. 8, pages 41–43.
- Prelims
- THE ECONOMICS AND BUSINESS OF CONSTRUCTION
- Updating and Cleaning Out: The “Make or Buy” Decision in Construction Revisited
- Bispevika Project: Research for Constructing a Collaborative Value Chain
- Social Considerations in the Procurement of Road and Railroad Projects in Sweden
- Standardization and Industrialized Construction of Special Purpose Building
- Identifying Contradictions of Integrating Life-Cycle Costing in Design Practices
- Advancing Networking-Based Business Management in Construction Markets
- Contracts and Culture in a Partnering Project
- Sub-Contractors’ Perception of Contracting: The Case of Crime
- Project Managers: Gatekeepers or Inside Men?
- The Hybridity of Strategic Partnerships and Construction Supply Chain Management
- Dynamic Capabilities and Risk Management: Evaluating the CDRM Model for Clients
- An Opposite Design-Build Procurement Method: Competing on Quality with a Fixed Price
- CONSTRUCTION AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT
- An Appraisal of Water Infrastructure Projects’ Financing Challenges in South Africa
- The Soft Factors in Design Management: a Hidden Success Factor?
- Room to Manoeuvre: Governing the Project Provisions
- A Longitudinal View of Adopting Project Alliancing: Case Finland
- A Simulation-Based Optimization for Contractors in Precast Concrete Projects
- Governed by Municipal Land Allocations: Implications for Housing Developers
- Situation Picture Through Construction Information Management
- Who Benefit from Crime in Construction? A Structural Analysis
- Quality Evaluation of Contractor’s Schedule in the Bidding Phase
- Activity Cruciality as Measure of Network Schedule Structure Resilience
- Construction Programmes and Programming: A Critical Review
- Procurement Research: Current State and Future Challenges in the Nordic Countries
- Exploitative Learning in Inter-Organizational Projects: Evidence from Dutch Infrastructure Practices
- The Transition from Design-Bid-Build Contracts to Design-Build
- Exploring the Dynamics of Supplier Innovation Diffusion
- Understanding Collaborative Working in a Facilitated Interdisciplinary Environment
- Ensuring Successful Knowledge Transfer in Building Renovation Projects
- Public Private Collaboration in the Context of Zero Emission Neighbourhood
- Strategizing and Project Management in Construction Projects: An Exploratory Literature Review
- BUILDING INFORMATION, DATA AND DIGITALIZATION
- BIM-Enabled Education: a Systematic Literature Review
- A BIM-Enabled Learning Environment: a Conceptual Framework
- “I Work All Day with Automation in Construction: I am a Sociomaterial-Designer”
- Developing Smart Services to Smart Campus
- An Overview of BIM Adoption in the Construction Industry: Benefits and Barriers
- BIM for Construction Education: Initial Findings from a Literature Review
- Model for Smart, Self-learning and Adaptive Resilience Building
- Investigating the Drop-Out rate from a BIM Course
- INNOVATIONS IN THE CONSTRUCTION PROCESS
- Senior Residence Concepts in Norway: Challenges and Actions for a Sustainable Development
- 3D-Printing Technology in Construction: Results from a Survey
- Product and Manufacturing Systems Alignment: a Case Study in the Timber House Building Industry
- Opening the Black Box of Accessibility Regulation
- Orchestrating Multi-Actor Collaborative Innovation Across Organizational Boundaries
- SUSTAINABILITY AND RESOURCE EFFICIENCY
- Social Sustainability in Modelling of Value Creation in Housing Refurbishment
- Reviewing the Role of Sustainability Professionals in Construction
- Exploring the Evolution and Impact of Building Environment Assessment Methods in Achieving Green Building
- STAKEHOLDERS OF CONSTRUCTION AND REAL ESTATE
- Challenging the Rhetoric of Construction Briefing: Insights from a Formula 1 Sports Venue
- Underlying Causes for Risk Taking Behaviour Among Construction Workers
- Towards Developing a Framework for User-Driven Innovation in Refurbishment
- Reconstructing Knowledge Integration in the Norwegian AEC-Industry
- Institutional Complexity for Chinese International Contractors
- BUILT ENVIRONMENTS
- BIM Related Innovation in Healthcare Precinct Design and Facilities Management
- Location is Crucial in Retrofit: Strategy Selection in Different Regions
- CONSTRUCTION EDUCATION AND RESEARCH
- From Theoretical to Practical Competence on Health and Safety
- A Test Platform of Viable Methods to Improve Production and Learning on Construction Sites