pmicos 2011 review and analysis of mitigation schedules

Review and Analysis of Delay Mitigation Schedules

Jorge Gonzales, PSP Miami Dade Aviation DepartmentScheduling ManagerScheduling Manager

Chris Carson, PMP, PSP, CCMAlpha CorporationCorporate Director Project Controls

• Triple constraints

– Time

– Cost

– Scope/quality

– Fourth constraint often added; risk

• Most programs are driven by one of the constraints

Mitigation Schedule Analysis

• Most programs are driven by one of the constraints

– When one constraint must be fixed, others will vary

– In this case, time was the fixed constraint

– This requires a focus on mitigation of delays

• A structured effort is essential

• Miami International Airport

– Individual projects comprise renovation and opening of gates

– Cost impacts from failure to open gates on time result in millions of dollars of lost income

– Failure would also severely impact passenger access


– Failure would also severely impact passenger access to flights and create delays

– Progress towards gate openings is dependent upon work in adjacent gate areas

– Utilities run through other areas, some public

– Phasing and coordination are much more complex

• Background

– Program management staff recognized the need to actively manage the scheduling process

– Developed detailed schedule specifications• Required as-planned resource data

• Required monthly reports of as-built resource data


• Provided additional schedule review consultant (Alpha)

• Required weekly schedule-focused meetings

• Mandated detailed schedule updates

• Required submittal of formal mitigation plans from contractor

• Steps in the mitigation strategy process

– Identification of the delay requiring mitigation

– Formal request for a mitigation plan from contractor

– Analysis of submitted mitigation plan

– Analysis of mitigation plan alternates & options

– Estimation of costs related to trade mitigation


– Recommendations for specific mitigation efforts

– Determine maximum risk

– Choose preferred mitigation option

– Choose mitigation strategy

– Issue change order for mitigation effort

– Re-baseline schedule to show mitigation

Mitigation Key Items

•Establish mitigation timeline for submittal, review, and approval

•Ensure contract is set up for mitigation requirements; data, schedule quality, directionschedule quality, direction

•Remove deal breakers from contractor qualifications

•Establish actual work in place at time of mitigation

•Monitor additional scope while mitigation is being prepared, reviewed, and approved.

Mitigation Strategies

•Contractor best case versus owner best case scheduleWhat if schedule comparisons.

•Contractor mitigation by logic changes (fast-track)

•Contractor mitigation by compression (crunching)

•Mitigation by scope modification.

•Validate contractor’s mitigation to ensure value from trade contractor mitigation plan results

Mitigation Flow Chart

•Contractor identifies delay

•Owner establishes merit to delay

•Contractor submits mitigation proposal

•Owner asks contractor for mitigation proposal

Owner reviews mitigation proposal •Owners provides

feedback to contractor and asks for missing documents

•Owner executes work order

•Owner and contractor reach agreement in

Owner reviews compressed

schedule

Owner chooses to mitigate schedule

for mitigation proposal

Contractor re-submits proposal

reach agreement in negotiation meeting

Mitigation Check List

•Pre-impact schedule•Impacted schedule •Narrative for impacted schedule•Time impact analysis•What if schedule options•What if schedule options•Mitigation cost calculations•Owner’s maximum exposure calculation•Subcontractor schedule & cost calculations•Contractor’s proposal•Work order or change order•Re-baselined schedule

• Identification of the delay requiring mitigation

– From contractor notification

– From trending and completion prediction analysis done during schedule review

– The sooner delay is identified, the greater opportunities for successful mitigation


opportunities for successful mitigation

• Formal request for a mitigation plan from contractor

– Ensure that delay is not contractor responsibility

– Provide specific request

– Embark on parallel course

• Evaluate scope reduction opportunities

• Evaluate worst case effects without mitigation


• Evaluate worst case effects without mitigation

– Avoid overtime requests• Limits risk of consequential claims – inefficiency

– Request includes breakdown of individual trade contractor costs for use in analysis

• Analysis of submitted mitigation plan

– Ensure schedule represents current conditions

– Provide analysis• Prospective for future impacts

• Forensic analysis for embedded impacts

– Evaluate appropriateness of logic changes

– Review logic to identify re-sequencing


– Review logic to identify re-sequencing

– Load crews to identify net change in crew count

– Segregate trade contractor mitigation time• Identifies best value for mitigation (lowest cost/day)

– Recognize that mitigation schedules are often not well thought out

• Analysis of mitigation plan alternates & options– After basic analysis and review, look at options– Develop what-if scenarios for all options

• Include cost calculations per trade

– General options:• Let the project slip• Reduce, remove, or postpone scope• Mitigation/re-sequencing


• Mitigation/re-sequencing• Compression• Evaluating interface milestone requirements for ability to relax

requirements

– Evaluate project time remaining• Requesting mitigation too early may waste money• May require future mitigation

– Evaluate impact on other projects– Review to ensure all affected projects are included

• Estimation of costs related to trade mitigation

– Sort schedule by trade

– Identify time saved by each trade

– Compare costs per trade to time saved

– Ensure value in recommending mitigation on a per trade basis


trade basis

– Often the highest cost trade mitigations offer the least amount of time saved

• Recommendations for specific mitigation efforts

– Contains relevant information related to final costs and time

– Includes impact on other project milestones or operations

– Identifies increased owner responsibilities


– Identifies increased owner responsibilities• More frequent inspections

• Off-hours inspections

• Limitations on access to certain areas

• Reduced submittal review time requirements

• Determine maximum risk

– Goal is to shift performance risk to the contractor with issuance of change order

– Negotiate this shift

– Risk assessment• Review project risk register


• Review project risk register

• Update risk response plan

• May require new risk workshop

– Duration achievement risks

– Specific impact risks

– Network risks

• Choose preferred mitigation option

– Review with project team

– Costs are generally of primary interest

– PM team will assess their comfort level with the specific trade mitigations

– Meeting generates additional suggestions and


– Meeting generates additional suggestions and questions

– May have to request additional work from contractor based on team meeting

• Choose mitigation strategy

– Final review of contractor’s plan, including their response to any questions/suggestions

– Make final decision for choice of strategy

– Finalize negotiations with contractor

– Ensure meeting of minds


– Ensure meeting of minds

• Issue change order for mitigation effort

– Formalize agreement with change order

– Include all pertinent facts to define mitigation needs and requirements

– Ensure this is done quickly

– Ensure it assigns performance and cost risks


– Ensure it assigns performance and cost risks

– Identify any conditions required of the owner to accommodate mitigation

North Terminal Case Studies

NTD PROGRAM FACT SHEET

http://www.miami-airport.com

Case Study 1

A-B Infill Project

A-B Infill Project•Contractor analysis

•Identified 78 calendar days of delay due to 37+ changes•Option 1 base mitigation price of $1.2 Million.•Option 2 base mitigation plus most critical changes price of $1.7M•Option 3 base mitigation plus all pending changes lump •Option 3 base mitigation plus all pending changes lump sum price of $2.2M

Owner analysis•Developed what-if schedule to model changes: net impact of 17 calendar days (including all changes)•Identified maximum owner exposure of $1.3M

•Conclusion•Owner choose option 1 for $1.2 million

Case Study 2

B-C Infill Project

BC Infill Project•Contractor analysis

•129 days of delay due to MEP conflicts, late release of structural wall design, and $5.6M in changes•Owner max exposure to be $4.1M•D21, D22, and D23 gate openings delayed by 63 CD at a cost of $345,000cost of $345,000

•Owner analysis•Developed what-if schedule•34 calendar days impact to gates •Cost of $335,000

•Conclusion•Owners decided only to mitigate gate opening•A best effort T&M work order was issued

• Lessons learned

– Act quickly both in identifying and reviewing

– Analyze fairly, contractor has a tough job with mitigation plan development

– Analyze carefully• Schedule must be legitimate and appropriate


• Schedule must be legitimate and appropriate

• Analyze costs separately after time analysis

– Assess all options

– Evaluate impact on all other projects/milestones

– Ensure reasonableness of plan

– Goal is to mitigate once and rapidly

Conclusion

Keeping the North Terminal Program on schedule was a constant effort that involved review of schedule and cost performance, incorporation of change work, incorporation of mitigation plans, and updating of interface milestones.

Questions?Questions?

Thank YouFor Attending!For Attending!

pmicos 2011 review and analysis of mitigation schedules

Documents

trackcontractor mitigation

contractors mitigation

mitigation proposal

mitigation proposal

mitigation requirements

mitigation formal request

preferred mitigation

specific mitigation