Please login or join to subscribe to this thread
Good Points Henry.
It looks like you have all the variables identified for your submissions and RFIs. Build your KPIs from those variables.
Thank you Rami and Stephane for your comments.
Very good points Henry.
It really is not feasible to define the hours by submissions and RFI due to the variability that can be had depending on the type and size of the project and the degree of definition of it.
Thank you Miguel.
While the client has not relaxed the "hrs per" metric, he is now looking to monitor days for review of submittals and for responses to RFIs. While this may be a more manageable metric the variables remain.
The client's standard contract commits to return review comments to the contractor in 30 calendar days from receipt and to return RFI responses within 10 calendar days from receipt. The contract also requires the contractor to submit and maintain a Submittals Register. However, the client is usually unable to have the contractor to comply.
At the same time, the CM independent of client's purview, prioritizes the order of work and due dates by the Engineer As a result, there is high potential for the Engineer to exceed the calendar days. Any suggestions?
From my particulate point of view, there are two important issues to consider before to start construction: the first one is the application of the PDRI; and, the second, the Application of the Construction Mobilization Readiness Review. These two issues have several items that need to be well defined so that the Submittals and RFI can be reviewed and answered in the shortest possible time and can comply with the times established in the contract.
While we all understand the complexity involved in this type of Performance Data for Engineering responses, let me offer one insight.
Representing the Owner, and on the receiving end of the RFI and Submittal stream, I found it absolutely necessary to gauge the performance of my team of SME's based upon their Time and Quality of the Replies. I signed every document (as the Owner, Contract Interpreter, and Design Professional) and that allowed me to Track the efficacy of my Team.
In short, we did keep track of the Accuracy and Timeliness of our responses. Since I was the Effective Gatekeeper, (and knowing I would not rubber stamp any return correspondence to the Contractor) my team became very proficient. They never responded with "see the Plan or Contract page A1" and their response times were recorded in Days or Hours if we had a procurement Emergency.......I think a responsible Engineer should welcome his grades on his KPI's!
In my opinion, a successful Contractor cannot be obligated to more than one Owner. This would be like signing a Construction Contract that obligates the Contractor to pull permits from 5 different agencies- a recipe for disaster and delay.
From the Contractor perspective, I would submit directly to one location- in your case the Engineer since he is acting as the de facto Owner by agreeing to respond to all the Docs. (in my case my title was "Authorized Representative")
The "Clock" needs to start ticking the moment the designated Engineer receives the Technical Query, Request for Information, or Submittal directly from the Contractor. In my opinion, the Owner cannot act as the middleman. My team usually communicates electronically simultaneously with the Owner, and we present our Logs during our weekly progress Meeting with the Stakeholders to the Owner and Engineer to discourage "lost" documents.
As the Contractor Rep., I utilize the Owner to "encourage" the Engineer to produce- but this rarely happens for obvious reasons.
In my opinion: 1) direct submittal to the Authorized Rep, 2) sharing logs weekly are the best options to obtain accurate and timely KPI's.
Please login or join to reply