AACE 29R-03

As you can see from the above model P3 cannot identify Longest Path under resource leveling, therefore a protocol or delay analysis practice that depends on flawed longest path theory is also flawed.

 This morning I emailed to AACE International about my compalint on AACE being flawed and biased. No answer from AACE International yet but will keep you informed. Anyone wanting to openly debate the issue is welcomed.

Hi Rafael

I doubt if you will get a constructive response from anyone at AACE - their ivory tower is too high in the clouds.

The SCL protocol is similarly flawed - mainly because they have not updated the text to follow the latest law cases.

Keep up your crusade - I am following it with interest.

To use the Ostrich analogy "If you have your head in the sand - your butt is in the air" - prime target for a good kicking.

Best regards

Mike T.

Hello Rafael,

1 ) Which email address did you use to send your complaint to the AACEi?(i bet its info@aacei...)

If you haven't received an answer so far, this doesn't necessarily mean , as Mike has tried to suggest, they do not wish to answer. I suggest you post your complaint on the AACEi forums as well. Of course, need not say, that you'd voice your concern in a constructive manner. The removal of words such as "joke", "ridiculous" and so on, might actually help you get your point through in a more professional manner.

You'd be surprised that a lot of people might agree to some of the points you've raised or that you'd actually get a clarification concerning your query/complaint. 

And no, AACEi's ivory tower is not too high in the clouds.

2) I was striken by a statement you made. If you care to clarify as I might have misunderstood.

In your original message, you state and I quote:

"If because of different calendars or resource leveling the critical path is discontinuous then let it be, just keep the correct mathematical meaning of float."

but then you go on, maybe rightfully (as I didn't have time to do the exercise) , to note how the "Longest Path" will not provide a continuous path, as it should, in some circumstances.

Would you care to elaborate why do you consider that when the Critical Path , defined using the TF=Value formula, breaks, we should let it be? while if the Critical Path, defined using the Longest Path formula as implemented by Primavera, breaks in then it's a Scandal?

That doesn't sound right to me.

3) Most importantly, why are you assuming that RP 29R-03 is biased towards Primavera Software and the Primavera implementation of the Longest Path , as you call it.

As far as I can remember, the Longest Path concept was not developed by Primavera or a Primavera Employee. Just because Primavera has a Longest Path Implementation, it doesn't mean they own the Concept.

The point is:

It seems that you are making an assumption that RP 29R-03 is based on Primavera and therefore that its mention of "Longest Path" must definitely mean Primavera's own implementation of the Longest Path and thus RP 29R-03 is flawed because you know for certain that Primavera's implementation of the "Longest Path" breaks for resource critical networks.

Maybe if you try to think that when RP 29R-03 mentions the "Longest Path", it is not being Primavera Specific, thus doesn't suffer from the fallbacks of the Primavera Implementation, and might therefore not be as flawed as you might have thought.

4) In the schedule attached to your earlier message, have you actually linked the activities with FS relations? I want to try to duplicate your schedule with the same settings/rules/logic and so on.

Best Regards,

Roland Tannous

Ronald,

1) I used the following e-mail addresses as could not find other general e-mail address, I am not copying the full e-mail address to respect the privacy of the individuals although at the AACE site you can get their full e-mail address

'Kieshia.Cobb@xxxx' and to 'pbredeho@xxxx'

To post into AAEP forums you got to be a member, membership is not for free is at a cost.

I do not believe AACE behaved in a professional manner by making biased references to Primavera Software, I believe it wrong and do not deserve much respect, they got what they deserve, it is irresponsible and disrespectful to users of other software. I believe they have serious economic interests in Primavera products and on other supporting software they or their members sell.

For years I have seen the American bias toward Primavera Products, even have seen Primavera products being brand name specified by some of our institutions like the GSA "General Service Administration", this is against the law and believe even against international treaties that promote free commerce, at some point such wrong behavior get you angry. That it shows, yes.

2) I believe the Critical Path can be a discontinuous set, same as any mathematical answer can be.

The problem with the AACE 29R-03 is that it requires a continuous path in its protocol when under resource leveling it can be discontinuous, this requirement is wrong.

For example go to page 18 and under B. Recommended Protocol you will find: Ensure that there is at least one continuous critical path, using the longest path criterion that starts at the earliest occurring schedule activity in the network (start milestone) and ends at the latest occurring schedule activity in the network (finish milestone).

It is not a scandal Longest Path breaks, asking for it to be no-breaking is.

3) AACE RP-03 is biased towards Primavera Products because they are requiring Longest Path Functionality as per their own definition, unneeded functionality in their protocol that is available in all Primavera products and in software supplied by a software vendor that is part of the team that wrote the practice but not available in all software as it is flawed. To make it worse this functionality is useless and misleading under resource leveling. That longest path functionality is flawed goes beyond Primavera products it is enough resource leveling to make it flawed.

   AACE RP-03 is biased towards Primavera Products because they are requiring Negative Float Functionality, unneeded functionality to prove cause and effect, that is not impelemented in all software as it is flawed. This functionality we all know hides project logic and there are better ways to deal with the issue on criticality of intermediate milestones.

This functionality is implemented by Primavera products but not all products use it, other use better implementation on the functionality of finish constraints. By requiring its use in the case the other party uses the concept they rule out other software that purposedly avoid it, is subtle and is on purpose. The creation of negative float disrupts the cumulative curves to an "impossible" representation, that it is a mathematical result does not justify wrong modeling. With negative float the cumulative S curves can intersect at some point before finish date, is modeling of the impossible. Negative float is flawed functionality, there is no need to force others to use flawed logic.

4) You can download the schedule from the following link.

https://rapidshare.com/files/460405961/LPTH.PRX

Excuse any misspelling it was so easy to figure out it was developed on the fly.

The following Pert Diagram can help you reconstruct the sample job in case the backup file does not works.

Best regards,

Rafael

PS. If you do a search in my posting for "flawed" there is a possibility you will get as much hits as if you search for P3 on the AACE 29R-03 document, maybe we are even.

Hello Rafael,

1) I think that most of them, might be actually busy with some San Francisco Conference that is in like 4 days or so?

You can register and use the AACEi forum without being a member and there are no costs for using the forum.

Use this link:

http://www.aacei.org/cgi-bin/forums/board-profile.cgi?action=register

Just a single note. While I might agree that bias is not a good thing, but the fact that some institutions such as the GSA has been requiring Primavera in their specifications or COC is definitely not illegal. Remember that according to the law, there is a freedom of contract. The two parties are free to agree on whatever they want as long as its not murder, prostitution etc.. you got the point.

The only legal argument i can see , is that this behaviour might qualify as being against US antitrust laws. But to prove that, you have to prove that the GSA is actually choosing PRimavera cause it has a vested interest (agreement, getting paid, etc..) to promote primavera and no other functional reason to do so. I personally do not think that is the case. But feel free to prove otherwise.

2)

Again Longest Path Concept wasn't created by Primavera or one of its Employees.

The reason I keep repeating that, is because, while I agree that there is a problem , I don't quite agree on the description i.e that the Longest Path itself is flawed. I find it rather more adequate to describe the problem by either stating  that "Primavera's implementation" of the Longest Path is flawed or more correctly (at least I think so) "Primavera's Resource Leveling Algorithm is flawed" and affects the Longest Path. I think you agree , since we have both been, a while ago, in discussions with Vladimir and others where the flawed resource leveling algorithms of many softwares were thoroughly discussed.

I agree with you on the negative float issue. That is my perspective as well.

3) 

Thank you for the file . I'll download and run. What other Planning Software are you using and what results is it giving you?

I have openPlan i'll try with that as well.

4) Your constant usage of screen snapshots, is always very helpful. I thought I'd let you know :)

Best Regards,

Roland

This is not Europe but USA territory, our laws regarding government procurement differ to private procurement. There is a Federal Regulation known as FAR that prohibits brand name specifications by government unless there are very special conditions.

http://www.cohenseglias.com/government-contracts.php?action=view&id=264

Unfortunately many in federal government do not care, therefore they are frequently cited to federal court. The problem is that they are fast learners and do it in a subtle way by preventing services and material suppliers to issue claim in court unless they are direct bidders, therefore a supplier of specific software or specific brand of toilet tissue dispenser cannot present a claim.

I will try your suggestion but without much hope, I believe the reaction will be similar to GSA that had declared me before with no standing as I am not a direct bidder.

I love my country and my system but I am no naive, it is far from perfect.

There is freedom of contract as long as it is not against the law, in government contracting brand name specification is against the regulations that have the effect of law. That we have people that break the law is another thing, government employees are not the exception. That I have an issue of standing with my claim does not mean the GSA is correct.

The longest path computation is flawed because it misses some activities, it can only identify activities on a path tied by logic links, if the continuity is broken by resource leveling it get lost.

As a matter of fact if you look in detail my postings my point is that precise values of float are not needed in order for the software do its modeling, here I am not making an issue about resource leveled float, it is important for the management of a schedule, it is important for it to be correct for you be able to perform good management but it is not an absolute need to keep the forensic results correct.

I believe Vladimir is concerned about the value of correct float determination, but believe he is more concerned about how good the end result is.

I will repeat it again because I missed making direct reference to Float when quoting Caletka and much can be lost with this omission, sorry.

Float is a relative value. It determines which activities are more  critical than others. The precise numerical value is not as important as the absolute delay calculated when measuring the planned completion date to the projected completion date. From, Delay Analysis in Construction Contracts P. J. Keane & A. F. Caletka

Calling on a recommended practice to display float values and continuous critical longest path is wrong if the software you call by first name (P3) and last name (Primavera) is incapable of displaying continuous longest path when some activities are driven by resource availability.

A recommended practice that works only in the absence of resource leveling is wrong.

Best regards,

Rafael

Hello Raf,

Concerning our subject.

What do you think about the Ron Winter article concerning "longest path value"? He does mention in that article that P3 Longest Path Implementation doesn't work.

did you have the time to look at the concept and maybe do a bit of verification on your end?

Its this one:

http://www.ronwinterconsulting.com/Longest_Path_Value.pdf

Best Regards,

Roland

PS: FAR is far from reality :)

What?

Suddenly after issuing the recommended practice they figured it out P3 is wrong? How come they did not figured it out before? Can you trust such procedure?

What MS Project has longest path? Where, how?

Suppose before P3 "longest path" was not necessary or so irrelevant to the point no one noticed it was flawed?

Are all delay cases prior to Longest Path after P3 to be reviewed?

Longest path does not add much into the discussion in court, it ads unneeded complication to all the parts, such practice lacks sensitivity to the needs of our courts. If you present your case using such cumbersome theory, especially the theory on negative float, the judge might not get it so you might loose making him understand your point and so you will not be able to prove him your case, the burden of proof is always on the claimant. If not convincing, if too far from common sense the case most probably will be lost. 

If you got my sample file probably we can do some testing with P6 to see if it will yield a "longest path" continuous from start to end without using old float teory, and perhaps we can even make it a bit more complicated as this is maybe too basic, maybe by trial and error the software developer is figuring out how to solve the easy ones.

And even if it proves not to be wrong, insisting in complicating a court presentation way above needed is wrong, it shifts the focus from the central point to unneeded technicalities a judge is not trained to understand.

In addition ruling out software technically superior that do not follow the game of negative float because it hides logic or do not follow the game of longest path because it is not much what it adds is plain wrong.

Well hope you will help me with the testing of P6 as I do not have a license of it. Just start by transferring into P6 my sample job, run resource leveling and tell me the displayed values of total versus free float to see if they make sense, then tell me about the display of a continuous "longest path" from start to finish without using total float as critical path but longest path.

Best regards,

Rafael

It is good Caletka and the British speak English, at least with them I am getting good references.

Hi Rafael

In my experience resource levels rarely come into a retrospective delay analysis and if they ever do it would be by comparison of planned deployment and actual deployment - an excercise which invariably leaves to contractor with the accusation that the project was under resourced from the start.

In which case a resource levelling excercise would be purely theoretical and irrelevant.

I have never yet come across a contractor's programme that was resource driven so I have to set up my own resource modelling based on the Cost Plan / BOQ and then only if a disruption claim is contemplated.

Best regards

Mike Testro

http://www.ce.berkeley.edu/~ibbs/BRICS/Materials/Nguyen_Ibbs_DelayAnalysis_2006.pdf

Here most significant delays have a huge impact mostly because of resource availability, suddenly all activities are opened up but there are no enough resources to make them happen at the same time.

I do not agree with the AACE International procedures that do not allow for resource constraining by means of requiring a continuous longest path. It is in error, it is thinking of the 1960's, resources do matter in delay analysis.

Well, I have tried that on P6

Plase display free float to see if they are correct, I know in this particular array it would yield correct float values. 

Also please display critical path as defined per "longest path" not as per "total float" as some Primavera products claim they are different thing but if you want you have the option to make it whatever of the two.

Remember I am still waiting to learn about "longest path" as implemented by MS Project, as the recommended practice makes reference for it to be based also on MSP, as if it is enough to show they are not biased in favor of certain products.

Thanks in advance,

Rafael

Hello,

You have to admit that this statement , contained in the RP, has to be given consideration:

Read the following statement from page 101 of the recommended practice

"The policy of this RP is to be ‘software neutral’. This means that procedures and recommendations are made without regard to the brand or version of software used for analysis. However, the examples of techniques used to manipulate results, listed below, contain descriptions of the features taken directly from the software manufacturer’s manual in order to accurately represent the techniques which are software-dependent. Two major software products, Primavera Project Planner (P3) and Microsoft Project (MSP), representing a significant market share of the scheduling trade, were used as references."

Are you going to tell me they based the whole document on two products that do not have corect implementation of "Longest Path". That AACE International did not know "Longest Path" implementation of P3 was wrong and now, that they did not know MS Project has no built in implementation of this thing.

Project Planner (P3) and Microsoft Project (MSP), Project Planner (P3) and Microsoft Project (MSP), Project Planner (P3) and Microsoft Project (MSP), Project Planner (P3) and Microsoft Project (MSP), Project Planner (P3) and Microsoft Project (MSP), Project Planner (P3) and Microsoft Project (MSP), Project Planner (P3) and Microsoft Project (MSP), Project Planner (P3) and Microsoft Project (MSP), Project Planner (P3) and Microsoft Project (MSP), Project Planner (P3) and Microsoft Project (MSP), Project Planner (P3) and Microsoft Project (MSP), Project Planner (P3) and Microsoft Project (MSP), Project Planner (P3) and Microsoft Project (MSP), Project Planner (P3) and Microsoft Project (MSP), Project Planner (P3) and Microsoft Project (MSP), Project Planner (P3) and Microsoft Project (MSP), Project Planner (P3) and Microsoft Project (MSP), Project Planner (P3) and Microsoft Project (MSP), Project Planner (P3) and Microsoft Project (MSP), Project Planner (P3) and Microsoft Project (MSP), Project Planner (P3) and Microsoft Project (MSP),

Or is the above statement in French.

My friend, their software bias is so obvious in my barrio people would say it is so obvious the seams of their butt can be seen at plain sight.

Rafael ,

Please do not repost the statement I've quoted. It's just redundant. Keep the sarcastic comments out if you want people to perceive you as a professional. Thank you.

No offence to anyone , but if you had to include something software dependent, I think choosing the Software Packages that have the  the biggest Market Share, regardless if they are the best or not, is the normal choice. There is nothing wrong with that. This doesn't show bias. Its  reasonable. You cannot reasonably expect them to include "all softwares" or those who have a much lesser market share, regardless of the fact if they are better or not.

The authors of the RP have not just disregarded or ignored the flaws, since a lot of them have written about those flaws on a parallel track! They have reasons for not delving into this complicated topic in the RP itself. I have already told you , you could try to post on the AACEi forum, as long as its respectful , get a response as to why and then decide whether this response is convincing to you or not.

I am not gonna repeat the above.

P6 seems to  level the resources using the Longest Path definition of the Critical Path without breaking the path.

The reason is that Primavera has added an option called preserve scheduled early and late dates shown below that results in the resource-leveled schedule shown even lower (Longest Path option used)

Roland,

But they make reference to P3 and Microsoft Project, there is no excuse for such error.

About the bias with Primavera products, it is there, I am an engineer and know more complicated practices such as the ACI Code, The American Concrete Code. Today everything is controlled and calculated using computers but the ACI had no need to make persistent references to particular software. I believe that relying on particular software to show what shall be generic is laziness. Particular software belong to places like PP not on a "software neutral" document. Is obvious their bias in favor of the software to the point they take time to explain some minute details particular of the software.

As per your suggestion I tried to post into their forum but could not do it, found all threads closed for posting. As I told you before my experience with some of these institutions is that they do not care; for example the GSA, they are too big. No longer naive, the only way I know that maybe, maybe someone will notice is by doing something different, by calling the attention. And here jokes call the attention.

Here we love jokes and making fun of public figures, a few nighs ago I even hurt my stomach by listening at the jokes Mr. Obama made about his own, just in case is good for you to know his official birth movie was a joke, it was a clip from the movie The Lion King. I even enjoyed watching the face of Mr. Trump although here we all appreciate him because he invest on local Hotels and brings money and jobs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gv_44QQMcGo

Sorry, but the AACE International got it so wrong about the implementation of "Longest Path" in P3 and MSP that the temptation for a joke is too much.

For some reason you are starting to remind me Mr. Trump.

Best regards,

Rafael

Rafael,

Its weird for "all" the threads to be closed. I will check into that.

You call what the RP did  an error , some others seem to call it reference to softwares with the biggest market share. While others like me prefer to simply state:

"things take time , the RP isn't set in stone." 

I know the ACI codes pretty well. fun stuff except when some project specifications start using them as standards while they are supposed to be more like recommendations. I've had to refer to them on many occasions especially concerning the cycle for a Drop-Head Slab System in one of the projects.

Concerning the GSA and other such organisations. There are always ways to approach these firms or organisations, regardless of their size. 

The following is a bit out of context but somehow related. I have previously noted that some of the other brands, not all of course , do not follow proper Marketing Techniques (and by proper I don't mean paying millions of dollars , I am talking process wise) . In addition they do constantly make the mistake of confusing Marketing with bashing your competitors. One is not really promoting the value in his product by constantly bashing his competitors. It should be more about changing the Market's perception and putting out your value proposition to your prospective targets. Lead generation and conversion is a complex system.

I have previously tried to tell some of the other Scheduling brands that they needed to alter their marketing strategy to compete for a bigger market share. Unfortunately, a lot of them are not familiar with Business processes , not really interested and are more technically oriented i.e (the whole team is made of engineers not really interested in Business Stuff.) The only thing they seemed interested in doing was Bashing others.. Not very convincing.

Anyway I think it is  possible to approach these organisations, its only about adopting the right approach, being patient and trying to stop the constant Bashing.  

There are already many individuals who have written about the flaws in delay analysis techniques that do not take proper resource leveling algorithms into consideration (like the articles we both posted).I was curious about the timing of your post though. Have you not previously noted the problem in the AACEi RP? . This document has been around for a while now. (There is another version coming out I think).

Best Regards,

Roland

Haitham,

I have actually already done the exercise with P6 and posted results in one of my posts (includes Graphics). Check it out.

Roland,

About your curiosity,

"I was curious about the timing of your post though. Have you not previously noted the problem in the AACEi RP? This document has been around for a while now."

I have seen the document before, but never paid attention to it other than comment about how many TIA's are there and that the document wastes time mentioning them, to me it is unnecessary for the author to compare his recommended practice with others in the same document.

I make my living rendering engineering services, scheduling is my sideline, is kind of a passion.

In the few occasions I use scheduling to prove some negotiated claim I usually use some form of TIA, avoiding the AACE recommended practice for it as it is self-serving on its apportion of the risk on float. It says that float (either by contract or standard default, whatever this means) belongs to whatever party uses it first. It forgets it  is not necessarily so, that if the contract does not apportions float then cause and effect governs. If by reducing float latter on it happens this put into a difficult or impossible position for the Contractor to finish on time then there is some liability by the party who used float in detriment of the other no matter the timing.

This is a concept, many Owners and those having interest on representing Owners pretend to legislate into "Common Law" by means of continuous repetition, something I cannot accept unless the contract is clear or in such cases it was not foreseeable. Just imagine what would happen if out of a thousands activities the owner takes all float for himself and then you are required to deal with a job 100% end loaded. But this is another never ending issue the AACE International should have avoided.

A couple of weeks ago a client came to me asking for some assistance for a court claim, something new to me. I said let's see what I can do and started searching for the status on the forensic trade. I started with the first document that came into my hand AACEI 29R-03 and soon I saw it calls for cumbersome manipulation of negative float, that I did not liked. I also noticed that it also required a continuous Longest Path while referring to P3 a software I believed would yield discontinuous Longest Path under resource driven schedules, therefore considered the recommended practice to be flawed. 

I opted to look for other references and found a reference about the Modified Windows Methodology, seemed like appropriate for the need and for the moment I am still on my research for the most adequate methodology based on what we have on hand.

I decided to call it to the attention first directly to the AACE International, could not get through and started the debate on PP first to inform the community of this, secondly to get some reactions as I was wondering what if the other side asks me in court about using the AACE International instead of re-inventing the wheel. We must know if it is flawed or not as there is a possibility it can cause us a lot of damage.

We use software that does not cerates such an aberration as negative float as it hides true logic. The other problem is with the implementation of "longest path" as our software has no need of it for showing full critical path after resource leveling. We consider displaying of a few non critical activities along the path unnecessary, perhaps a distraction as they are not truly critical as there is still some available float, including these is plain wrong, so the theory of longest path meaning critical path even when continuous is flawed. To us it is more of an ego issue by some members of the AACEi  rather than true need, it needlessly complicate things, it cost extra and might divert the attention of the court.

As Mr. Obama sid a couple of days ago, " get back to focusing on the issues that matter, like, ‘Did we fake the moon landing?’ ‘What really happened in Roswell?’ And ‘Where are Biggie and Tupac?’ ".

Best regards,

Rafael

Rafael,

Your dilemna is that you are forward looking and the others seem to try to catch up. That is the normal order of things.

I agree that resource loading/leveling affects claims greatly and this has been mostly ignored maybe because it was easy to just assume resources are unlimited....

I had a peek once on the new AACEi RP 29-03 , not sure when is it supposed to come out and I remember the first impression I had was : Too Much Gibbrish.

I have to admit that writing clearly is hard though.  I'm finishing up the Draft for the "Schedule Reporting and Response" Topic for the new PMI's "Best Practices and Guidelines for Scheduling" and honestly I don't think I did a great job (actually I think I just kept repeating myself but maybe thats whats needed these days).

Writing under stress , especially when you're already overloaded with work and problems can be Hellish :)

What is the best resource leveling algorithm you have used so far?

Best Regards,

Roland

Rafael and Mike:

I am disappointed at the way you are dealing with this issue, and the links that you have provided here and in your email to the AACEi are both to the original, outdated versions of the RP.  If you go to the AACEi, you would find the revised version available for download at no cost.  And coincidentally enough, we got word yesterday that the most recent revision was approved by the AACEi Tech Board, so that should be posted on the website in the next couple of days.

In addition, access to the AACEi Forums is free, you just need to register at no charge and do not have to be a member.  I hate to see you so upset over a misunderstanding of the Forums; I'm not sure who told you that you had to join AACEi to participate in the Forums, but they did you a disservice.  We invite all professionals to participate in the review of the Recommended Practices, that's the way we improve the quality of the products.

As one of the three Authors for the most recent version, I can tell you that the RP has been in constant review and upgrading since that first edition was released in 2007, four years ago (not to count the three years spent in compiling the document before that).  In the most recent revision just approved, we spent over a year in soliciting and collecting comments, and six months in correlating and reviewing the hundreds of comments that we received.  I can assure you that any egos that might be involved have been thoroughly tested in the process of soliciting and reviewing comments, and no one has been able to force their sole point of view on the RP.  Certainly, all of us have various viewpoints on different issues and not all of them have been satisfied in the development.  However, we believe that the document has been thoroughly discussed, vetted and revised by a large group of very knowledgeable experts, all of whom have devoted our time to the development, not for any egotistical need (as far as I can tell), but rather to help improve the industry.  For me, my primary motivation has been to try to provide a document that will make it harder for the hired guns and one-trick pony consultants to develop and push fairy tales that are not supported by facts.  I suspect that your motivations are similar.  Everyone is and has been welcome to participate in the development and edits to the RP.

All three of us that are Authors of the recent revision, Kenji Hoshino, John Livengood and myself, are currently at the PMI College of Scheduling Annual Conference in San Francisco, as Roland mentioned.  We received a forwarded copy of your email to AACEi yesterday and have started a response, and should have a detailed response out shortly.  I think that responding in less than a week is pretty good considering we are all very busy between the conference and our workloads.

So, I hope that you both will consider this response in the manner in which it is offered; we are very open to constructive criticism and welcome your participation in any of the RPs.  There are some very dedicated and knowledgeable experts working on the development of the RPS, like Ron Winter, noted above.

Thanks,

Chris Carson

Roland,

What is the best resource leveling algorithm you have used so far?

To answer this question without any bias I would need a reference such as the following as a couple of jobs is not enough to issue a responsible opinion.

http://dde.teilar.gr/attachments/581/trautmann%5B2010a%5D.pdf

The analysis described in the present paper was restricted to software packages which work under Microsoft Windows, are able to read the data of a project from an ASCII file that we generated with external software, can be controlled using some macro language, and include a resource-constrained scheduling procedure. These requirements partly arise from the large number of problem instances that we have analyzed. As a consequence, we could use the software packages

• Acos Plus.1 (provider: ACOS Projektmanagement
GmbH, version 8.9a, hereafter referred to as ACO)
• AdeptTracker (WangTuo Software, v3.12, ATP)
• CS Project Professional (CREST Software, v3.2,
CSP)
• Microsoft Office Project 2007 (Microsoft Corporation,
v12, MSP)
• Primavera P6 (Oracle Corporation, v6.1, PP6)
• Sciforma PS8 (Sciforma Corporation, v8.5, PS8)
• Turbo Project Professional (OfficeWork Software,
version 4.00, TPP)

The analysis of 1560 projects from the internationally recognized problem library PSPLIB has shown that for the resource- and precedence-constrained project scheduling problem RCPSP, the project durations computed by any of these packages are noticeably longer than in the best known feasible schedules.

Therefore for the moment none of the above, better an abacus or wait until Spider is given a fair chance.

Best Regards,

Rafael

Rafael ,

Thank you for the opinion about resource-scheduling options.

I hope you have read the response from Chris Carson. His statements are more than fair. 

Awaiting to see what kind of response you will be getting  from the AACEi.

Best Regards,

Roland

Roland,

I could not download the document and believe it will be better to start the discussion of a new document after its formal release.

Meanwhile I would like to continue with the discussion of the document on which the debate is based, the original document as posted initially. The document many of us have on hand, future releases we do not have.

It is a document that is still moving around on the internet and that there is a possibility many are still using as I do not believe that court cases currently running will be stopped and re-started every time a revision to the document is issued.

As a matter of fact in order to avoid the confusion the new document shall be discussed on a separate thread. I do not know how radically different the new document might be but if the differences are cosmetic I will continue expressing my disagreement.

This is a document intended for the use of many and therefore it has the potential to have serious impact on all us, an impact that goes beyond daily scheduling chores but can have heavy economical impact to those of us that for decades have been working on the Contractor's side.

It is the practice for the ones who write the contract document to decide what documents to use but unfortunately in some locations a disproportionate percentage of available work is public works and here the Contractor has no standing to negotiate, is take it or leave it. Just take a look at the link for the document is a  virginia.dot most probably Virginia Department of Transportation, seem like we do not always have the option to pickup the delay procedures for our claims in court and this is one of my main concerns. But what when in the procedure is in error?

Here it has become a practice, especially in Government contracting to take away from the Contractor the tools he uses to control his work under the excuse you are free to look for work elsewhere. But public works is not a gift by public officials, it is an obligation, is for the benefit of all citizens, and this includes the Contractor. I have seen some extreme cases where the Agency forces the Contractor not only to use a Brand Name tool but to require him to use the computer of the Agency to keep his working files, to me this is invasion of privacy. All these issues are of major concern to many of us.

https://www.nysdot.gov/main/business-center/contractors/construction-division/primavera

They are free to manage their portfolios but what when the Contractors have invested a lot of time and money in integrating his Job Costing with his Scheduling? Some of my clients use Timberline Accounting and for them it does not make sense investing into the integrated PM module as each government agency has its own favorite, for them good cost accounting is therefore forbidden.

The complaint about this is common among Contractor's, it is a matter of time many of us will raise our voice of protest against such practice. I am just another one that happens to raise his voice in the only forum that has been available as in my own land I have been denied the opportunity to even express myself under the call that I have no standing. I have seen such attitude not only on the Federal Government but also at the State and Municipal levels.

Roland, I am telling you all these that might seem unrelated but I feel it to be relevant for your full understanding on why the free and open discussion is so important. As you have seen I have tried to discuss the issues in other forums but their Parliamentary Rules tends to be controlled by an impartial moderator. Here at PP we can discuss any theme and present our ideas, no matter how radical, controversial or irrelevant as long as you abide by the very simple rules of the forum, this I believe to be the most democratic forum anywhere.

Well I will continue raising my voice of concern for as long as it takes. Therefore I would like to continue the discussion with the document at hand and leave future and new document for latter, to be discussed under a separate thread as I am not interested in creating more confusion if we start comparing this document with other versions. Keep in mind I was the originator of the discussion theme and it is common practice here to respect the originators theme, in this case the document on which I started the debate.  

Mike,

My dear old friend, you are welcomed to make any comment you want on any thread I initiate, I have fun with them and hope some day to be able to get you angry for the fun of it as never I have perceive you losing your temper, this is something I admire on you. I am not like Mr. Trump, I love jokes and have much fun with yours, you know I perhaps was the very first visitor to your Trivia Forum.

Chris,

Thanks for the information, I find it relevant to keep informed others there is a new version available for future use. Is also important to keep everyone informed about the differences, but these shall be discussed under separate thread as they become public.

Best regards,

Rafael

On page 16 the practice assume unilaterally a rule for distribution of float, even when absent in the contract. It defines float as a commodity.

In the absence of contrary contractual language, network float, as opposed to project float, is a shared commodity between the owner and the contractor.

But the contractor is responsible for preparing the schedule and therefore is responsible for the creation of float.

Float in necessary to be managed from the beginning because it provides some cushion from other paths becoming critical, therefore float in this context belongs to the Contractor. The use of float is at some cost always, the reduction of float increases the probability of the path becoming critical.

This determination is blind to whatever effect float reduction has on the contractor's final execution.

I saw it first!!! It is mine!!! It is mine!!! Only mine!!! is wrong rule.

On page 19 the protocol defines a required level of detail that might be in conflict with the approved contractual baseline. It unilaterally pretends to change the agreed contractual conditions.

It goes as far as recommending their particular choice of activities percentage as if scale of the job does not matter. They limit the level of detail to to be such that no one schedule activity carries a value of more than half of one percent of project contract value per unit of activity duration. But what if your job is for the retrofitting of an A/C System and the replacement of a couple of Chillers take less than a day, what do you do? The cost of this operation is whatever it is, it does not matter if you like it or not.

This is a document that seems to have been adopted by some government agencies that might have an impact on how the court claims are to be analyzed, among others it is biased against those who deppend on float as a buffer to manage their job, otherwise float is irrelevant.

In some jurisdictions exculpatory clauses are against public policy, in escence are ilegal and unenforceable, the unilateral aportinment of float ownership has the efect of an exculpatory clause, therefore this practice is in some cases promoting for what is ilegal in some jurisdictions.

http://www.johnson-condon.com/documents/Yangv.Voyagairecasesummary_002.pdf

I do not see on the document a statement on the use of this document as a contractual condition. It shall not be used unilaterally by government agencies when the bidders have no real negotiating power as to the inclusion or not of such document.

I value the existence of such documents but I have serious problems with the idea of these be used wrong. I believe the entity that issues such procedures has some responsibility into making sure these documents are used in a manner it does not negatively affect some. I do not see a statement saying that this document is not intended to be used as a contractual condition that forces the other part to adopt it.

Perhaps a statement for it to be used as a mediation document, to be used only when both parts agree, some sort of voluntary arbitration or mediation clause, not at gunpoint.

Back to page 19 the recommended practice calls for the replacement of controlling constraints, to be replaced by logic, but this prevent for the creation of their beloved negative float. I do not get it, why for some analysis the creation of negative float is so important while for other parts it is to be avoided?

... what a mess !!!

This is just scratching the surface, I will welcome the call for any other inconsistencies you find, meanwhile I will continue my search as to get as much bullets as I can in case some of our government agencies slips such document into their contracts.

Mike,

If you do not like the way I play don't get mad at me, you might be ruled out of the game.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Re-VVDg-DSU

Come on, give me a smile.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWuv2txl_5M&feature=related

Rafael:

I think it is a complete waste of everyone's time to discuss an old version of a document, unless you want to have the same discussions that have gone on for several years, and have culminated in the up-to-date version.  Of what use is this discussion?  Suppose something that you absolutely hate has been corrected in the next version? 

I don't see why anyone would want to take the time for this.

Let's move to the new version and start that dialogue; that would provide fodder for the next update and a more useful conversation.  And, if you are really trying to build your defenses against the RP, that would be more efficient.  Imagine if you were on the witness stand and start defending your position against the RP, and it is actually aligned with your belief system?  You would look foolish and it would be obvious that you didn't actually review the RP.  We have heard of some witnesses claim to follow the RP and they didn't, and that hurt their credibility.

Of course, I'm also talked out on the older versions by now, so that colors my feelings.

Thanks,

Chris

Chris,

I tried to download it and could not, now I do not want to provide personal information to the site as it insists on some personal information be supplied, for example it requests work references, e-mail address.

The clause for float be available for whoever uses it first no matter what effect it has on the other party is clearly an exculpatory clause that pretends to relieve one party for damages to the other no matter what effect his actions have.

An abusive practice that in order to be stopped, some jurisdictions had to issue legislation against the practice of government agencies to issue exculpatory clauses in their contracts. A slap on the face to those Program Managers that as soon as they start providing services to the government agencies they start inundating their contracts with exculpatory clauses, becoming the "Good Guys" to those with abusive attitude.

Given the past history on the AACE International promoting exculpatory clauses on its recommended practices, a practice that although not viewed with good eyes by the courts is recognized as enforceable I do not want to provide them with personal information.

Ironically I downloaded the previous version perhaps from a state where exculpatory clauses are not forbidden in government contracting, even they did not required any personal information.

Yes, I would like to know what is the actual position of the AACE International and the Project Management Institute with regard to exculpatory clauses and float ownership.

Of special interest would be the position of the PMI, do they still hold consumption of float does not matter, that its depletion will have no effect on the schedule and therefore in this way they encourage the use of float no matter at whose expense?

Even after many years of repetition that consumption of float does not matter many contractors do not buy the lie that float consumption is irrelevant. General contractors know that exculpatory clauses though not seen with good eyes by our courts they are enforceable, but not always, in some case are illegal in government contracting, depending on your jurisdiction.

Does the revised recommended practice includes some of the newer schedule analysis techniques such as FLORA, a technique that considers how float consumtion impacts a delay?

http://www.ce.berkeley.edu/~ibbs/BRICS/Materials/Ibbs.%202008.%20FLORA_New%20Forensic%20Schedule%20Analysis%20Technique.pdf

Best regards,

Rafael

The April 25, 2011 Revision of AACE International Recommended Practice No. 29R-03 insists on promoting exculpatory clauses by stating:

"In the absence of contrary contractual language, network float is a shared commodity between the owner and the contractor. Conventional interpretation of the principle of shared float allows the use of float on a first-come-first-serve basis, thereby allowing the owner to delay activities on that path up to the point where float is consumed." (page 121 of 134)

This allows the Owner to delay all activities that at some moment show some float no matter what the effect on the Contractor costs and schedule.

The AACE International made his own determination of only considering old CPM theoretical principles about float, the easy way and categorically assumes what is convenient for the Owner at the cost of the Contractor. As in some jurisdictions exculpatory clauses in government procurement is illegal in such cases the AACE International is promoting in these jurisdictions what is illegal.

The revised recommended practice also insists on the use of negative float concept, a concept considered by many not of much value in Forensic Analysis, an unnecessary complication that hides true CPM logic and makes it harder for the Courts to follow the logic.  

Regarding the analysis of the two critical path schools, longest path versus total float value it assumes again what is convenient for the Owner at the cost of the Contractor.

"For the purpose of this RP, the procedures and methods use the lowest value theory as the valid criterion for criticality where negative float is shown." (page 115 of 135)

It does not even mentions the possibility that the risk of float usage can be negotiated, say 50-50 as many have proposed.

The new 2011 29R-03 recommended practice makes many one sided assumptions all of which favor the Owner, it is a biased document and therefore flawed. Is a document that shall be rejected by all contractors.

Hi Rafael

Most prudent contractors put in a Time Risk Contingeny Buffer task to soak up the loose float and then the employer cannot touch it,

The SCL protocol advocates this approach.

The problem with AACE is that only ASTA have this software facility - in P6 you have to create a hammock to produce the same result.

Best regards

Mike Testro.

Mike,

I recommend you to look at Spider, Sciforma, and any Critical Chain software. Asta is not alone.

But if creating hammock produces the same result then the buffer is not managed. What happens with the buffer when Critical Path changes?

A separate and interesting topic - to discuss approaches used by different softwares for creating, calculating, and managing buffers.

But the question remains: who owns the buffer?

Hi Vladimir

The buffer belongs to the Contractor because he has placed it in his programme for his risk elements.

The Employer may ask for his own buffer to be created as well - in fact this is what the NEC contracts require.

In ASTA a buffer always becomes critical although you can switch the display off.

When the work is extended the buffer is reduced accordingly and remains critical.

A question that I have yet to get answered is What Calendar should be attached to the buffer?

Best regards

Mike T.

Interesting topics for the separate threads - a size of buffer, buffer penetration estimation, application of Earned Value to the schedules with buffers, etc.

Mike

1. In the USA prudent contractors are not allowed. Buffers are not recognized, and are interpreted as a change on the contract time if you do not make use of all contract time in your schedule. All float is for the use of the Owner as long as there is float available, it is a stupid idea that by making it available to whoever uses it first it will have no effect on the other party.

2. The SCL has good sense of justice, the AACE International does not, for years biased and for years to come will be biased. Is controlled by Owners rep and by Contractors that in a way represent the Owner's side. Contractors that do most of their work as Project Managers not at risk that also render design services with affiliate companies. Contractors that render Program Management services to government agencies. These exculpatory clauses work on their favor and as soon as they get into program management they teach government agencies how to use them. Is one sided, on favor of the ones who write the documents.

3. There are honest people everywhere, people that do not believe in one party taking advantage on the other, especially when one party does not have negotiating power. The SCL goes further on its proposal as it does not try to distinguish who and who does not has negotiating power but goes directly into a more equitable distribution, these are honest people that believe in equitable rules.

4. Whatever a party does that affects the other shall always be claimable by the other party. It is well known our courts do not see with good eyes exculpatory clauses but pretending to make an exculpatory clause the common law is insane.

5. A wrong act does not justify another wrong act. If the use of float by either party has no effect on the other party then there shall be no liability, it is simply cause and effect what shall prevail. A basic concept of justice some want to bypass by using exculpatory clauses disguised under dysfunctional CPM theories that do not take into account all implications on float depletion.

5. Yes the SCL is ahead of the AACE International (whatever it has of international), is not years but decades ahead, perhaps centuries or millennia. This based on what you just said, though I would not be surprised if eventually they yield.

6. For short term administration you need a schedule free of any buffer, you need an unobstructed view that targets dates assuming an ideal world where everything goes as planned or even better, such as the case of rain allowance. What if does not rains and your buffer delayed the start of some future activity?

7. The AACE International promotes for the contractor to keep in hiding his true plans, promote for the reduction of float to the extent some legal firms have openly suggested for the contractor not to be a fool and reduce some float. The problem is that this approach is misleading. I firmly believe that not saying the truth at some point in the future will backfire against you. For some reason also my clients believe in using their true plan even when some layers recommend disguising the schedule on the premise it is no longer a planning tool but a tool for claim management and you cannot pretend otherwise.

Vladimir,

As buffer is not recognized, not even promoted, it simply does not exists, is interpreted as an extension of float. Whatever is applied to float is applied to buffer. It belongs to whoever uses it first, whatever this argument means, still an exculpatory clause.

"If you dress the female monkey with silk she will always be a female monkey."

I believe the best way to manage and quantify float usage is through the use of statistical methods. Although we do not use statistical methods in all schedules, these methods shall always be available for their use when needed, as in the case you need them for negotiation or modeled forensic analysis.

Best regards,

Rafael

Here is the official response that we just provided to Rafael:

Rafael:

We understand that you have sent some comments concerning AACE’s RP29R-03 to the AACE and also posted some on Planning Planet.  The editors of the RP, Kenji Hoshino, Chris Carson and John Livengood have spent thousands of hours over the last eight years working on the RP, so forgive us if we sometimes have flashes of impatience in our responses.  Chris Carson took the lead in this response but both Kenji and John have had input.

First, if you based you review on the version posted on VADOT’s website, it is out of date.  We appreciated you bring to this to our attention.  It has now been updated to the current version.  We have made no attempt to identify how our responses to you might change because of the different versions.  The current response is predicated on the May 2011 version that is available for free down load from the AACE.

1. AACE 29R-03 makes continuous reference to float values instead of just using the software to show cause and effect which shall be the same, no matter if your software can or cannot display correct resource leveled float values. 

ANSWER: As noted in Section 1.5, Underlying Fundamentals and General Principles, that identification must be related to critical path delay, defined as delay that pushes the contractual milestones beyond the contractual requirements.  The RP notes properly this issue when discussing float.  It also notes the use of the longest path criterion, which is a CPM methodology, not a software-specific methodology.

The use of the term “Resource leveled” float values may indicate the author believes in the use of resource leveling in scheduling, but the RP specifically does not address this topic.  The RP contemplates schedules that have resource logic provided in the preferential logic, so that the schedule represents the planned means and methods using available resources throughout the project.

1. It is wrongfully biased in favor of Primavera products, ironically products that under resource leveling cannot yield correct float values while others can correctly display resource leveled float.

ANSWER: Section 4.3 D, Common Critical Path Alteration Techniques states, “The policy of this RP is to be ‘software-neutral’.  This means that procedures and recommendations are made without regard to the brand or version of software used for analysis.  However, the examples of techniques used to manipulate results, listed below, contain descriptions of the features found in some software manufacturer’s manuals.”  In addition, Section 4.3 D states clearly, “At any rate, schedules used for forensic schedule analysis must minimize the use of these techniques (see Subsection 2.1).”

Section 1.5 A, Underlying Fundamentals, states, “Therefore, in practice, the schedule analyst must also consider the assumptions (work durations, logic, sequencing, and labor availability) that form the basis of the schedule when performing a forensic schedule analysis.  This is particularly true when the schedule contains preferential logic (i.e., sequencing which is not based on physical or safety considerations) and resource assumptions.”  So the RP does required taking into consideration resource availability in the analysis, something that can be done without any specific software.

1. To make it even worse the recommended practice embed the concept of Longest Path into the concept of Critical Path, a concept that includes activities that are not critical as they still have float, by definition is wrong as the added activities still have some float and can still be delayed without impacting the project finish. 

ANSWER: The RP clearly notes the difference in the two concepts; each is affected by certain schedule components, and the RP notes that a proper analysis should examine both LP and CP TF.  Understand that a schedule that has no constraints, no relationships except Finish-Start, no lags, and no calendars, will have the longest path the same as the zero-float critical path.  However, since many schedules contain many of those components and settings, both definitions of critical path must be examined.  The longest path is a CPM methodology concept, not a Primavera-specific concept.   A delay to the longest path, regardless of the float value of the activity, is likely to result in a delay to the project.  Float values can be affected by the settings noted above such as calendars.

1. Still the meaning of float shall be the potential delay that does not postpone project finish or due dates. Well incredible but true, Longest Path misses resource critical activities. 

ANSWER: This concept of the “resource critical activities” seems to accept that there is missing resource logic such that the activities would be critical where there existed proper resource availability logic.  This is why the RP suggests the need for examination of “resource assumptions”. 

1. What is even more of a joke is the fact that in page 9 of the AACE 49R-06 recommended practice for identifying the Critical Path, the authors make reference to Primavera Software and say "This RP assumes that the algorithms used in each of these implementations are identical and give identical results." 

ANSWER: The only references to Primavera software in the latest version of the RP are as an example.

1. Seems like the AACE is unable to validate the correctness of Primavera products when a single wrong result would be enough to prove its unreliability. Making reference to a product you cannot validate is irresponsible. 

ANSWER: This is a moot point with no reference to the software in the practices.

1. The implementation of Longest Path by Primavera products is flawed and can be easily demonstrated by modeling a four activities job, each activity independent of each other and using a single resource of which only one unit is available.After resource leveling Primavera products will give wrong float values, and even when P6 yields in this sample job correct total float, the values of free float are wrong. Incredibly neither P3 nor P6 will display a continuous critical path and in some occasions can yield a single activity Longest Path that can even be non critical. Beware that in other schedules P6 can yield wrong values of resource leveled total float. Longest path will not always provide you with a continuous path as frequently required in the recommended practice. If because of different calendars or resource leveling the critical path is discontinuous then let it be, just keep the correct mathematical meaning of float. Saying critical path can be this or another thing just brings confusion and is wrong. 

ANSWER: Resource leveling is outside the scope of the RP, which is specifically limited to CPM.  The RP addresses the issue when it is handled with preferential/resource logic.

1. The inclusion of negative float theory into the practice is inappropriate in delay analysis protocols, negative float hides schedule logic to the extent the forensic analyst and many schedulers disable the constraints that create negative float. 

ANSWER: Negative float is a concept that is a valid contractual concept regardless of whether you constrain the completion date in the software or not.  It is the argument that any activity that is "behind schedule" based on the current contractual completion is, by definition, critical.  This is a completely legitimate and necessary discussion in the RP and it addresses both concepts.  Analysts perform many techniques in analysis, with removal of constraints as one of them, however, just removing the project completion constraint does not relieve the contractual requirement to complete on that date.

1. Still the AACE 29R-03 requires to consider negative float and this results in very cumbersome exceptions to be applied, for example; under one of the many delays methodology: Excusable & Compensable Delay (ECD) - The difference between the as-built completion date and the collapsed as-built completion date resulting from the extraction of all owner-caused delays is the total ECD. If the owner has paid the contractor specifically to accelerate, then any negative delay durations (delay mitigation) resulting from the owner-paid acceleration should be credited to the owner against the total ECD to avoid double payment to the contractor for acceleration. Where the quantification of the duration of the specific paid mitigation is not reasonably feasible, the credit adjustment may be accomplished by crediting the monetary value of the acceleration payment against the monetary value of the ECD. 

ANSWER: The concept discussed here is not related to negative float, it is related to duration gains due to mitigation and how to deal with those gains in the analysis.

1. Excusable & Compensable Delay (ECD)  - The difference between the as-built completion date and the collapsed as-built completion date resulting from the extraction of all owner-caused delays is the total ECD for each modeled time period. If the owner has paid the contractor specifically to accelerate, then any negative delay durations (delay mitigation) resulting from the owner-paid acceleration should be credited to the owner against the total ECD to avoid double payment to the contractor for acceleration. Where the quantification of the duration of the specific paid mitigation is not reasonably feasible, the credit adjustment may be accomplished by crediting the monetary value of the acceleration payment against the monetary value of the ECD. 

ANSWER: The concept discussed here is not related to negative float, it is related to duration gains due to mitigation and how to deal with those gains in the analysis.

1. ... and the workarounds to deal with negative float are endless, what a mess !!!  To prove cause and effect, negative float is unnecessary, it just adds to the confusion. It is enough to make proper reference to criticality as defined under the contract and use procedures that do not depend on the use of negative float, procedures that do not hide schedule logic. 

ANSWER: The RP clearly references the need to review contractual requirements in the analysis. 

1. If the dominant cause is defined on the contract to govern, what some call “longest path” then be it. 

ANSWER: We are not sure what “dominant  clause” is.  If you are saying that the contractual requirements determine the definition of critical path, the RP agrees with that concept.

1. If delays on already critical activities but not dominant is defined on the contract to govern criticality then be it. 

ANSWER: Same comment above.

1. If the contract apportions some float to both parties then be it. 

ANSWER: Same comment above.

1. If the contract is not clear then common law interpretation in favor of the party that does not write the contract shall prevail. 

ANSWER: You are postulating that ambiguities in the contract are interpreted against the author.  While true, the “common law” of construction contracts is that float belongs to the project. If you are looking for a legal citation that might affect the methodology choice and implementation, then specific case law results would be examined.

1. The basic principle of cause and effect is still valid, the recommended practiced shall concentrate on using the CPM model to prove cause and effect in a way it does not depends on flawed theories, in a way it allows for the use of software that even when correct values of resource leveled float are not displayed as this does not necessarily invalidates the analysis. It shall not rule out software that provide better functionality with regard to the implementation of constraints and still identify all critical paths avoiding the use of negative float because it hides schedule logic.  More advanced software that implement “finish not later than” constraints in a way it identifies criticality without modeling the impossible and without making possible the creation of wrong progress curves that at times might cross each other. 

ANSWER: All points in this paragraph have already been addressed.

1. “The precise numerical value is not as important as the absolute delay calculated when measuring the planned completion date to the projected completion date.”From, Delay Analysis in Construction Contracts P. J. Keane & A. F. Caletka 

ANSWER:Not sure what this reference is designed to prove.  The RP clearly notes that notion of delay is a CPM concept, requiring that the delay prolongs the completion date.  I think this says the same thing. As an aside, Tony Caletka’s book is not precisely applicable to US law, as it was developed as an outgrowth of the 2004 SOCL Protocol and is based on UK law.

1. The industry needs protocols that do not favor or advocate particular interests, particular egos or particular software. 

ANSWER: We agree. 

Rafael:

One other issue that was not addressed in your original email to AACEi is the issue of ownership of float, which you refer to in this statement,  "It [NOTE: the RP] forgets it is not necessarily so, that if the contract does not apportions float then cause and effect governs. If by reducing float latter on it happens this put into a difficult or impossible position for the Contractor to finish on time then there is some liability by the party who used float in detriment of the other no matter the timing. """""jjhh"

If you believe that U.S. case law somehow supports your position that the Contractor owns the float, or the Owner owes the Contractor time when Owner-caused problems reduce float, then I am sorry to say that you are simply and completely wrong.  Case law in the States overwhelmingly supports joint ownership of float, just as it is stated in the FSA RP, when there is no contractual determination of the matter.  Obviously, whatever position is taken by the contract rules, as noted in the RP.  But the RP has the correct position on this, and you do not.

My personal opinion, as a long-term Contractor-side scheduler, is that the Contractor "owns" the float up until he receives approval for his baseline schedule.  During the time that the Contractor is developing the baseline schedule, he has the ability to control the use of float as long as there is no sequestering of that float which might trigger rejection.  Any prudent Contractor should follow good schedule development practices including risk management, and I believe that this will result in no float available to the first need in general, based on how tight most project durations are these days.  In the days when the contract duration was determined by the Contractor in his schedule development, all the time to his committed completion date was critical, thus leaving no float.  With Owners' dictating project durations, often without any rationale for the time frame, it is up to the Contractor to take all steps to produce an accurate schedule that is adjusted for identified risks, and I would submit that this sincere effort results in a project duration that is generally longer than the contractual requirement.  Then the Contractor must figure out ways to meet that contractual duration, leaving no float available for first use.  Of course, as soon as good progress is made, the float builds and becomes available for either the Contractor to use for production problems or the Owner to use for changes.

One thing that most Contractors and analysts often forget is that while the Owner can take advantage of available float, that doesn't mean that there is no disruption caused to the Contractor, and US case law strongly supports that the Contractor has the right to proceed as he planned, and if the Owner's actions cause inefficiencies, there is a strong case for entitlement, and the Contractor can put in a claim that will be supported.  But disruption is another topic, and it is not covered in the FSA RP.

Chris,

I do not believe every US court support the contractor owns the float, I am saying it is not a universal and absolute truth on all jurisdictions. I am saying that I favor the point of view of those jurisdictions that legislated against the use of exculpatory clauses in Government Contracting because exculpatory clauses are not ilegal unless banned. They understood that if not banned then courts would continue recognizing such exculpatory clauses in government contracting. I am advocating for the rejection of RP that favor exculpatory clauses.

I am saying that the AACEI is also flawed because it does not address disruption,  it address only delays for which EOT are justified under their limited and theoretical rules. As a matter of fact I believe it to be intentioned to perpetuate exculpatory clauses as assuming the use of float by the Owner no matter what effect is has it does not matter as to justify delay claims is an exculpatory assumption.

I do not see sense of justice and equitability on the AACE International and because of this General Contractors shall be warned about the dangers of using their RP.

I understand this interpretation by the AACEI International and even by some of our courts as the worst of the exculpatory clauses as it is intended not merely to immunize the Owner of delay claims but also to immunize the Owner against disruption due to float consumption by the Owner.

Also if the use of float can be assigned by the contract clauses this RP fall short of covering this option. By omission, NO, in any case omitted ON PURPOSE, and very conveniently. I believe there are many in the AACE International that sell services to Government agencies and therefore they sell "exculpatory clauses".

Sorry but I am very skeptical about the fairness of AACE International and as a Contractor, not an external who makes money selling schedules, but as someone who for over 30 years have been working on the contractors side, at times as an employee and at times as an Owner of my own Construction Company, and now as an engineering consultant.

I believe USA General Contractors shall take a stand against what the AACE International says in its RP and shall make their cases under disruption claims, this makes AACE International RP useless.  

I would make the call for others to dare to take the initiative to issue complete practices that include disruption claims, practices that will be of wider validity, this limited AACEi RP is no good, it falls short in too many aspects.

About your response I do not agree with it except for a few minor changes on the new version. For example regarding the following statement.

The RP contemplates schedules that have resource logic provided in the preferential logic, so that the schedule represents the planned means and methods using available resources throughout the project.

Seems like the AACE International is not experienced with Federal Government contracting where it is common to prohibit the use of preferential logic as a substitute of true resource leveling. 

From page 3 of http://www.ronwinterconsulting.com/Implementing_Resource_Leveling.pdf

"Finally, there must be no resource considerations in the logic used. This is sometimes called, “soft logic.” You do not want to codify resource timing considerations into your schedule if you are also going to later resource level your schedule. The two different procedures used together will only produce erroneous results. Finally, be sure to document all assumptions."

I believe the author might be related to one of the authors of the RP, very interesting, but some federal Gvernment specificatios agree with the author of this paper contrary to the statement about the RP contemplating schedules that have resource logic provided in the preferential logic.

Tomorrow will be on a pre-bid meeting but latter will continue addressing each of the responses I did not posted because of the following note:

NOTICE: This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are the property of ARCADIS U.S., Inc. and its affiliates. All rights, including without limitation copyright, are reserved. The proprietary information contained in this e-mail message, and any files transmitted with it, is intended for the use of the recipient(s) named above. If the reader of this e-mail is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this e-mail in error and that any review, distribution or copying of this e-mail or any files transmitted with it is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the original message and any files transmitted. The unauthorized use of this e-mail or any files transmitted with it is prohibited and disclaimed by ARCADIS U.S., Inc. and its affiliates. Nothing herein is intended to constitute the offering or performance of services where otherwise restricted by law.

Regards,

Rafael

Hello,

"I am saying that the AACEI is also flawed because it does not address disruption,  it address only delays for which EOT are justified under their limited and theoretical rules."

Answer: Just because it does not address disruption , doesn't mean its flawed. 

"I do not see sense of justice and equitability on the AACE International and because of this General Contractors shall be warned about the dangers of using their RP."

Answer: Each person is free to have his own personal judgment vis a vis almost anything. That's a constitutional right. Not all people agree with you. In addition, the fact still remains that not all opinions are considered an expert opinion. Keep that in mind next time . I don't see the proper credibility.

"I understand this interpretation by the AACEI International and even by some of our courts as the worst of the exculpatory clauses as it is intended not merely to immunize the Owner of delay claims but also to immunize the Owner against disruption due to float consumption by the Owner."

Answer: Again. The credibility and credentials issue.

"Sorry but I am very skeptical about the fairness of AACE International and as a Contractor, not an external who makes money selling schedules, but as someone who for over 30 years have been working on the contractors side, at times as an employee and at times as an Owner of my own Construction Company, and now as an engineering consultant."

Answer: irrelevant. In fact, engineers performing Forensic Scheduling on "the sideline" is one of the biggest problem in this industry since each is a self-acclaimed expert.

"I believe USA General Contractors shall take a stand against what the AACE International says in its RP and shall make their cases under disruption claims, this makes AACE International RP useless."

Answer: Rest assured. They won't and it is not useless.

"Seems like the AACE International is not experienced with Federal Government contracting where it is common to prohibit the use of preferential logic as a substitute of true resource leveling"

Answer: I think you're the one with no real experience in the subject matter that you so insist on debating.

Honestly, I see some kind of a hidden-agenda or self-driven interest in most of your posts, especially since Chris has volunteered to discuss the matters with you but you have kept being irresponsive and using a somewhat disrespectful tone. That , amigo , is not credibility! What it obviously is though is Hypocrisy and a lot of Defamation...

Regards.

Hi Roland

Tone down the language please you are bordering on the offensive.

Rafael

Would you like me to delete this thread or edit it?

Best regards

Mike Testro

Hi Mike,

Need not to remind you that your role as a moderator of these forums is to actually be impartial and regulate all participants equally. That is obviously not the case. 

You didn't seem to mind when Rafael's aggressive tone was bordering on the offensive.

Maybe you don't mind, but I do.

Last time I checked Freedom of Expression may not limit the honor and reputation of others. I did what I had to do to try and put an end to this "unjustified" bashing which has been systematically targeting honest reputable people such as those related to the AACEi committees.

You should have interfered then, but you obviously didn't. I am not backing down on this.

Don't insult people's intellect. I am not that impressed.

Best Regards,

Roland Tannous

Mike,

With regard to a public document here at home you are free to express your dissenting opinion. Different opinions shall be debated based on reasoning and not on personal attacks, I guess everyone here knows it and most will agree with you, but prefer you leave it as is, let it open for the view of others, maybe it helps to present my point.

Same as some legislative bodies find it wrong the use of non-exculpatory clauses in government contracting to the point of banning it I also find it wrong and will always express myself against such practice even when not prohibited on most states.

I worked for a Program Manager that happened to compete with others from the Continental US, we observed from the inside how in other Regions Continental US Program Managers advocated the inclusion of exculpatory clauses into the Agency contracts, this was not welcomed by any of the engineers in our team as we did not perceived these clauses in the benefit of our people, on the contrary we perceived them wrong in government contracting and against healthy public policy. My expressions about how many Continental US Program Managers work is based on real life experience.

Best regards,

Rafael

Rafael,

I think you know the difference between constructive criticism and bashing.

What you have done in many  posts in this thread borders on bashing and offensive and this is not the first time, in this same thread, I have to ask you to tone down your overly aggressive tone.

Just because it's your personal opinion, or Mike's opinion, that you've done nothing wrong does not necessarily mean you haven't done anything wrong.

This is as far as I go in this thread. Not worth my time.

Rafael:

I am afraid we are at a dead end here.  Roland has answered the couple of new thoughts, such as disruption, correctly, and it seems that you are just repeating your opinions.  I think that if you search U.S. case law, you will have a hard time finding any cases that assign ownership of float to the Contractor (or the Owner) without a contractual requirement.  So, your opinion as to ownership of float is just that, your opinion, and in the States, it is not supported by case law.  Court is where the Contractor and Owner get a chance to prove their cases, so there is no opportunity for anyone to affect that outcome except by good arguments.

All these associations, from AACEi to PMI College of Scheduling, to Planning Planet, to CMAA, are staffed by those of us who volunteer our time in an attempt to raise the level of competency of project controls and construction management in general in developing best practices documents.  That investment in time requires collaborative discussions in a open environment where we can discuss issues and further the industry knowledgebase.  The publications are the efforts of a number of people all of whom have a variety of backgrounds, just as you do, and those professionals have done their best to produce documents that are reasonable and appropriate.  I cannot say more than that about this issue. 

I do think that most of the problem for you is that you do not have the background, experience, or knowledge in forensic schedule analysis to understand the RP.  That is no shame, as many excellent planners and schedulers do not engage in claims analysis, but it does no good for you to repeat uninformed opinions without taking the time to research and improve your knowledge.  Personally I feel like we are in a much stronger position to help the project in the project controls position, but I've been engaged in the claims side for a long time, and my reason for volunteering time when I could be doing something else has been to try to improve the quality and clarity of the claims industry practices.  I am fully convinced that the FSA RP does this.  Is it perfect?  No, of course not, it will continue to get constructive criticism, and legitimate criticism will be addressed in the next revision.  In the meantime, I am proud of the product, as are all the professionals in AACEi (and a large number in the PMI College of Scheduling, where we have reviewed it and are writing a Best Practices and Guidelines for Schedule Impact Analysis which will discuss the RP) and believe that it is the best product out there.

I will be happy to continue to discuss this issue if you have substantative concerns.  If you are going to simply repeat your previous statements, which have been answered, there is nothing left for me to say.  Thanks for your time and I do appreciate your passion for this industry, that is certainly in common with me.

Chris

Hi Roland

The main protagonists in this debate were Rafael and Chris who express their views with some vigour. Then you came in with words that border on the libelous.

Thats why a gave you a warning.

Now tone it down please or I will close the thread.

Best regards

Mike Testro

Chris,

You are questioning my personal competence in public when you state " I do think that most of the problem for you is that you do not have the background, experience, or knowledge in forensic schedule analysis to understand the RP."

Now it comes out that anyone who does not agrees with the AACE International RP is incompetent.

Your statement about my qualifications without you knowing me are unfunded especially when considering your position as a member of the AACE International, you are abusing your membership. You are going into personal attacks against my person instead of limiting to impersonal arguments to defend your point of view about a public document issued by a non-profit organization. You know nothing about my background and technical competence.

Needless to say I do not intend to make any legal claim on a debate on controversial issues, debate that should be encouraged, but some call for respect is in order. I believe some code of ethics should be called by the AACE International on how its staff members are to deal with others becuase of the perceptions many might have about correctness of its members. Slapping and calling incompetent others that have no interest in disclosing their pedigree is wrong.  

I happen to agree with the UK jurisprudence and with the Society of Construction Law that promotes a fair share of float ownership and see nothing wrong with calling it to the attention of others, especially now that some of our states are legislating against exculpatory clauses in government contracting.

About my claim of the AACE International RP being flawed with regard to use of preferential logic and Ronald Winter advocating for the contrary has nothing to do with float ownership, is a very different issue, there is no need to mix them as to avoid a direct answer to the point. There is a huge difference between true resource leveling and preferential logic, especially in complicated resource leveling situations otherwise Ron Winter would accept a mix of both. I do not believe there is a 100% equivalency between both methods, 100% preferential logic cannot always replace 100% true resource constraining.

Best regards,

Rafael

http://southcarolinaconstructionlawyer.com/2008/06/28/what-is-float-time-and-who-owns-it.aspx

Even when contract stated the float was owned by the contract the court determined float time should be properly defined concerning damages regarding disruption as opposed to delay.

The statement that consumption of float does not matter, that it is to be at no cost to the Contractor no matter what is an exculpatory clause and there is a tendency today for some states to ban exculpatory clauses in their contracts as this is contrary to Public Policy in such states.

By categorically saying that use of float is free the AACE International is advocating for the use of such interpretation, an interpretation that pretends to make an exculpatory clause a “Common Law” that is not an absolute, in fact illegal in some states.  Not only illegal in California but also in Minnesota.

The interests of the AACE International are in conflict of the interests of the vast majority of General Contractors.

Outside the USA in many places, among others the UK, there is a consensus about how depletion of available float have an impact on the schedule, in the USA the tendency is contrary to the opinion of the majority of the rest of the world but the AACE International sides with the USA view and completely disregards the view of jurists all around the world. I wonder why the name makes reference to "international".

Seems like outside USA there is a higher concept of justice. Still some of us believe in the honor system and are willing to make the case for as long as it takes.

The AACE International insists in spreading the word that consumption of float does not matter with regard to delays, no matter if it has or not an impact on the performance of the contract.

Generally, the exchange of ideas help a lot of planners, I for one.  It open my myopic mind to the big world of forensic schedule analysis.

And I thank all participants, PP in particular

I have nothing much to say since I gain a lot (I believe a lot of planners here are winners),

but due to the heat of exchange of ideas, IMHO,

May we request all contributors to please state in not more than 5 sentence their final message to conclude their own humble opinion.

Also please include a friendly note to one another.

Then, I suggest we will close the thread and

open another thread, this time it will be part two, maybe in six months time. cooling period and also to allow other PP members to do research and may share each other ideas.

Thank you

Scarlett

Sorry Scarlet but it would be playing the game of those who insist on validating authomatic exculpatory clauses, this is just what they want, no dissent and shut down everyone else.

This is hows it has been for years in America, contrary to what has been the norm in the UK and other countries. I believe some of us have the right to claim for some more justice. I see this in a way similar to the racist laws of the fifties that took decades if not centuries to be fixed. Banning dissent on PP will kill the purpose of it, those who cannot accept dissent and reoccur to defamatory strategies attacking the individual should be out, not those who have a right to dissent and warn of the hidden dangers of accepting the recommended practice.

That the AACE International does not accept my dissent is no justification to defame me as a professional nor it shall intimidate those who believe in freedom of speech. The attitude of the AACE International members shall be exposed, whatever it is, you make your own judgement. I am not to make personal attacks on individual members but will ask for some respect toward my person.

A new thread will mean just going over it again unless weak characters accept a slap. This is just the beginning, the document is a long document and cannot be discussed on a single paragraph, some issues have always been controversial killing their discussion as it is the intention of some is wrong.  

It is obvious American courts do not recognize international jurisprudence but this is an international forum based on the UK and some respect to the jurisprudence, laws and protocols of the UK institutions shall be observed. Perhaps if the AACE International does not recognize the UK jurisprudence it shall be banned from PP as it is misleading when they identify themselves as International. It is on order to make the call the protocol is based exclusivelly on American jurisprudence.

Best regards,

Rafael