2

Initial Project Schedule (IPS, or Baseline schedule) had been approved. Several monthly updates were approved. The owner has requested KTR to incorporate a score (20) of new activities from the contract modifications into the schedule, with contradicting directions, i) first, "all twenty activities at once" ii) then later, "just new activities that falls into the duration of the monthly update this time (and repeat the same for the subsequent updates.)"

It looks like if I do ii) 'only the relevant activities for the update duration', I would lose opportunities for time extensions that I would surely be entitled to get if I do i) 'all at once.'

Is there an industry standard in reflecting new activities added from the contract modifications? Can I insist to go with i) and how can I convince them?

  • ?What is KTR? This sounds like an question about a specific contract with a specific customer. I'm not sure there is enough detail for me to understand or to provide a useful answer. – Mark C. Wallace Jun 17 at 8:53
  • KTR = Contractor. what I want to know is about normal practices for the specific situation described in the question. Thanks, – Young 21 Jun 18 at 23:42
1

Your aim here is to make them realize that this is not part of the original schedule or SOW or whatever you agreed uopn.

Firstly: Clarify. In your scenario it means:

  • Ask for clarification concerning the contradictions.
  • Get approval from all stakeholders.

Next: Budget:

  • Find out from both / all sides who is paying for the extra work.

If by now none of the stakeholders have insisted the additions get pushed off to another milestone, then out on your PjM hat. By now that surely realize that it's beyond the original scope, so that don't blame you for the delay.

Next: Scheduling.

  • Ask what priority this has; does it push off or replace or delay existing work?
  • Then request approval of a new schedule, based on the answer.

(If you start with scheduling, then it becomes "Project Management caused a delay type of scenario.)

1

There is an underlying assumption that, since this change was a contract modification, it followed your change process so that all stakeholders are aware of what changed. This should also mean, and it seems it does not, that the schedule and cost and other impacts have already been discussed and understood such that your contracts direction should not include a scheduling mandate that is not physically possible. If it does, then you have a change process that is broken.

Part of the change process should include understanding what the cost and schedule impacts are and, in the modification, a scheduling solution that is possible, well understood, and agreed upon. Your problem indicates this is not the case. To resolve it, no matter what the mandate is, you should schedule the new work within the old work based on what is possible and inform them of your scheduling solution. And then you need to fix your change process so that this does not occur again.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.