Construction Management Association of America

The 2002 Unified Facilities Guide Specification for Network Analysis Systems (“UFGS”) has been adopted by the U.S. Corps of Engineers, U.S. Air Force and the U.S. Navy. This Guide Specification confronts many of the issues identified in Parts One and Two of this series of articles addressing the drafting of scheduling specifications. These issues include the types of reports required during performance to address owner requirements, issues relative to pitfalls and abuses of scheduling software and network analysis logic, and issues relative to nature of float, major project revisions and the calculation of project delays.

In this article, we will work from the April 2002 version of the UFGS, since it sets out separately the requirements for a design/bid/build type procurement, which was the focus of Parts One and Two of this series. A February 2003 version of the Guide Specification, with slightly different numbering because it combines both design/build provisions with design/bid/build provisions, can be found at http://www.ccb.org/ufgs/ufgs.htm.

We will first examine the manner by which the April 2002 UFGS addresses necessary elements of scheduling specifications. Second, we will examine the means by which the specification deals with diagramming/software abuses as well as with the potential conflict of precedence (activity on node) versus arrow (activity on arrow) diagramming methods to assure good quality schedules. Third, we will address the manner by which the specification deals with float, major project revisions and calculation of project delays. Finally, we will provide our assessment of whether the UFGS adequately addresses the issues we have previously discussed in Parts One and Two of this series.

In Part One of this series, we identified the following items as necessary elements for consideration in preparing a Schedule Specification:

We also identified in Part Two of this series the typical areas of conflict arising from scheduling specification:

– Failure to require initial and continuing involvement of major trade contractors

– Failure to provide for joint updating meeting to force proactive and timely engagement

– Failure to provide definite methodology for incorporation of logic revisions

– Failure to provide for definite baseline and methodology for approval and incorporation of time extensions

We will now review the UFGS Specification within the context of these issues and concerns.

Section 1.1 of the UFGS requires the preparation of a schedule on the basis of a network analysis system. This system is to include a network analysis schedule (diagram), a mathematical analysis and associated reports. (We immediately know when we are talking about a diagram that we are not referring to a mere bar chart without logic ties.) This section further provides that scheduling is the responsibility of the contractor not the government and provides that the submission of progress data will be used to assess progress and evaluate payment and time extension requests. Critical Path Method of network calculation will be used to generate the schedule and the precedence diagram technique is to be used to satisfy time and cost applications, with the schedule being cost-loaded for payment purposes.

Prepare a progress chart pursuant to the clause entitled “FAR 52.236-15, Schedules for Construction Contracts” of the Contract Clauses that shall consist of a network analysis system. The network analysis system shall consist of the network analysis schedule (diagram), mathematical analysis, and associated reports. The scheduling of construction shall be the responsibility of the Contractor. Submission of progress and revision data will be used to measure work progress, aid to evaluate time extensions, and provide basis of all progress payments. The Critical Path Method (CPM) of network calculation shall be used to generate the project schedule and will utilize the Precedence Diagram technique to satisfy both time and cost applications. All progress payment amounts will be derived from and tied to the cost-loaded schedule activities.

The reference to critical path calculation means that the forward and backward pass for finding the critical path is clearly required. Further, although this section of the specification refers to the use of precedence diagram technique we will see that the UFGS specification greatly limits the use of precedence type relationships [such as start to start or finish to finish or leads and lags with the attendant need for careful vigilance] where traditional predecessor successor relationships can be used.

Section 1.3 of the specifications confirms that the schedule submission requires acceptance but that the contractor remains responsible for scheduling and prosecuting the work. The government notes that its acceptance only extends to activities for which the government is responsible.

Review comments made by the Government on the Contractor’s construction schedule will not relieve the Contractor from compliance with requirements of the Contract Documents. The Contractor is responsible for scheduling, sequencing, and prosecuting the Work to comply with the requirements of the Contract Documents. Government acceptance extends only to the activities of the contractor’s schedule that the Government has been assigned responsibility for and agrees it is responsible. The Government will also review for contract imposed schedule constraints and conformance, and cost loading of the CPM activities. Comments offered on other parts of the schedule which the Contractor is assigned responsibility are offered as a courtesy and are not conditions of government acceptance; but are for the general conformance with established industry schedule concepts. (Emphasis added.)

Section 1.3.1 confirms that the accepted network analysis system is required before the contractor will be allowed to start work:

The Accepted Network described in the paragraph entitled “Accepted Network Analysis Schedule” must be submitted and accepted by the government before the contractor will be allowed to start work.

Subsection 1.3.2 details the fact that once the network analysis schedule has been accepted, it becomes the baseline schedule for planning, executing and reporting the work. The submission of monthly updates constitutes a representation that the schedule meets all contract requirements, accurately reflects the work accomplished, and that the work will be executed in the sequence indicated on the submitted schedule:

a. When the Accepted Network Schedule is submitted and accepted by the Contracting Officer, it will be considered the “Baseline CPM Schedule”. The Baseline CPM Schedule will then be used by the Contractor for planning, organizing, and directing the work; reporting progress; and requesting payment for work accomplished. The schedule will be updated monthly by the Contractor and submitted monthly with the progress pay request to reflect the current status of the work. [For payment requests made after the period covered by the Preliminary Schedule,] The submittal and acceptance of the Accepted Network Analysis Schedule and accurate updated schedules accompanying the pay requests are both conditions precedent to processing pay requests. Only bonds will be paid prior to acceptance of the Accepted Network Analysis Schedule.

b. Submittal of the Network, and subsequent updates, will be understood to be the Contractor’s representation that the submitted schedule meets all of the requirements of the Contract Documents, accurately reflects the work accomplished, and that Work will be executed in the sequence indicated on the submitted schedule. (Emphasis added.)

Section 1.4 calls for the use of Primavera software or software convertible to Primavera readable format. However, as we will see from the later section on activity properties, some of the user features of Primavera are severely restricted. Section 1.5 requires an experienced scheduler be provided at a level commensurate with the nature of the project. If one is not provided, progress payments will not be processed.

B. Prohibitions Against Software Abuses and Precedence vs. Arrow Diagramming

Section 1.6, “Network System Format,” and its subsections are some of the most important provisions of the specification. These provisions make it clear that the Corps, Navy and Air Force want real time scaled logic diagrams with well defined activity logic, not bar chart reports. Further, the specifications make it clear that short cut logic will not be allowed. Although the specifications earlier noted that precedence diagramming would be used, here the government requires that activities, wherever possible, have predecessor and successor ties – looking therefore for finish to start relationships and avoiding open ends. Moreover, as will be seen from an examination of later activity properties, we see that the government prohibits manipulations such as constraints, improper updating, and incorrect calendars.

Section 1.6 thus requires a time scaled logic diagram and mathematical analyses:

The system shall consist of time scaled logic diagrams accompanying mathematical analyses and specified reports.

Subsection 1.6.1 specifies the diagram and makes it clear that finish to start relationships are desired. This section also addresses the required reports as well as limitations on the duration of activities. By requiring that logic ties move from right to left only, the UFGS effectively prohibits the use of logic such as negative lags:

Show the order and interdependence of activities and the sequence in which the work is to be accomplished as planned. The basic concept of a network analysis diagram will be followed to show how the start of a given activity is dependent on the completion of preceding activities and how its completion restricts or restrains the start of following activities. Diagrams shall be [organized by [Work Phase] [Area Code] and] sorted by Early Start Date and will show a continuous flow from left to right with no logic (relationship lines) from right to left. With the exception of the Project Start and Project Completion milestone activities, no activities will be open-ended; each activity will have predecessor and successor ties. The diagram shall clearly show the activities of the critical path. No onsite construction activity shall have duration in excess of 20 working days. Once an activity exists on the schedule it may not be deleted and must remain in the logic. No more than [20] [___] percent of the activities may be critical or near critical. Critical will be defined as having zero days of Total Float. “Near Critical” will be defined as having Total Float in the range of [1 to 14] [[___] to [___]] days. Show the following information on the diagram for each activity:

Provide network diagrams on ANSI E sheets. Updated diagrams shall show the date of the latest revision. (Emphasis added.)

Subsection 1.6.2 covers the quantity and numbering of activities. Here the specification calls for the use, in general, of higher numbers for successor activities than predecessors. 1.6.2.2 requires that procurement activities be included as separate activities and 1.6.2.3 requires that government activities that could impact progress shall be identified in the network. Section 1.6.2.4 requires that contractor activities be based on a calendar where Saturdays, Sundays and federal holidays are shown as non-work days. 1.6.2.5 covers the requirement for taking into account normal weather delays and requires that the number of allocated weather delays be reflected in the activity’s calendar.

Subsection 1.6.2.6, entitled “Activity Properties,” contains provisions extremely important to assuring the validity and integrity of the network schedule. These include subsections a. through x. and cover such key requirements as: a standard activity coding dictionary; activity description; work phase; work category; area code; responsibility code; CSI code; drawing code; modification code; REA (request for equitable adjustment) or claim code; project milestone dates; scheduled project duration; project start date milestones; constraint of last activity milestone; early completion milestone; and substantial completion milestone. Most significantly, Section 1.6.2.6 sets forth specific provisions in subsections v., w., and x., which specifically call for the use of activities rather than shortcut diagramming techniques. These provisions also prohibit poor scheduling or potential abuses such as incorrect use of leads and lags or incorrect logic or incorrect updating (e.g. specification prohibits the use of automatically updating procedures and requires that activities be updated by actual work progress rather than being cash flow driven):

v. Activity/Event Constraints: Date/time constraint(s), other than those required by the contract, will not be allowed unless accepted by the Contracting Officer.

w. Leads and Lags. Leads or lags will not be used when the creation of an activity will perform the same function (e.g., concrete cure time). Lag durations contained in the project schedule shall not have a negative value. The use of any lead or lag will be explained in the Narrative Report.

x. Default Progress Data Disallowed: Actual Start and Finish dates shall not be automatically updated by default mechanisms that may be included in the CPM scheduling software system. Actual Start and Actual Finish dates on the CPM schedule shall match the dates provided from Contractor Quality Control and Production Reports. These reports will be the sole basis for updating the schedule. Work activities will be updated by actual work progression rather than being cash flow driven. The updating of the percent complete and the remaining duration of any activity shall be independent functions; program features that calculate one of these parameters from the other shall be disabled. Out-of-Sequence progress (if applicable) shall be handled through Retained Logic, not the Default Option of Progress Override. Actual labor and equipment hours used on activities will be derived from the daily reports. (Emphasis added.)

Subsection 1.6.3 covers the requirement for mathematical analysis for each activity in the network including, among others, total float, manpower required, early start, early finish, late start, late finish, actual starts, actual finishes.

The network diagram mathematical analysis shall include a tabulation of each activity shown on the detailed network diagrams. Provide the following information as a minimum for each activity:

k. Material/Equipment costs will be assigned to their respective Procurement Activities (i.e., the delivery activity). Costs for installation of the material/equipment (labor, construction equipment, and temporary materials) will be assigned to their respective Construction Activities. The value of inspection/testing activities will not be less than [10] [___] percent of the total costs for Procurement and Construction Activities. Evenly disperse overhead and profit to each activity over the duration of the project.

l. Responsibility code (including prime contractor, subcontractors, suppliers, Government, or other party responsible for accomplishment of an activity.)

The program or means used in making the mathematical computation shall be capable of compiling the total value of completed and partially completed activities. The program shall also be capable of accepting revised completion dates as modified by approved time extensions and recompilation of tabulation dates/codes and float accordingly. The total of all cost loaded activities; including costs for material and equipment delivered for installation on the project, and manpower and construction equipment loaded construction activities, shall total to 100 percent of the value of the contract.

Subsection 1.6.4 provides for additional information to track on site manpower loading and equipment loading. Section 1.6.5, “Required Reports,” contains provisions to ensure that the government has real visibility as to what is happening on the project, including identification of logic relationships and changes in schedule logic from month to month. This provision includes requirements for a monthly disk and reports detailing activities by preceding event number, by amount of total float, by latest allowable start dates, by earned value report for all activities, by early start dates and by 30 day look ahead.

Sub-subsections 1.6.5 g., h., i., and j. contain specific requirements for a schedule comparison listing all changes made between the previous and current updated schedules, including changes for added and deleted activities, original durations, remaining durations, activity percent complete, total float, free float, calendars, constraints added or deleted, actual starts/finishes, resource information, changed relation lags, changed critical status. There are also requirements for a predecessor/successor report and manpower and equipment staffing reports and histograms:

g. With each updated schedule submission, provide a computer generated Log Report using a recognized schedule comparision[sic] software listing all changes made between the previous schedule and current updated schedule. Identify the name of the previous schedule and name of the current schedule being compared. This report will as a minimum show changes for: Added & Deleted Activities, Original Durations, Remaining Durations, Activity Percent Complete, Total Float (or Slack), Free Float, Calendars, Descriptions, Constraints (added, deleted or changed), Actual Starts/Finishes, Added/Deleted Resources, Resource Quantities, Costs, Resource Percents, Added/Deleted Relations, Changed Relation Lags, Changed Driving Relations, and Changed Critical Status.

h. By the activity number from lowest to highest, showing preceding and succeeding activity numbers for each activity (Predecessor/Successor Report), and showing the current status of each activity.

i. Manpower staffing report and histogram: With each update schedule, a planned early and planned late versus actual labor resource histogram will be provided. This histogram shall be based upon and shall be in agreement with, the number of shifts and crew sizes by craft, in the Accepted Network Analysis Schedule (planned) and the Monthly Network Update (actual). Included in the report will be a tabular report that will list each trade to the activities that were worked on during the construction period.

j. Equipment usage report and histogram: With each update schedule, a planned early and planned late versus actual equipment resource histogram will be provided. This histogram shall be based upon and shall be in agreement with the equipment allocation accepted on the Accepted Network Analysis Schedule (planned) and the Monthly Network Update (actual). Included in the report will be a tabular report that will list equipment (by make and model) to the activities that were worked on during the construction period.

Section 1.7 covers “Submission and Acceptance” of the schedule. Of significance here is the requirement for a schedule development session attended not only by the government but also major subcontractors. Further time cycles are called out for the submission and review process. Section 1.7.7, “Monthly Network Analysis Updates,” covers the preparation of the monthly updates and requires joint updating meetings to develop an accurate picture of construction progress and predictions of completion dates based on current status. Further, submission of an error free acceptable update is a condition precedent to processing the Contractor’s pay request:

At monthly intervals the Contractor, Government representatives and major subcontractors will meet to jointly update the project schedule and agree on percentage of payment for each activity progressed during the update period. The purpose of the meeting is to determine progress payment amounts for each activity, allow all parties to evaluate project status at the data date, provide a complete and accurate update of procurement and construction progress, create an historical record of the project and establish prediction of completion date(s) based upon current status. The Contractor is responsible to gather all supporting documentation, propose the update data for the schedule and record the meeting minutes. All progress payment amounts will be derived from and tied to the cost-loaded schedule activities. Submit at monthly intervals a report of the actual construction progress by updating the required reports, the time scaled logic diagram, and mathematical analysis. Meeting to update the schedule and the submission of an error free, acceptable updated schedule to the Government is a condition precedent to the processing of the Contractor’s pay request. As a minimum, the following actions will be accomplished during the meeting:

a. Identify activities started and completed during the previous period and enter the Actual Start and Actual Finish dates.

b. Show estimated duration (in workdays) to complete each activity started but not completed (remaining duration).

d. Reflect changes in the network diagram. All changes (i.e., duration changes, logic changes, new logic, conformed change orders, new activities, changes due to Conformed Modifications, changes in work sequence, etc.) shall be recorded and a note added to the activity log field. The log shall include as a minimum, the date and reason for the change, and description of the change.

e. Submit [two] [___] copies of a Narrative Report describing: 1) Progress made in each area of the project; 2) Changes in the following: activities, original durations, logic interdependencies, milestones, planned sequence of operations, critical path, and resource and loading; 3) Pending items and status thereof, including permits, change orders, and time extensions; 4) Status of Contract Completion Date and interim milestones; 5) Current and anticipated delays (describe cause of the delay and corrective action(s)); and 6) Description of current and future schedule problem areas. Each entry in the narrative report will cite the respective Activity ID and Activity Description.

f. Submit [two] [___] copies of the required reports listed in paragraph entitled “Required Reports.”

Section 1.7.8 covers the requirement for a summary network and Section 1.7.9 requires the preparation of an accurate as built schedule prior to the release of retention, including accurate logic ties as well as actual starts and finishes of activities.

As a condition precedent to the release of retention, the last update of the schedule submitted shall be identified by the Contractor as the “As-Built Schedule”. The As-Built shall reflect the exact manner in which the project was actually constructed (including actual start and finish dates, activities, sequences, and logic) and shall be certified by the Contractor’s Project Manager and Construction Scheduler as being a true reflection of the way the project was actually constructed. If more than one person filled the position(s) during the course of the project, each person will provide certification for the period of time they were responsible.

Section 1.8 details the requirements for “Contract Modification.” Proposed revisions to the schedule must be submitted with a fragnet and cost proposal –no reservation of rights is allowed. All modifications require separately identifiable activities and are inserted into the network in the first update following notice to proceed. This provision further requires submission of the total float report and proposed time impact analysis on a disk to establish the change. Unless allowed by the government, only conformed modification fragnets will be added to later monthly updates:

When a contract modification to the work is required, submit proposed revisions to the network with a fragnet and a cost proposal for each proposed change. All modifications shall be incorporated into the network analysis system as separately identifiable activities broken down and inserted appropriately on the first update following issuance of a directive to proceed with the change. Submit [one copy] [___ copies] of the Total Float Report, Log Report and a copy of the proposed Time Impact Analysis on disk, with the cost proposal. Unless the Contracting Officer requests otherwise, only conformed contract modification fragnets will be added into the subsequent monthly updates. All revisions to the current baseline schedule activities that are necessary to further refine the schedule so that the changed work activities can be logically tied to the schedule shall be made. Financial data shall not be incorporated into the schedule until the contract modification is signed by the Contracting Officer.

Subsection 1.8.1 covers the requirement for a “Time Impact Analysis” to justify extensions of time and to illustrate the effect of the change or delay on the completion dates. The specification requires the use of the current monthly schedule accepted by the government to display the impact of the change. This leads to several questions. For example, in considering a delay purported to occur in the May of 2002, which is not evaluated (for whatever reason) until November 2002, which update will be used to incorporate the time impact analysis? As we will see, this question becomes more interesting when we get to Section 1.11, “Time Extensions,” which calls for granting time only in circumstances where a given matter actually delays the project. Section 1.11 also requires that the purported delay must affect the contract completion dates on the CPM network at the time of the delay.

Time Impact Analysis shall be used by the Contracting Officer in determining if a time extension or reduction to the contract milestone date(s) is justified. The Contractor shall provide a Time Impact Analysis to the Contracting Officer for any proposed contract change or as support for a Value Engineering Proposal, Claim or Request for Equitable Adjustment by the Contractor.

a. The Contractor shall submit a Time Impact Analysis (TIA) illustrating the influence of each change or delay on the Contract Completion Date or milestones. Unless the Contracting Officer requests an interim update to the schedule, the current monthly updated schedule accepted by the government shall be used to display the impacts of the change. Unless requested by the Contracting Officer, no other non-conformed changes will be incorporated into the schedule being used to justify the change impact.

b. Each TIA shall include a Fragmentary Network (fragnet) demonstrating how the Contractor proposes to incorporate the impact into the Project Schedule. A fragnet is defined as the sequence of new activities and/or activity revisions, logic relationships and resource changes that are proposed to be added to the existing schedule to demonstrate the influence of impacts to the schedule. The fragnet shall identify the predecessors to the new activities and demonstrate the impacts to successor activities. Include a narrative report describing the effects of new activities and relationship to interim and contract completion dates, with each TIA.

c. Following the Contractor’s receipt of a contract modification on a Standard Form 30 signed by the Government, all changes in the fragnet used to determine impacts, shall be incorporated into the schedule. Changes will occur during the next monthly schedule update meeting. (Emphasis added.)

As noted, Subsection 1.8.2 provides for no reservation of rights for direct or indirect costs on modifications:

All direct costs, indirect costs, and time extensions will be negotiated and made full, equitable and final at the time of modification issuance.

Section 1.9, “Changes to the Network Analysis Schedule,” requires submissions to the government where the contractor wants to make major changes in logic and particularly where the contractor is trying to shorten the schedule:

If changes in the method of operating and scheduling are desired, the Contracting Officer shall be notified in writing stating the reasons for the change. If the Contracting Officer considers these changes to be of a major nature, the Contractor may be required to revise and submit for acceptance, without additional cost to the Government, the network diagrams and required sorts. A change may be considered of a major nature if the estimated time required or actually used for an activity or the network logic is varied from the original plan to a degree that there is a reasonable doubt as to the effect on the contract completion date(s) [or phase completion dates]. Change that affect activities with adequate float time shall be considered a major change when their cumulative effect could extend the contract completion date.

Section 1.10 and its subsections cover the topic of float and are some of the most important provisions in the entire specification. First, in Section 1.10 the specification prohibits the use of potential gaming techniques, including the use of float suppression techniques; preferential sequencing; special lead/lag logic relationships; constraints to force dates and interrupt the math of the network; unreasonable resource leveling to manipulate float; extended activity times to remove float:

Use of float suppression techniques, such as: preferential sequencing (arranging critical path through activities more susceptible to government caused delay), special lead/lag logic restraints, zero total or free float constraints, extended activity times, or imposing constraint dates other than as required by the contract, shall be cause for rejection of the project schedule or its updates. The use of Resource Leveling (or similar software features) used for the purpose of artificially adjusting activity durations to consume float and influence the critical path is expressly prohibited.

Free Float is the length of time the start of an activity can be delayed without delaying the start of a successor activity. Total Float is the length of time along a given network path that the actual start and finish of activity(s) can be delayed without delaying the project completion date. Project Float is the length of time between the Contractor’s Early Completion (or Substantial Completion) and the Contract Completion Date.

Subsection 1.10.2, “Ownership of Float,” clearly indicates that float is a shared resource available to both parties. In addition, this specification deals with the issue of early completion schedules, identifying the time for the early completion to the contract completion date as float and specifying that no time or delay damages will be granted unless a delay extends the project beyond the contract completion date:

Float available in the schedule, at any time shall not be considered for the exclusive use of either the Government or the Contractor. During the course of contract execution, any float generated due to the efficiencies of either party is not for the sole use of the party generating the float; rather it is a shared commodity to be reasonably used by either party. Efficiencies gained as a result of favorable weather within a calendar month, where the number of days of normally anticipated weather is less than expected, will also contribute to the reserve of float. A schedule showing work completing in less time than the Contract time, and accepted by the Government, will be considered to have Project Float. Project Float will be a resource available to both the Government and the Contractor. No time extensions will be granted nor delay damages paid unless a delay occurs which impacts the Project’s critical path, consumes all available float or contingency time, and extends the work beyond the Contract Completion Date. (Emphasis added.)

Subsection 1.10.3, “Negative Float,” provides that negative float by itself will not be grounds for requesting time extensions. This is entirely logical. When a project goes negative the critical path does not end; rather, one needs to look for the path with the greatest amount of negative float to find the critical path:

Negative float will not be a basis for requesting time extensions. Any extension of time will be addressed in accordance with the Paragraph “Time Extensions”. Scheduled completion date(s) that extend beyond the contract [or phase] completion date(s) (evidenced by negative float) may be used in computations for assessment of payment withholdings. The use of this computation is not to be construed as a means of acceleration.

Section 1.11, “Time Extensions,” details the need for the time impact analysis, total float report, etc. to demonstrate that the critical path is actually affected utilizing the dates shown on the CPM network at the time of the delay. This provision would appear, thus, to require chronological and cumulative analyses of the updates to determine the effect of the delay and to also make certain (probably by looking both at the updates at the beginning of a period and what happened during the update) that purported delays actually delayed the critical path:

Extension of time for performance required under the clauses entitled “Changes,” “Differing Site Conditions,” “Default (Fixed-Price Construction)” or “Suspension of Work” will be granted only to the extent that equitable time adjustments for the activity or activities affected exceed the total float or slack along the network paths involved at the time Notice to Proceed was issued for the change. The Contractor acknowledges and agrees that delays in activities which, according to the network analysis schedule, does not in fact actually affect any milestone completion dates or the contract completion date shown on the CPM network at the time of delay, will not be a basis for a contract extension. Submit time extension requests with a Time Impact Analysis and three copies of the Total Float (or Slack) Report, Narrative Report and Log Report. (Emphasis added.)

Finally, Sections 11.12, 11.13, 11.14 and 11.15 cover requirements for meetings, reports and correspondence.

The UFGS does a good job covering the items that were addressed in Part One of this series concerning the necessary elements of a scheduling specification. Perhaps one area requiring attention is the control of the record schedule. It is certainly undesirable for an owner to have the contractor running unapproved schedules or unapproved updates. However, this would appear to be addressed by the requirement for the joint updating meeting, the requirement that actual starts and finishes be based only on the Contractor Quality Control and Production Reports, and by the ability to withhold payments. The specification could also more clearly state that the government has the right to request electronic versions of all schedule data; not only the schedules regularly submitted to the government, but also the right to electronic versions of all backup calculations relating to the submitted schedules.

The UFGS also successfully deals with the typical areas of conflict discussed in Part Two of this series. The specification addresses the unreasonable schedule through the review process and addresses the approval standoff through the requirement that the project not start without approval (as well as power of the purse). It also specifies clear updating procedures, requires joint meetings to update the schedule, and provides a protocol for logic revisions. Importantly, the UFGS prohibits a litany of devices to game play the schedule using current software features, provides for a baseline and methodology for incorporating logic revisions and time extension and addresses early completion schedules in a very successful way through float definitions. The one area which perhaps could be clearer is the protocol for time impact analyses and time extensions. What appears to be the standard in the specification is the use of the updates for the time period in question. The specification appears to call for evaluating updates both at the beginning and end of the period to confirm the location of the critical path and to see indeed whether the issue presented was on the critical path and actually delayed contract completion dates.

In summary, the April 2000 UFGS is a well thought out, detailed specification. Because of its length (26 pages) and detail, however, use of a similar specification in private contracts may not always be economically feasible. Nevertheless, at the very least, the UFGS is an important reference point for parties faced with the task of drafting an appropriate schedule specification for their project.

* Jon M. Wickwire and Mark J. Groff are shareholders in the national construction law firm of Wickwire Gavin, P.C., with offices in Vienna, Virginia; Madison, Wisconsin; and Los Angeles, California. They can be reached at (703) 790-8750 or via email at jwickwire@wickwire.com and mgroff@wickwire.com.