You can throw all the technology in the world at it but still nothing seems to stem the inevitable flow of construction schedule disruption. Despite the best of project management platforms, drones, virtual reality, and IoT, construction projects continue to founder and degenerate as much as they ever did, and in the very same ways. Although technology advances, the causes of disruption remain static, impervious to mitigation and recovery.

“Best laid plans are equally at risk of total revision as any.

The seeds of construction schedule disruption can be traced all the way back to project inception, or in the concept phase: for example, a developer plans to build out a project with an overly aggressive budget and unrealistic timeline. These two critical handicaps are passed on to the low bidder, who is expected to assume the developer’s risk. Builders are loathe to point out these shortcomings, as that would preclude their participation, and hence, the recipe for a perfect storm of conflict is brewing.

Like the construction budget, design budgets will also be constricted. When there are insufficient resources to deliver timely and coherent design deliverables, the deficiency is readily apparent to the builder in the errors and omissions of the construction drawings and specifications, yet wholly imperceptible to ownership. Designers play dumb and expect the sketchers to resolve the design drawing conflicts in their shop drawings, without spending any time on site themselves..

Thus, projects break ground with half-cocked drawings having no coordination of architectural and MEP overlays. It is within this failure to provide constructible drawings that an owner may concede leverage in any potential litigation, and may find himself in potential breach of contract (AIA 202 Article 2.2). That fact becomes relevant when the owner intends to bakcharge a contractor for delays for which he himself is the root cause, which is passive-aggressive construction schedule disruption behavior.

“To a builder, uncoordinated BIM architectural and MEP drawings are no better than inarticulate ‘cartoons,’ which is how I often hear them described as such.

Once a builder is awarded the prime contract, he sets to the task of procurement – subcontractors and vendors, who will be asked to comply with the builder’s aggressive schedule requirements and budget. In this way, these twin shortcomings are manifested into the trades and suppliers who will service the project – many of them, low-ballers of poor quality and intermittent reliability.

At mobilization, the builder and his trades brim with confidence at the reward of a new venture, and are ready to hit the ground running. Like most honeymoons, the mobilization party tends to be short-lived, interrupted by inevitable bog down from unexpected challenges within 90 days of mobilization is typical. These early struggles are indicative of the fabric of a given project, and determine the nature of its nebulous journey and outcome.

“On cash-strapped projects – expect to see incompetent workmanship and ghost-management from low-ball resources.

We’ve already touched on how ownership sets the course for construction schedule disruption by setting up unrealistic terms and criteria, and transferring the risk to the builder. Builders who knowingly take on such challenges are aware of these risks, yet they seem undaunted. Despite aggressive terms, they mistakenly believe they will find capable resources willing to perform and assume these risks. As a failsafe, they rely on anticipated change orders and time extensions that never come.

As underdesigned projects progress, the designers pray that the builders’ sketchers and detailers will pick up the slack, or resolve conflicts that the designer should have pre-coordinated in the BIM clash detection phases. When detailers are unable to render shop drawings from sketchy blueprints, they issue mountains of RFIs that are answered with sketches. Before long, blueprints become obsolete and contractors are asked to build from endless designer sketches and revisions.

“Sketches are meant to clarify the design documents, not supplant them.

Building from modified sketches handicaps builders by replacing traditional means and methods with discombobulated efforts that costs them time and money. As the project lags, the owner will pressure the builder to pick up the slack with recovery and acceleration that he has no intention of financing because he believes the builder is at fault or liable. Seldom does the owner require similar performance from the design team.

As a project digresses in conflict and delay, the owner continues to affect outcome by his

• Failure to pressure the design team to fulfill its role
• Inability to make timely decisions
• Reducing allocations and holding back on payments

Indeed, according to AIA 201 General Conditions of the Contract, all parties have responsibilities toward facilitating the prosecution of a project. Judging from AIA’s coddled treatment of their constituency, AIA 201 language might give the impression that designers have no responsibilities whatsoever in the build-out process – at least none that can be pinned down. What’s more, prime contract families continue to misrepresent the designer as the “agent of the owner,” a position they are ill-suited to, and seldom remunerated for. Nonetheless; designers are hostile toward owner’s reps, believing that they take their work away.

“Owner’s reps don’t take away work from designers, because designers never really perform the office of agency in the first place.

However, the AIA contract family does iterate basic owner requirements that seem to have more weight than any of those put on the designer or builder, such as making timely decisions and payments. These responsibilities can become liabilities when an owner is not performing, and translated to construction schedule disruption at the most basic level.

This disconnect between owner, designer, and builder, is the foundation for disruption. If owners had better advice perhaps they wouldn’t repeatedly make so many mistakes. Yet, they rarely seem to notice how underserviced they are by their designer. Savvy owners, however, do notice designer incompetence, and endeavor to hire aggressive owner’s reps to control weak design teams.

To summarize, these are the fatal signals of construction schedule disruption

1. Overly aggressive budget requirements
2. Insufficient duration to complete
3. Bottom-tier builders and subs taking what’s available
4. Untimely and reduced payments
5. Absence of competent owner agency
6. Non-constructible E/O design documentation
7. Uncoordinated drawings
8. Retarded issue of submittal reviews, RFIs, and clarifications
9. Slow decision making by owner
10. Overabundance of changes and change orders

Also see my Hierarchies of Construction Project Controls

Not all developer and owners are so unscrupulous and unprincipled. I am fortunate to work with a strong build out force and ownership and design teams that execute according to best practices. Ownership are veteran builders with excellent knowledge of the building process. When ownership and his designers are pulling their weight, they keep things moving for the builder – letting him do what he does best unimpeded.

 Suffice it to say, a tracked CPM schedule is obligatory in the event of a potential construction schedule disruption claim. If one is not maintained, claims for extended duration are subject to be dismissed out of hand, as are reimbursement of soft-costs associated with an extension. Any claim must be accompanied by sufficient backup to support the claim. Only best practices in construction management and finance will be granted a fair hearing by an arbitrator.