Project Management View from Rail Transit Programs and Projects

At the expenses of Buyer’s input regarding comments, clarifications, and managerial integration, the mantra on Mega Projects – many that include Design Build (DB) delivery, is to stay out of the Seller’s way, reinforce the risk owned by the Seller and avoid negatively affecting the Seller’s Production, Schedule Progress and End Date.  

Projects using DB are also more susceptible to Buyer’s tendencies that replace the planned flexible collaboration with practices that minimize or soften Buyer’s feedback and that base decision making almost solely driven by perceived impact on Seller’s production metrics.  All while the Buyer retains the position that the Seller is proceeding at its own risk regardless of the Buyer’s review of submittals, schedules and execution plans.

Additionally, Mega Projects by virtue of size, cost, duration and impact to a community or region become highly influenced by executives, funding agencies, government officials, communities and advocacy groups.  The influencers may have their own biases and self interests to inject into the project environment through continuous affirmations on performance, such as “The project is on-budget, ahead of schedule and we are doing more work.”

Under this environment, managing projects or a program of projects will test the Buyer’s project management oversight and the strength of the Buyer’s project team and its strategy in managing the Seller.   The strength and resourcefulness in the management strategy will affect the Seller’s compliance with the contract and in meeting the Buyer’s quality expectations for the products and deliverables at project completion.

It may not be what you want but it’s on time and on budget

Metrics are tools for assessing progress and for determining areas at risk for compliance with requirements for scope, cost, schedule, quality and safety.  In order to implement project management plans, project teams identify and monitor Key Performance Indicators (KPIs.)   This is no different than the tools and techniques in Project Management Institute’s (PMI’s) Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK.)   However, a large volume of metrics can distract teams from the main KPIs.  Additionally, it also absorbs scarce resources and time to report, explain variances and develop actions for correcting under-performance or for making decisions from over-performance.    

More so than any other project delivery method, DB projects are executed because of the benefits to the Buyer from the Seller’s use of innovative designs, alternative materials, unique means and methods, innovative use equipment and techniques, and the continuous implementation of aggressive scheduling for maximizing progress.   However, DB projects are dependent on minimal input from the Buyer and the Project Manager (PM.)   DB requires the Buyer to optimize basic management practices to avoid disrupting the Seller’s schedule.   This may limit PM’s time and actions from thorough assessments of the Seller’s submittals, work progress and KPI trends.  As a result, the focus on Production, Schedule Progress and End Date may overshadow the PMs diligent use of all the pertinent tools and techniques in project management including PMBOK knowledge areas and PMI’s practice standards.    

Its about the Project and the Buyer

Once this type modus operandi is demonstrated on a project, there is a high risk all silos in the Buyer’s project management organization will proceed in isolation and focus exclusively on their KPIs.   While Integration is an essential PMBOK Knowledge Area, it may be perceived as complicating processes and documentation, and therefore is a risk to scheduled progress by the Seller.   It also dilutes the PM’s role as known from PMI’s foundation standard and best practices for project management.   This creates an environment that works in favor of reporting uncontested metrics, and it ultimately fractures the Buyer’s authority and project management functions.  But it may benefit the influencers, stakeholders and political officials seeking to exclusively report  “The project is on-budget, ahead of schedule and we are doing more work.”

A PM’s assignment to a project includes a commitment to principles, due diligence and applying expertise to management processes and practices for all PMBOK Knowledge Areas:

Buyer’s, and their funding partners, expect PMs to be highly knowledgeable in project management and that he/she will oversee and continuously exercise effective managerial control, leadership and decision making across each Knowledge Area.   The ideal PM should have significant experience on similar projects and delivery methods and be highly aware of the interfaces and interdependencies between each area – aka Integration.    The Buyer must assure the selected PM is well rounded and highly skilled in adapting to the Buyer’s organization and the project business case   This avoids potential risks from limitations in the PM’s project experience and expertise, including familiarity with the delivery method and contracting approach.     

For the role of the project manager, PMI lists the following for knowledge and skills:

“The project manager is not expected to perform every role on the project, but should possess project management knowledge, technical knowledge, understanding and experience.  The project manager provides the project team with leadership, planning, and coordination through communications.  The project manager provides written communications (e.g. documented plans and schedules) and communicates in real time with the team using meetings and verbal or nonverbal cues.”

A PM that is a great communicator without strong experience of Integration with the other PMI Knowledge Areas may create blind spots.   If the PM exclusively focuses on particular areas, shortfalls in management effectiveness will quickly manifest in poor KPIs and missed milestones.  

On Mega Projects, the complexity of the Project team organization may create numerous dashboards and KPI metric tracing.  While an effective tool, the volume of dashboards may obscure critical information on project performance and critical factors and issues.  As a result, there is risk that project leadership misses trends in KPIs, which could otherwise be identified and managed with less dashboards but more targeted dashboard.           

If you see a performance shortfall do something

ANSI – American National Standard complements PMI-PMBOK:

“In addition to any specific technical skills and general management proficiencies required for the project, project managers should have at least the following attributes:

• Knowledge about project management, the business environment, technical aspects, and other information needed to manage the project effectively,
• Skills needed to effectively lead the team, coordinate the work, collaborate with the stakeholders, solve problems and make decisions,
• Attributes to develop and manger scope, schedules, budgets, resources, risks, plans, presentations and reports, and,
• Other attributes required to successfully manage the project, such as personality, attitude, ethics and leadership.

On the other hand, if trends are not recognized, PMs need to diligently review and monitor underperforming, high performing or stagnant KPIs, be prepared to decide on recommendations for action, and to executive implementation plans.   Eventually, PMs and project leadership will need to execute actions to improve poor and stagnant performance and to make decisions on opportunities from high performance.   

PMs have a unique role and set of competencies that are attained through education, life time learning, project experience, job responsibilities, and certifications and licenses. Cumulatively, the quality of the PM’s services and deliverables has a direct impact on project performance, including Production, Schedule Progress and End Date.   PMs and project teams with gaps in PMI Knowledge Areas will create unneeded risk throughout the project life cycle.  

Credibility and Obligation to Buyer and Profession

Regardless of the project delivery method, PMs that do not recognize the interfaces and interdependencies between PMI knowledge areas may create unnecessary risk to project success.   Project professionals are obligated to recognize shortcomings and plan accordingly to counter-balance the project team with needed Subject Matter Experts.  As project management professionals, Project Managers and team members must understand the standards for their performance on projects.  

PMI Code of Ethics for project practitioners is a global standard for project, program and portfolio management.  The Code, which applies to all practitioners including those that do not have PMI Certification, is available at PMI.org.

Below is an excerpt of the relevant sections:

2.1 Description of Responsibility

Responsibility is our duty to take ownership for the decisions we make or fail to make, the actions we take or fail to take, and the consequences that result.

2.2 Responsibility: Aspirational Standards

As practitioners in the global project management community:

2.2.1 We make decisions and take actions based on the best interests of society, public safety, and the environment.

2.2.2 We accept only those assignments that are consistent with our background, experience, skills, and qualifications.

2.2.3 We fulfill the commitments that we undertake – we do what we say we will do.

2.2.4 When we make errors or omissions, we take ownership and make corrections promptly. When we discover errors or omissions caused by others, we communicate them to the appropriate body as soon they are discovered. We accept accountability for any issues resulting from our errors or omissions and any resulting consequences.

2.2.5 We protect proprietary or confidential information that has been entrusted to us.

2.2.6 We uphold this Code and hold each other accountable to it.

3.1 Description of Respect

Respect is our duty to show a high regard for ourselves, others, and the resources entrusted to us. Resources entrusted to us may include people, money, reputation, the safety of others, and natural or environmental resources. An environment of respect engenders trust, confidence, and performance excellence by fostering mutual cooperation—an environment where diverse perspectives and views are encouraged and valued.

3.2 Respect: Aspirational Standards

As practitioners in the global project management community:

3.2.1 We inform ourselves about the norms and customs of others and avoid engaging in behaviors they might consider disrespectful.

3.2.2 We listen to others’ points of view, seeking to understand them.

3.2.3 We approach directly those persons with whom we have a conflict or disagreement. 3.2.4 We conduct ourselves in a professional manner, even when it is not reciprocated.

4.1 Description of Fairness

Fairness is our duty to make decisions and act impartially and objectively. Our conduct must be free from competing self interest, prejudice, and favoritism.

4.2 Fairness: Aspirational Standards

As practitioners in the global project management community: PMI Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct

4.2.1 We demonstrate transparency in our decision-making process.

4.2.2 We constantly reexamine our impartiality and objectivity, taking corrective action as appropriate.

4.2.3 We provide equal access to information to those who are authorized to have that information.

4.2.4 We make opportunities equally available to qualified candidates.

5.1 Description of Honesty

Honesty is our duty to understand the truth and act in a truthful manner both in our communications and in our conduct.

5.2 Honesty: Aspirational Standards

As practitioners in the global project management community:

5.2.1 We earnestly seek to understand the truth.

5.2.2 We are truthful in our communications and in our conduct.

5.2.3 We provide accurate information in a timely manner.

5.2.4 We make commitments and promises, implied or explicit, in good faith.

5.2.5 We strive to create an environment in which others feel safe to tell the truth.

TIP:  Buyer’s Standard Division 1 contract specifications for consultant services and for contractor products include Quality Management as a standalone requirement.   No less important are the requirements for project management by consultants and contractors.   Buyers should add specifications for project management requirements in contract documents.

TIP:   Project Management Institute (PMI) is a standards, education and certifying organization that was created to advance the profession of project management throughout the globe.  It is a primary source for project management requirements.   Its standards and practices are developed by professionals with a wealth of project experience throughout the globe and across all industries.

TIP:   Most Buyer’s contract proposal requirements provide a specific list of key persons and their respective qualifications and minimum experience on projects similar to the scope, value and duration of the contract scope.  During the Buyer’s evaluation of proposals, the Seller’s PM should be evaluated and followed by an interview along with other key persons. 

TIP:  Ignorance and poor project management skills are not against the law. But it may affect the Buyer’s future access to government and private funding for the project,   It is an obligation of the Buyers or their designee to adequately and diligently check qualification of companies and key personnel, and to diligently monitor the performance of consultants and contractors on projects.   Buyer’s can not be silent to consultants and contractors that do not meet the performance standards and technical requirements in the respective contracts.

TIP:  Projects will always have challenges.   Not all of them may be resolved and end with Buyer’s satisfaction to scope, schedule and budget – PMI Triangle.  During Lessons Learned processes, oversight consultants and project forensic professionals will focus on the adequacy, competence, and managerial effectiveness of the project management team, which can be the Buyer’s personnel or hired consultants.  

Critical Components in General Conditions  -  Definitions

Originally posted in 2017, https://www.projectmanagement.com/blog-post/48070/Part-12-----Do-You-Know-the-Entire-Contract, Parts 1 -12 were tailored for Project Managers to know the various parts of a contract between a Buyer and Seller.    The information could be applied to contracts for purchased materials and furnished products.    At the time, the articles were focused on topics that were essential for Project Managers to contribute and take a lead role in developing the Contract, and to be best prepared for the post-award execution.     The previous articles covered:

1. Information For Bidders (IFB) – Due Dates
2. IFB – Company Qualifications
3. IFB – Key Personnel
4. iFB – Bid Requirements
5. General Conditions (GC) – Buyer Contacts
6. GC – Performance Schedule
7. GC – Progress and Milestones Payments
8. GC – Liquidated Damages
9. Specifications – Division 1
10. Specifications – Division 1
11. Special Conditions/Supplemental Terms and Conditions – Part A
12. Special Conditions/Supplemental Terms and Conditions – Part B

The Contract is the baseline for Buyers and Sellers to define, execute, manage, and closeout the work as part of a project.   No matter how much effort and time the Buyer uses to create the Contract, it will never be perfect and there will be times when the Buyer and Seller will have questions and uncover conflicts or ambiguity that will need to be resolved fairly.    As a result, the Contract normally includes a section in the General Conditions for Interpretation.   Among other items, this requirement indicates that when a conflict is discovered the more stringent shall apply, and as needed, the Seller shall notify the Buyer in writing of the specifics within a fixed period of days from when the Seller becomes aware of the conflict.

When clarity is required on contract requirements, there are several options available for bidders and   Sellers with the Buyer.

Pre-Bid/Proposal

During the bid/proposal period, bidders are required to present to the Buyer any questions or requests for clarification on the Contract requirements.   This includes identifying conflicts in the Contract Documents, which normally defer to the more stringent requirement. 

Following receipt of bidders’ questions, the Buyer will provide an answer and issue an Addendum to the Contract.   The Addendum becomes part of the Contract and they are distributed to all bidders registered for picking up proposal packages.  

Post-Contract Award

After the Contract is awarded to the Seller, all questions on conflicts in the requirements or on vague requirements will follow the Request For Information (RFI) process.  The Buyer’s RFI process will be presented to the Seller as part of several topics on administration and execution at the Contract Kick-Off Meeting.  

The RFI process follows a Buyer’s specific format and content for asking questions and requesting clarifications.   The duration for response will be established by the Buyer unless specific due date are identified by the Seller in the RFI.  

An often overlooked and under-developed is the General Conditions section for Definition.   This is usually ignored because the presumption is, if its not in the Definitions is because the details are provide in detail in other sections of the Contract.   However, this may not always be the situation.     

Critical Components in General Conditions  -  Definitions

The first action when questions on requirements arise with the Contract is for Buyer and Seller to review the entire Contract including the Definitions.   While this may not resolve the question, it may eliminate an unnecessary RFI. 

The Buyer’s response to the Seller’s RFIs become part of the Contract and they need to be managed, and as determined by the Buyer may result in changes to the Contract documents.   The Seller may also follow within notice of potential change if the Buyer’s RFI response can be substantiated as extra work not originally mutually understood at award of the Contract.

Some definitions are not in the Contract because they are assumed normal practice for executing contracts in a particular industry.  As noted in Part 6, the typical contract milestones are Notice to Proceed, Substantial Completion and Contract Completion.    For construction contracts, particularly in rail transit projects, the may be additional milestones and definitions needed to support the Buyer’s desired execution of the work.   As a result, the following definitions and milestones should be considered:

• Punchlist:    A list of minor touchups and repairs that do not restrict the Buyer’s use of work for its intended purpose.    The work on the list shall not include base scope not yet installed unless otherwise agreed upon by Buyer and Seller. 
• Operational Use:   Prior to Substantial Completion or Construction Completion, the Buyer’s critical business determines the need for use of a portion of the work.   
• Final Acceptance:   This is the condition when the Seller provides all deliverables regarding the work to achieve Final Acceptance such as as-built drawings, spare parts, O&M Manuals, Training, Software, Warranty, and Asset Management Construction Completion, and the Buyer acknowledges Acceptance, and takes responsibility for future operation and maintenance.
• Contract Construction Completion:  This is the contract level condition when the all construction is completed, including punchlist, certifications and demobilization, is completed and verified by Buyer’s final inspection and sign-off, and the Seller is able to demobilize personnel and equipment and no longer requires access to the work site from the Buyer.    The only remaining contract work is the administration of the closeout processes and documentation to achieve Contract Completion.
• Intermediate Construction Completion:    For contract scope that can be separated without interdependence with other scope, all intermediate work scope, including punchlist, certifications and demobilization, is completed and verified by Buyer’s final inspection and sign-off, and the Seller is able to demobilize personnel and equipment and no longer requires access to the intermediate scope work site from the Buyer.      
• Contract Substantial Completion:  This is the contract level condition when the work is completed by the Seller for use by the Buyer as intended.   The only remaining construction is the punchlist work. 
• Intermediate Substantial Completion:   For contract scope that can be separated without interdependence with other scope, the work is completed by the Seller to a condition the intermediate scope is suitable for use by the Buyer as intended. 
• Final Completion/Closeout:     This is the contract level condition when the all contractual, legal and administrative activities and deliverables are provided by the Seller and acknowledged by the Buyer, including the reconciliation of changes, payments and claims; release of liens and other contractual notices are completed; and the Buyer releases retainage withheld on payments.             
• Intermediate Final  Completion:   For contract scope that can be separated without interdependence with other scope, this is the condition the Seller substantiates reconciliation of changes, payments and claims; release of liens and other contractual notices for the intermediate scope are completed; and the Buyer releases retainage withheld on payments equated to work. 
• Delay:  This is a Seller’s formal Notice to Buyer presenting that a condition of the work, including unforeseen site conditions, limited work hours, lack of prescribed support from Buyer or adjustments in pre-award means and methods approved by the Buyer, has changed the Seller’s originals plans, and as a result, the Seller’s ability to achieve the original schedule milestones are impacted.
• Excusable Delay:  This a Buyer’s substantiation of a Seller’s Notice, regarding a delay that impacts original schedule milestones, and determination the Seller demonstrated reasonable and proactive attempts to mitigate the impacts, and it results in a contract modification to adjust the schedule milestones.
• Concurrent Delay:  This is a Buyer’s determination that the Seller’s Notice of delay is parallel to other excusable delays presented by the Seller and already granted by the Buyer during the same period.

TIP:     Definitions apply to the entire contract.   The content for terms and phrases in Definitions should not be repeated in other parts of the Contract.   This will avoid creating conflicts from duplicate but differing language.

TIP:    Definitions are the primary source for information when there is ambiguity in other sections of the Contract.    

Recently a colleague in a leadership position on a rail transit project said, they do not understand the importance of testing.    This came after a project meeting, where incorporating more activities for Commissioning Acceptance and Maintenance Plan (CAMP) into the Detailed Contract Schedule (DCS) was discussed.   At the meeting, the feedback from the contractor’s Project Controls leader indicated that activities for inspection, testing and CAMP deliverables should not be in the DCS.   

In a previously posted article regarding Best Practices for Commissioning Acceptance and Maintenance Plan (CAMP), the Commissioning component was described as:  

Commissioning:   This is the pre-requisite activities and deliverables for starting the CAMP package and deliverables for Acceptance, and it is the Buyer’s (Owner) process for verification of project/contract scope and the Seller’s (Contractor) compliance with requirements.    The activities typically include Factory Acceptance Testing (FAT), On-Site Acceptance Testing (SAT), In-progress Inspections, Start-Up and Burn-In.   Commissioning activities should be integrated into Project Control schedules and Quality Plans, which contain quality control inspection and test plans.

This article expands on the Commissioning element of the CAMP process and deliverables and it describes the importance on rail transit projects.   The project assets typically include track switches and machines, signal systems, traction power systems, signal power systems, communication systems and security systems.      

Commissioning-Inspection and Testing

Inspections and testing of the contract product and deliverables is essential for demonstrating the work meets the contract and is ready for final acceptance.   The inspection and testing requirements are defined by the Owner or its designated Designer of Record (DOR) in the contract documents and in project plans.

• Factory Acceptance Testing (FAT):   FAT is applied to high value, long lead, and critical assets that require extreme confidence that the asset will work when installed and interconnected to other products in the project to create an integrated system.    These type assets are usually supplied by specialty contractors to prime contractors for interconnecting all conduits and cables at the project site for operation.   The FAT is performed by the specialty contractors and it is usually witnessed by the prime contractor and other technical experts on the project.  FAT tests can range from several days to nearly a week or more depending on the complexity of test procedures and an action to correct problems.   FATs that require additional time may impact scheduled progress and require adjustments to interdependent activities in the DCS.
• On-Site Acceptance Testing (SAT):  SAT is the successor to FAT.  SAT replicates much of the FAT and focuses on added testing for verifying operation with interconnected conducts, cable and supervisory systems.   The SAT is performed by the prime contractor and it is usually witnessed by the specialty contractor and other technical experts on the project.   Specialty contractors often provide on-site technical assistance to the prime contractor.   Due to the amount of preparatory pre-testing, SAT tests are usually several days and may require an Owner to make operational changes to accommodate testing.   SATs that require additional time may impact scheduled progress and require adjustments to interdependent activities in the DCS.
• System Integration Testing (SIT):  SIT  is testing of several critical assets after the pre-requisite predecessor testing, including FAT and SAT.  SIT encompasses verifying asset operation within the overall rail transit system under conditions required to support its service plan, including train movement, passenger movement, customer information and announcements, safety and security monitoring, and central operating centers.   SITs that require additional time may impact scheduled progress and require adjustments to interdependent activities in the DCS.
• First Article Inspections (FAIs):   FAIs involve testing to prove out design and functionality of components before mass production.   FAIs are usually applied to projects with retrofit scope involving the installation of equipment fleet-wide or system-wide to meet legal, statutory or regulatory requirements.    FAIs are performed at the specialty contractors’ facilities and may be followed by prototype installations on Owner property.   FAIs will create schedule hold points in DCS before specialty contractors will be released for production and delivery of the component.
• Special Inspections (SIs):   SIs (and testing by independent testing agencies) are applied to project elements of construction such as steel, concrete, masonry, wood, soil, fire resistant materials, mastics, and smoke control, which bridges and buildings.   The SIs scope includes soil conditions, concrete rebar and formwork, concrete condition and strength, welding of structural members, bolting of structural members and fire proof insulation and coatings.   SIs will create schedule hold points in DCS for verifying test results meet requirements before work can proceed. 
• Inspection and Testing Plans (ITP):   The ITP complements the SIs and covers the full scope of the project as described in the contract drawings and specifications.      ITP consists of the more routine inspections and tests that are part of the project Quality Management Program, which includes the Construction Quality Plan for overseeing the contractor’s workmanship, quality of materials, and compliance with contract drawings and specifications.   ITPs may create hold points in DCS for substantial completion and construction completion milestones, and to CAMP processes and deliverables until non-conformances are repaired, corrected or accepted under conditions by Owner or DOR.

With exception of ITPs, all of the inspections and tests require integration with interdependent construction activities to determine baseline dates.  As construction progress is updated in the DCS, changes in dates for inspections and testing may occur.

Best Practices - Commissioning

• Projects must have a Project Management Plan covering construction monitoring and quality management with descriptions of scope, personnel, processes, and deliverables (sample Forms).
• Contractor must have written procedures and deliverables for inspection and testing activities, and a process for monitoring performance and periodically updating plans to reflect scope changes and adjustments due to DCS.  
• Owner must have a written plan to support contractor inspection and testing plans and with processes for monitoring Commissioning performance and implementing project and contract improvements.  
• Owner’s project manager, with appropriate support staff, must focus on oversight of the contractor/subcontractors and provide direction to reinforce effective and integrated Quality processes across managerial silos.
• Owner’s project representatives, or designated consultants, must be very familiar with the Organization and the responsible parties for obtaining and documenting technical feedback on the various inspections and testing for project elements.
• Owner’s processes for travel arrangements must be flexible and responsive to changes in FAT and SAT dates.  This may be accomplished by implementing advance approvals for baseline dates that contain provisions to change dates without resubmitting arrangements. 

TIP:   Requirements for Project Management Plans can be found at several resources including www.transit.dot.gov [Federal Transit Administration] and www.PMI.org [Project Management Institute.]

TIP:    On large projects, FATs, SATs and FAIs need to be coordinated to avoid conflicts and to assure personnel and travel arrangements can be available for inspection and testing dates.

TIP:   FATs and SATs require advance review and approvals of the scope and procedures.  At least 60 days notice/submittal reviews prior to the anticipated dates should be shown on the DCS.

TIP:    For project work on system expansions, most of the SIT can be done while maintaining operations on other parts of the system. 

TIP:   For project work that is performed on an operating system, the SIT will need detailed staging and require an Owner to make operational changes to accommodate testing.     

This article complements the previous articles “What are good practices for Commissioning Acceptance and Maintenance Plan (CAMP)?” and Questions and Answers to CAMP – Parts 1 and 2.  Here are Questions and Answers to CAMP – Part 3.   

Are the CAMP requirements different for design bid build (DBB) and design build (DB) project delivery?

No.    Since the CAMP process spans the design and construction phases of a project, the requirements are the same.   However, the execution of the CAMP process is different.  In DBB, there are separate contracts for Designer/Engineering of Record to create the construction contract, and for a Contractor to furnish/construct the product.   In DB, there is a single contract where the EOR and Contractor are part of the same team with the design and construction phases proceeding in parallel.   

If there is no CAMP in Div 1, where are the requirements found?

Commissioning, Acceptance and Maintenance Plan requirements may be spread throughout the general provisions and the technical specifications in the contract.   As a result, the Buyer and Seller will need to work together to extract and consolidate the activities and documentation into a cohesive set of deliverables.   In some cases, Buyers may label CAMP differently such as Integrated System Test Plan (ISTP) or System Test Plan, which may include Factory Acceptance Testing and Site Acceptance Testing.   

On a project, is CAMP one package at the end of the project?

There can be one CAMP Package if the project consists of a single construction contract and there is no incremental acceptance of construction by the Buyer for operational use ahead of the substantial completion or construction completion as defined in the performance.   Larger projects may include multiple contracts/subcontracts with scope that can be constructed and put into use independent of other contracts/subcontracts on the project.   As a result, multiple CAMP packages will be required for each contract or subcontract.   This may require the Project Management Plan incorporate a CAMP [Management] Plan  to management the processes and deliverables.  

What happens when the Buyer accepts the Sellers CAMP Package?

Based on typical contract requirements, the Buyer’s acceptance of the CAMP Package constitutes construction completion and the start of the Warranty period management by the Seller.   During this period, the Buyer is responsible for periodic inspection and maintenance of the product, including consumable items.  However failures and breakdowns of the constructed product is covered by the Sellers management of the established Warranty Plan.   This normally includes Sellers labor and materials to repair the product to operational use. 

What actions can the Buyer take to focus the Seller on completing punchlist work?

Creating an agreed upon punchlist is a co-predecessor to the contract milestone for  Substantial Completion (SC ) and for issuance of certificates for occupancy.   Finishing punchlist work is a predecessor to achieving the contract milestone for Construction Completion (CC).   In order to focus the Seller on completing all  work, the Buyer must carefully evaluate the Seller’s payment applications and assure the value of the remaining work is estimated and used by the Buyer to reduce the total earned value of verified work completed by the Seller.    Under the General Provisions of the standard contract form, the Buyer can  withhold the estimated value of remaining work from the invoice amount presented in the Seller’s payment application.     In some contracts, the Buyer can reduce the Seller’s payment application amount by 2 times the estimated cost of remaining work. 

Do you have any added Questions?

I recently witnessed several project executives show body language displaying complete shock over a project schedule update that indicated unanticipated delay.   For the rest of the observers, it was more a surprise that it was not recognized by them earlier.  

Managing projects from a distance or from a desktop that is not near the project activities requires some added techniques and tips for recognizing, understanding and assessing project health.   It is particularly applicable to executives responsible for overall management effectiveness and for critical decisions affecting the ability to achieving project goals for scope, schedule, cost, quality, safety and security.    

Early in my career, my job positions included Draftsman and Jr. Engineer with a railroad in the Maintenance of Equipment department.   The position responsibilities included design of components to replace obsolete materials, detailing modifications to implement product improvements, and defining overhaul projects to rehabilitate passenger cars and locomotives.   While a significant part of the work was based on as-built and record drawings, there was the risk that the paper products may not reflect the actual conditions.  As a result, all of my work products required field inspection to verify actual conditions were consistent the drawings and that the designed product was compatible with a range of conditions. 

Later in my career, I held numerous roles in project management on rail transit design and construction projects.   As part of the roles, it was instilled by management leadership and my supervisors, peers and mentors that there is a need to understand the process of writing and reading progress reports, to conduct field verification of reported progress, and to assess first hand the actual site conditions.

Whether an executive, program manager, project manager or an oversight consultant, it is essential to diligently review and assess verbalized status reports and published progress reports and progress, and to thoroughly review and promptly respond to Emails and other correspondence.    In the project environment, attention to these items is essential for verifying actual progress, assuring feedback is provided to maintain progress on scheduled work, and for initiating corrective action to manage risks and issues.   However, the managerial skill required to evaluate the information must be complemented with a corresponding amount of experience on similar projects within the same industry domain. 

Here are some tip-offs for recognizing and interpreting the actual conditions and challenges on projects.      

Progress Reports:

Projects and individual contracts typically include deliverables for monthly progress reports.   The scope and content of the reports may vary but the purpose is consistent – to provide the client with a summary of the work completed, earned value/physical progress to plan, key performance indicators for cost to budget and progress to schedule, changes and issues/concerns.   Tips-offs in content or observations include:

• Physical progress shows a large differential to actual planned progress without indication of action to recover.   This indicates there is a pending change in critical dates or that there is excessive float with predecessor and successor projects/contracts.  This may be resolved by explaining the variance, describing recovery actions and by obtaining executive support.     
• Expenses are higher than physical progress without mention of corrective actions.    This indicates there is an advance payment for materials not installed or higher than planned expenses in support services.  This may be resolved by explaining the variance and confirming estimate at completion will be within budget.         
• Expenses are lower than physical progress without explanation.   This indicates there is a delay in processing of payment requests.  This may be resolved by explaining the variance and initiating expenses accruals in project accounting.
• Items “under review”.  This indicates a problem or risk is being mitigated and there are unspecified actions to determine if there are any impacts to project budget, schedule and quality milestones.  This is not uncommon, but it may overtly indicate that executive intervention on established time-consuming project and organization processes is required. 
• Mitigation actions on risks continue for months or years with no apparent resolution or initiation of response plans.    This indicates mitigation is not effective or actionable.   As a result, mitigation requires higher executive authority or political intervention to optimize actions to resolve the risk event or to accept the risk and resulting project changes. 
• Earned Value is based on actual invoice payments.  This indicates actual progress may be underreported.  This may lead to unnecessary managerial effort and decisions for corrective action that is not be required.  This may be resolved by assuring timely and effective processing of invoice payments.
• Remaining project duration requires production/month and expenses/month that have no historical backup.   This indicates that potential corrective actions may not recover progress from increased to increase production.  As a result, may lead to changes in schedules milestones and goals.
• Status on Submittal/RFI/Correspondence Logs show a large amount of open or late items.  This indicates that primary participants, stakeholders and oversight do not have the resources, expertise, knowledge or experience necessary to effectively complete these processes within established timelines.   Uncorrected, this may lead to delays in progress and requests/claims for time extension and changes in dates.
• Milestone dates frequently slip month-to-month.    This indicates there may be a systemic problem in estimating the durations of various project and organizational processes, which leads to specifying dates that are overly aggressive and not realistic for production in the industry domain of the project.     

Schedules:

Projects and individual contracts typically include deliverables for monthly schedule reports, which complement the progress reports.   The scope and content of the reports may vary but the purpose is consistent – to provide the client with a summary of the activities completed, changes in start and end dates for activities, and proposed actions to recovery from delays or to adjust work flows for better progress than scheduled.  Tips-offs in content and observations include:

• Updates break major portions of predecessor/successor activity links.   This indicates that activity dates are being forced to temporarily maintain milestone dates.  Links that are not restored will require changes to activity characteristics and attributes for new interdependencies.  
• Updates routinely adjust activity links and interfaces.    This indicates that continuous changes to activity relationships is being implemented to recovery progress and maintain critical milestone dates.  Links that continue to be adjusted may be the latest recovery actions prior to conceding to changes in project milestones. 
• Percent of remaining work exceeds the remaining project duration.    This indicates that recovery plans may require significant increases to manpower, materials and equipment to achieve original milestones.  
• Re-sequencing activities.   This indicates there are changes in project conditions to mitigate accelerated progress or delayed progress.   Re-sequencing work can affect the means and methods of work; availability of equipment, materials and labor resources; and change work periods and access constraints. 
• Re-sequencing interdependent contracts.   This indicates there are significant changes that affect execution of work on predecessor, successor or interdependent contracts.  This may be the latest mitigation action prior to implementing changes to original milestone dates.

Meeting Minutes:

Meeting Minutes are deliverables from project management processes at the project and contract level.  Minutes record the discussions, document critical decisions, and highlight the action items, responsible person(s) and the action completion dates.  Tip-offs in content and observations include:

• Action items open longer than established timeframes for decision making.   This indicates that higher level management and authority is required to complete the needed action on the topic. 
• Topics listed without actions and with potential to impact to scope, schedule, budget and quality.    This indicates team members do not have authority or resources to commit to a completion date. 
• Poor attendance by team members.   This indicates that team members have more responsibilities that restrict support to the project, or there is a lack of interest due to poor leadership, low team coherence or from failing to adhere to the project charter.
• Topics do not include risks or coordination of work by other projects or contracts within or adjacent to the work boundaries.   This indicates that integration processes needs to be reviewed and evaluated to determine adequacy of support for identifying and mitigating events that could affect execution plans.  

Contract Submittal and RFI Logs:

Submittal and RFI Logs are created and maintained at a project and individual contract level.  The Logs, which can be part of meeting minutes discussions and monthly progress report, record item description, date received, date response required, date response received, and disposition.   Tip-offs include:

• Resolution of submittal comments remain open as corresponding contract activities progress as scheduled.   This indicates that corrective actions are required by the PM/CM team to assure submittal requirements are met before deliverables arrive at the project site.   
• RFI processing is too close to scheduled contract activities.   This indicates the PM/CM team needs to improve advanced planning and execution of administrative processes ahead on scheduled activities.    

Oversight/Independent Engineering Consultant Reports and Presentations:

Many government funded projects involve management oversight consultants (MOC) and independent engineering consultants (IEC) to provide subject matter expert analysis of the project and contract performance.  Without replacing or undermining client governance or the project team leadership, the MOC and IEC provide supplemental technical expertise for the project deliverables as well as managerial expertise for executing the project and contracts in the specific project environment.  The MOC and IEC prepare and submit monthly or quarterly reports on project team performance.  Tip-offs include:

• Observations are routinely described by consultants to pursue opportunities or avoid threats to project performance.    This indicates that the consultant acknowledges the team’s focus on attributes that can affect overall performance on the project or on contracts in the project.
• Recommendations are cited for implementation by project team.    This indicates that the consultant has attempted to mentor the project team on actions required to improve performance but action is not yet undertaken.        
• Concerns are cited regarding the project progress and conditions.   This indicates that the consultant previously reported conditions that if not addressed by the project, the consultant (aka - subject matter expert) will advise funding agencies or project governance that formal corrective action is required. 

What are other tip-offs?