COMPREHENSIVE DRYWALL BIDDINGMaking Exclusions and Clarifications for Strategic Bidding

Gerald H. Williams, Jr., Ph.D., P.E.Construction Research, Inc., Portland, Oregon

Stephen L. Iriki, Esq.Otis, Canli & Iriki, LLP., San Francisco, California

Introductions

Gerry Williams– Estimator 1980’s & 90’s Donald M. Drake

Company, bid over $2.5 billion commercial buildings

– Worked on more than 50 drywall claims

Steve Iriki– Construction Attorney– Negotiated several drywall contracts– Worked on more than two dozen drywall claims

and more than 100 construction disputes

Overview

• Structure of a Bid• Philosophy, Strategy, and Tactics• Style or Content?• Examples of Exclusions and Clarifications• Questions from the Audience

Why is this important?• The Economic Conditions/Climate require Strategic and

Tactical Bidding.

• Profitability of your project will be established by your bid and your contract.

• There are a lot of common mistakes that bidders make.

• Bid Clarifications and Exclusions can be tricky.

• What the NWCB can do to help you:

Structure of the Bid• Structure of the bid is determined by the customer

– Government owner versus Private Owner– Contractor versus Owner

• Government Owners: – Responsive and Responsible Bidders Objective Criteria

• Private Owners/General Contractors:– Responsibility and Responsiveness is Subjective– Post Bid Negotiations and Modifications Possible

• This is where bid clarifications become very important

Can You Modify the Bid?

• Public, competitive bids? Generally NO

• Private, bid or negotiated procurements? Generally Yes/Perhaps/Maybe …– What do the bid documents say?– Hard bid versus negotiated versus hybrid

• Subcontractor to General Contractor bids?– General Contractor makes the rules– Multiple GC’s versus single GC (CM/GC)

Legal Considerations for Modifying the Bid

• Anti-trust Issues– Broad Agreements and Price Fixing

• Anti-bid-collusion Issues– You bid low on this one; I’ll be low on the next

• Contract Law Issues– What does the Information for Bidders say?– Does it Exclude Modifications and Clarifications?– What is the impact of Modifications in light of such

contractual requirements?• Ethical Considerations

– Bid Shopping

Philosophy, Strategy, Tactics

• What is your firm’s bidding philosophy– Why are you bidding the work?– Bidding Profit?– Bidding for Work?– Bidding Risk?

• Risk – is about minimizing uncertainty and the things you can’t control.

• Profit – is about taking maximum advantage of uncertainty or lack of clarity

• Work – lowest acceptable price to the bidder

Basic Strategies of Bidding

• Lowest Possible Bid

• Most Accurate Bid

• Most Profitable Bid

• What tactics are associated with each strategy?

Tactics

• Lowest Possible Price Strategy:– Exclude and Omit (Active and Passive)– Obscure your bid the most

• If it’s not shown on the plans – you don’t have it, but you may not wish to actively announce that you don’t have it

• The intent is to provide only pricing for what is clearly shown and argue about it later

• Risks associated with these Tactics and this Strategy is you may lose

Tactics

• Most Accurate Bid– Clarify, and actively Exclude work that is not clearly

shown, and provide Alternate Pricing.– Provide the most definite and defined scope of work in

the bid possible.• Let the GC’s know something is not clear and raises

the question whether or not other bidders have included it?

• The intent is to leave little to question or fight about.• Risk is that your bid will be high and not used.

Tactics

• Most Profitable Bid – (uncommon)– Fundamental theory of competitive bidding: competition

drives price to cost; lack of competition drives price to replacement.

– Highest possible bid that the owner/GC will accept without balking

– Cover all possible costs, no financial risk motivation• Provides a complete lack of transparency – this is the bid.• Risks balking by the GC or Owner.

Types of Modifications• Scope Modifications

– What are we going to do

• Management Modifications– Under what conditions are we going to execute the work– Schedule

• Administrative Modifications– Safety Programs– Dispute Resolution Provisions– Payment Terms

Evolution of Scope Clarifications

• Plans and Spec’s Sections 5400 and 9250 complete… • Fax and Internet• More opportunity• Risks Rejection• Timing

Language• What is the goal of a Modification?

– Go back to the Strategy

• Generally a Clarification should Clarify something, right?– Clear or not?– “This quote is based on reasonable and productive

stocking and clean-up access and egress.”– What about: contractor shall have no less than 4

hours of unfettered access for stocking prior to scheduled commencement of work

Language

• Modifications should deal with one single issue.

• Reference to other documents and standards should be specific and identify with particularity– Simply ASTM is not good enough

• Should be internally consistent

• Exclusion or Clarification – call it what it is

Examples

• “The General Contractor shall be responsible for providing access.”

• Why is this a good or not so good clarification?

• Ambiguity and definiteness?

Examples

• Which is better?

• Bid is conditioned upon the work being performed in accordance with the schedule provided with the bidding documents.

• Bid assumes all work is made available in accordance with typical industry scheduling practices.

Example

• This bid is subject to mutually agreeable contract terms– Pros?– Cons?

• This bid is subject to subcontractors standard terms and conditions– This is from an actual bid– So which is it?

Example

• Subcontractor shall have 3 complete sets of the plans and specifications prior to starting the work– What are we asking for?– Who are we asking it from?– What medium are we asking it to be delivered in?– Is this really a clarification– Is it binding on anyone?

Example

• “This bid is based on only the documents as received from the General Contractor; any other documents or agreements are not applicable.”– Sounds good and clear – what do you think?

Example

• “This bid is based on only the documents as received from the General Contractor; any other documents or agreements are not applicable.”

• What I meant to say was: Plans dated D/M/Y, Revision XYZ …

Example

• “Floors are to be free of water that is not part of the fireproofing operation”

• “Floors are to be scraped and swept broom clean, excluding grinding, sanding, covering, or mopping of floors.”

Example

• “All products to be purchased and used by the manufacturer of the subcontractor’s choice.”

• What is bad about this?

What are the Bare Minimums?

• Time limitation of the bid price• Subject to mutually agreeable terms and conditions

– Subject to a mutually agreeable schedule– Cost escalation– Acceptable payment terms

• Code requirements for the work are determined by the date of the bid for the jurisdiction

• Environmental controls by others• Proportionate indemnity• Insurance limits defined• Design responsibilities clearly delineated

Conclusion• To Modify or not – not always an option

• Bidding of work is a strategic and tactical process – know your firm’s goals and philosophy

• Most bid Modifications should be uniform, unambiguous, and drafted with care

• Some Modifications are optional, others are indispensable

Impacts to Labor Productivity in the Metal Stud Framing, Drywall, Tape & Finishing Trades

Gerald H. Williams, Jr., Ph.D., PETimothy R. Anderson Ph.D.

Author BiographiesGerald H. Williams, Jr., Ph.D., P.E.• Ph.D. Systems Science: Engineering Management, Portland State

University• Master of Engineering Management, Washington State University• B.S. Civil Engineering, Oregon State University• 28 years of Engineering, Government, Construction, and Consulting

Experience• Registered Professional Civil Engineer, since 1985 California, 1986

Oregon, 2004 Washington, and 2008 Idaho

Timothy R. Anderson, Ph.D.• Ph.D. Industrial Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology• M.S. Industrial Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology• B.S. Electrical Engineering, University of Minnesota• Engineering Faculty at Portland State University since 1995

Importance of the Construction Industry

• 11% of US GDP is accounted for by the construction industry

• Drywall work makes up about 10% of most commercial building projects– Generally drywall will be a critical path activity through

the middle portion of the job life.• Excavation• Foundation• Structure

•Framing & Drywall• Finishes

Labor is approximately 75%

of the cost of drywalling

Principal Tasks in Drywalling

• Wall framing– Putting up 2x4’s or (more typically metal studs)

to support the drywall

• Hanging boards– Putting in place and securing the drywall

panels

• Taping & finishing– Sealing the seams between drywall panels

Contractors are Selected

• Lump sum bid competitive bid based on a predetermined set of plans and specifications…

• Variables:

–Estimate of labor productivity– Material pricing/financing– Bonding and insurance costs– Overhead and fee

Distribution of Wall Framing Rates

Measured in terms of linear feet per man-day

Average rate is 35.5 linear feet per man-day but some jobs are much easier (over 80 LF/MD) or harder (under 20 LF/MD)

How good are estimators at predicting difficulty and incorporating this into their bids?

Mean=35.5 LF/MD

σ=16.6

Mean=35.6 LF/MD

σ=14.4

Wall Framing Productivity Varies Widely

• Production rates vary widely for wall framing

• Estimators are able to account for less than half of the variation in actual production rates

Estimated rate (LF/man-day)

Act

ual r

ate

(LF

/man

-day

)

Taping and Finishing is Similar…

• Taping and finishing tasks from one of the largest drywallers in the US

Estimated rate (SF/day)

Act

ual r

ate

(SF

/day

)

Research Project• Two projects

– Pilot Project involving one firm– Final Study, presented here

• Sponsors:– Northwest Wall & Ceiling Bureau– Northern California Drywall Contractors Association– NW Wall & Ceiling Contractors Association– Associated Wall & Ceiling Contractors– Western Wall & Ceiling Contractors Association

What are the Factors that Negatively Affect Productivity

• Expert Panel was assembled from the members of the NWCB

• Factors included:– Trade Stacking– Labor and Material Congestion– Overtime and Added Shift Work– Out of Sequence Work, Go Backs and Ramp-

Up/Ramp-Downs

37

38

39

Tow er - 1st Floor (Dryw all)

0100200300400500

12/1

8/03

1/15

/04

2/12

/04

3/11

/04

4/8/

04

5/6/

04

6/3/

04

7/1/

04

7/29

/04

8/26

/04

9/16

/04

10/1

4/04

11/1

1/04

12/9

/04

1/6/

05

2/3/

05

3/3/

05

3/31

/05

4/28

/05

5/26

/05

6/23

/05

7/21

/05

8/18

/05

9/15

/05

10/1

3/05

11/1

0/05

12/8

/05

1/5/

06

2/2/

06

3/2/

06

3/30

/06

4/27

/06

5/25

/06

6/22

/06

7/20

/06

8/17

/06

9/14

/06

Tow er - 2nd Floor (Dryw all)

0100200300400500

12/1

8/03

1/15

/04

2/12

/04

3/11

/04

4/8/

04

5/6/

04

6/3/

04

7/1/

04

7/29

/04

8/26

/04

9/16

/04

10/1

4/04

11/1

1/04

12/9

/04

1/6/

05

2/3/

05

3/3/

05

3/31

/05

4/28

/05

5/26

/05

6/23

/05

7/21

/05

8/18

/05

9/15

/05

10/1

3/05

11/1

0/05

12/8

/05

1/5/

06

2/2/

06

3/2/

06

3/30

/06

4/27

/06

5/25

/06

6/22

/06

7/20

/06

8/17

/06

9/14

/06

Tow er - 3rd Floor (Dryw all)

0100200300400500

12/1

8/03

1/15

/04

2/12

/04

3/11

/04

4/8/

04

5/6/

04

6/3/

04

7/1/

04

7/29

/04

8/26

/04

9/16

/04

10/1

4/04

11/1

1/04

12/9

/04

1/6/

05

2/3/

05

3/3/

05

3/31

/05

4/28

/05

5/26

/05

6/23

/05

7/21

/05

8/18

/05

9/15

/05

10/1

3/05

11/1

0/05

12/8

/05

1/5/

06

2/2/

06

3/2/

06

3/30

/06

4/27

/06

5/25

/06

6/22

/06

7/20

/06

8/17

/06

9/14

/06

Survey of Projects

• A survey of projects was conducted

• 255 responses received– Projects under $100K were excluded along with

exterior work only– Projects reporting 200% or better productivity

were examined and found to be subject to scope change thereby making them inappropriate

• 218 valid responses were used for the analysis

Survey Instrument

• 4 pages

• First page asked for project characteristics

• Next three pages asked about effects observed on the work site.– List of 38 potential effects developed by industry

experts.

Survey Instrument Pages 2-4

Core Idea – Finding Sources for Productivity Loss

• A framing production rate is generally measured as linear feet per worker-day. (i.e. higher values are better)– 50 means 50 linear feet per worker-day

• Key variable: Framing Relative Prodactest– This stands for framing productivity as measured by actual

rate/estimated rate.

• Therefore, framing productivity as measured by actual rate/estimated rate

> 1 implies your team worked faster than estimated (expected) < 1 implies your team worked slower than estimated

(expected)

Projects Represented

• 2/3 of the projects were private

Types of Projects

Frequency Percent2 0.9

Clean Room 7 3.2Higher Education 17 7.8Hospital 23 10.6Institutional 12 5.5Multifamily 12 5.5Office 31 14.2Office TI 1 0.5Office/Manufacturing/Testing 1 0.5Office/Warehouse 1 0.5Other - Medical Facilities 1 0.5Other - 40 18.3Other - Data/Hightech 1 0.5Residential 2 0.9Retail 16 7.3Schools - K- 12 24 11.0TI 26 11.9Waste Water Treatment Plants 1 0.5

Project Size

Trade Stacking

• Trade Stacking was experienced by contractors as shown to the left but does it affect productivity?

Labor Congestion

• Too many cooks spoil the soup…

• Frequently there is labor congestion but does it affect productivity?

Congestion Due to Materials &Equipment

• Stuff getting in the way of getting work done

Overtime

• Needing to have people work longer work weeks…

• Does it affect productivity?

Added Shift Work

• Will a night shift be as productive as the day shift?

Out of Sequence Work

• Say a project should naturally be done as:ABC

• What is the impact of being forced to do:ACB

Go Backs

• You can’t finish in areas and need to go back so:ABCrest of A

Ramp Up/Ramp Down

• Hurry up and wait…

• You assemble a team starting work and then have to wait before going again…

Analysis Structure

Correlation MatrixConfirms Relationships among

causes and effects butindicate that SSLR results are not additive

Simple Single Linear RegressionsDetermines which causes and effects have

the strongest relationships with productivity

Calculate Fragmentation and Congestion

Combines impacts finds factor which can be used for logistic regression

Logistic Regression AnalysisDetermines levels of impact corresponding

to different productivity impacts

SSLR Results

• 35 separate regressions

• Essentially, everything thought to negatively impact productivity did…

• High correlations prevent direct usage though

Survey Interpretation Coeff R2

1 FM_OI Overzealous Inspection -0.0443 0.0572 FM_USR Unreasonable Safety Requirements -0.0517 0.0233 FM_ID Incomplete Documents/Changes to Scope -0.0729 0.0424 FM_QOP Quality of Plans -0.0622 0.0255 FM_CO's Change Orders -0.0365 0.0216 FM_CI Constructability Issues -0.0473 0.0297 FM_EW Extreme Weather -0.0389 0.0158 FM_WS Work Stoppages (Acts of God, War, & Public Enemy)-0.0451 0.0589 FM_WI Wage Increase -0.0588 0.042

10 FM_PJA Jobsite Access -0.0286 0.06511 FM_Other_ExternalOther External Problems -0.0578 0.0512 FM_BI Bid Issues (Missing scope, overly optimistic productivity)-0.0532 0.00313 FM_M/M Motivation/Morale -0.0656 0.01514 FM_LW Local Workforce Problems (such as lack of skilled workers)-0.0573 0.00815 FM_A/S Availability of Tools and Equipment -0.0152 0.00116 FM_ERW Excessive Rework and Punchlist -0.0326 2E-0617 FM_CLE Coordination of Layout and Rework of Own Work-0.0266 0.118 FM_VD Vendor Deliveries 0.0098 0.04219 FM_Other_SubcontractorOther Subcontractor Controlled Problems 0.0005 0.07520 FM_PA Problematic Access to Specific Areas -0.0693 0.04621 FM_BIE Building Interior Environment -0.0473 0.06822 FM_MEP Mechanical/Electrical/Plumbing Interference -0.0645 0.05723 FM_D_DF Delay/Availability of GC supplied Materials (General OFCI) - Door Frames-0.0526 0.0724 FM_D_W Delay/Availability of GC supplied Materials (General OFCI) - Windows, Exterior Curtain Skin-0.0625 0.00625 FM_D_U S Delay/Availability of GC supplied Materials (General OFCI) - Unfinished Substrait Work by Others-0.0556 0.09126 FM_R_RFI Response Time to RFIs and Change Orders -0.0644 0.09727 FM_R_S Response Time to Submittals -0.0198 0.07428 FM_TS Trade Stacking/Labor Congestion due to Other Trades-0.0663 0.01429 FM_LC Crowding/Labor Congestion of Own Crews -0.0711 0.01830 FM_C Congestion due to Materials and Equipment -0.0640 0.12331 FM_Overtime Overtime -0.0291 0.09732 FM_ASW Added Shift Work -0.0415 0.10733 FM_ OSW Out-of-Sequence Work -0.0725 0.00734 FM_GB Remobilizations/Go-Backs -0.0684 0.01235 FM_RURD Ramp Up/Ramp Down -0.0760 5E-04

Correlation Matrix

Simple SingleLinear Regressions

Calc Frag, Cong, Acc

LogisticRegression

Correlation Matrix

Survey Interpretation OI

US

R

ID QO

P

CO

's

CI

EW

WS

WI

PJA

Oth

er_E

xter

nal

BI

M/M

LW

A/S

ER

W

CL

E

VD

Oth

er_S

ub

con

trac

tor

PA

BIE

ME

P

D_D

F

D_W

D_U

S

R_R

FI

R_S

TS

LC

C Ove

rtim

e

AS

W

OS

W

GB

RU

RD

3W(Y

/N)

OS

D (

Y/N

)

OS

UD

(Y/N

)

FM_OI Overzealous Inspection 1 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.1 0.1 -0FM_USR Unreasonable Safety Requirements 0.6 1 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.1 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.1 0.1 0FM_ID Incomplete Documents/Changes to Scope 0.4 0.4 1 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.5 0.3 0.6 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.6 0.6 0.6 -0.1 -0 -0.1FM_QOP Quality of Plans 0.4 0.3 0.6 1 0.5 0.5 0.1 0 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.4 -0 0.1 -0FM_CO's Change Orders 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.5 1 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.2 -0.1 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.2 -0 0 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.3 -0.1 0 -0.1FM_CI Constructability Issues 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.6 1 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.1 -0 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 -0 0.2 -0.1FM_EW Extreme Weather 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.3 1 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.7 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.4 -0 0 -0.1FM_WS Work Stoppages (Acts of God, War, & Public Enemy)0.3 0.3 0.2 0 0.2 0.2 0.5 1 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 -0.2 -0.1 -0.1FM_WI Wage Increase 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.5 1 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.3 0 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.3 0 -0.1 -0.1FM_PJA Jobsite Access 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.5 1 0.3 0.2 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.1 0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0 0.1 -0.1FM_Other_ExternalOther External Problems 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3 1 0.3 0.3 0.2 -0.1 0.1 0 -0.1 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.2 -0.2 0 -0.2FM_BI Bid Issues (Missing scope, overly optimistic productivity)0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 1 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.2 0 0.1 -0.1FM_M/M Motivation/Morale 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.4 1 0.5 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.4 -0.1 -0 -0.2FM_LW Local Workforce Problems (such as lack of skilled workers)0.3 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.5 1 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 -0 -0.1 -0.1FM_A/S Availability of Tools and Equipment 0.3 0.4 0.1 0.2 -0 -0 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.1 -0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 1 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.2FM_ERW Excessive Rework and Punchlist 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 1 0.7 0.5 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.5 -0 0 -0FM_CLE Coordination of Layout and Rework of Own Work0.3 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.7 1 0.5 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0 0 0FM_VD Vendor Deliveries 0.3 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.4 -0.1 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 1 0.2 0.6 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1FM_Other_SubcontractorOther Subcontractor Controlled Problems 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 1 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 -0.2 0 -0.2FM_PA Problematic Access to Specific Areas 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.6 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.1 1 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.1 0.2 -0FM_BIE Building Interior Environment 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.7 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 1 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.4 -0 0.2 -0.1FM_MEP Mechanical/Electrical/Plumbing Interference 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.1 0.6 0.4 1 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.8 0.6 0.7 0.3 0.2 0.6 0.7 0.6 0 0.1 0FM_D_DF Delay/Availability of GC supplied Materials (General OFCI) - Door Frames0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.6 1 0.6 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.5 0.5 0.4 -0.1 0 0.1FM_D_W Delay/Availability of GC supplied Materials (General OFCI) - Windows, Exterior Curtain Skin0.3 0.4 0.3 0.2 -0 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.3 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 1 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.1FM_D_U S Delay/Availability of GC supplied Materials (General OFCI) - Unfinished Substrait Work by Others0.3 0.4 0.3 0.2 0 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.4 0.3 0.6 0.7 0.7 1 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.6 0.6 0 0.1 0FM_R_RFI Response Time to RFIs and Change Orders 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 1 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.5 0 0.1 0FM_R_S Response Time to Submittals 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.6 1 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.1 0.1 -0FM_TS Trade Stacking/Labor Congestion due to Other Trades0.3 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.6 0.4 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 1 0.8 0.8 0.5 0.3 0.7 0.7 0.6 0 0.1 -0FM_LC Crowding/Labor Congestion of Own Crews 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.6 0.3 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.8 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.6 -0 -0 -0FM_C Congestion due to Materials and Equipment 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.2 0.7 0.3 0.7 0.5 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.8 0.8 1 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.6 -0 -0 -0FM_Overtime Overtime 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.5 1 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 -0 0.1 0.1FM_ASW Added Shift Work 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 1 0.4 0.3 0.4 0 0.1 0.1FM_ OSW Out-of-Sequence Work 0.3 0.3 0.6 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.4 1 0.8 0.7 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1FM_GB Remobilizations/Go-Backs 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.6 0.4 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.8 1 0.8 -0 0 -0FM_RURD Ramp Up/Ramp Down 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.7 0.8 1 0 0.1 -0FM_3W(Y/N) 0.1 0.1 -0 -0 -0 -0 -0 -0.2 0 0 -0.2 0 -0.1 -0 0.1 -0 0 0.1 -0.2 0.1 -0 0 -0.1 0.1 0 0 0.1 0 -0 -0 -0 0 -0.1 -0 0 1 0.5 0.5FM_OSD (Y/N) Was the Overall Weekly Schedule Distributed 0.1 0.1 -0 0.1 0 0.2 0 -0.1 -0.1 0.1 0 0.1 -0 -0.1 0.1 0 0 0.1 0 0.2 0.2 0.1 0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 -0 -0 0.1 0.1 -0.1 0 0.1 0.5 1 0.5FM_OSUD(Y/N) Were Overall Updates Distributed -0 0 -0 -0 -0 -0 -0 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.2 -0.1 -0.2 -0.1 0.2 -0 0 0.1 -0.2 -0 -0.1 0 0.1 0.1 0 0 -0 -0 -0 -0 0.1 0.1 -0.1 -0 -0 0.5 0.5 1

Red numbers represent very strong correlations of 0.5 or higher.

Black numbers represent strong correlations of 0.3 to 0.5

Gray numbers represent weak correlations of 0 to 0.3

Correlation Matrix

Correlation Matrix

Simple SingleLinear Regressions

Calc Frag, Cong, Acc

LogisticRegression

Ow

ne

r

Ex

tern

al

Fa

cto

rs

Su

bc

on

tra

cto

r

Ge

ne

ral

Co

ntr

ac

tor

Owner 0.443 0.287 0.229 0.338

External Factors 0.287 0.39 0.254 0.281

Subcontractor 0.229 0.254 0.346 0.331

General Contractor 0.338 0.281 0.331 0.443

Group Correlation Averages(1’s not included)

Types of Impacts

• 38 Total Variables (3 were yes/no)– Causes, Effects, and Directs

• Incomplete or Incompetent Plans & Specifications, Poor Management

• Out of Sequence Work, Go Backs, etc…• Environmental Factors: Weather

– 2 Main Effects:• Fragmentation Related• Congestion Related

Calculating Congestion

Correlation Matrix

Simple SingleLinear Regressions

Calc Frag, Cong, Acc

LogisticRegression

What was the impact of: (Circle one value in each row) None Low Moderate High Severe

Trade stacking (Labor congestion due to other trades) 0 1 2 3 4

Labor congestion of your crews 0 1 2 3 4

Congestions due to materials and equipment 0 1 2 3 4

Sum of circled scores:

Congestion = Sum/3

Calculating Fragmentation

Correlation Matrix

Simple SingleLinear Regressions

Calc Frag, Cong, Acc

LogisticRegression

What was the impact of: (Circle one value in each row) None Low Moderate High Severe

Out of sequence work 0 1 2 3 4

Remobilization and Go Backs 0 1 2 3 4

Ramp Ups and Ramp Downs of labor forces 0 1 2 3 4

Sum of circled scores:

Fragmentation = Sum/3

Logistic Regression Usage

• Similar to regular linear regression but better suited to this problem where we are asking whether or not a loss occurred

)(b- 22110e1

1loss)y (efficienc 1 groupin being ofy Probabilit xbxb

B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B) Step 1(a) FM_Congestion_Mean .186 .196 .899 1 .343 1.204

FM_Fragmentation_Mean .599 .201 8.893 1 .003 1.821

Constant -.846 .268 9.989 1 .002 .429

Correlation Matrix

Simple SingleLinear Regressions

Calc Frag, Cong, Acc

LogisticRegression

Likelihood of Loss

Construction Claims

Step 1: Provide compelling evidence that a loss was incurredStep 2: Using detailed project specific records, quantify the loss

This work is to be used for the first step to provide compelling evidence to get to a remedy

Legal Entitlement is a separate issue

Alternate Use: Forward Pricing

• Variations of this work can be used to predict the productivity loss due to an upcoming change and factor that into the engineering change order.

Observed Range of Impacts

Upper Range of typically observed productivity impacts on:

Framing Hanging Taping

Congestion 44% 40% 47%

Fragmentation 50% 41% 47%

Acceleration 42% 42% 47%

Legal Entitlement Issues• Contractual Issues

– Generally derived from some kind of change in condition described in the contract.

• Implied Warranties– Breach of some implied term required to

implement an “economic” contract, such as acting in Good Faith, allowing access to the work, and documents free of material defects.

• Statutory Entitlement– Laws that preempt contractual requirements,

such as antiquities and environmental Acts.

What Wins Claims?

• Facts, facts and more facts• 3 most important things about projects/claims:

Documentation, Documentation, & Documentation.• Document the factors that impact productivity

– Daily logs– Pictures/video– Emails– Change Orders– Written notice to GC

What Do You Have To Prove?

• Impact claims

• Must collect data to support claim

• Document in writing the process

• Create a paper trial of what happened and why

Factors That Harm

• Inspections that delay

• Quality of the plans/specs/RFI’s

• Weather

• Crowding/Interference

• Out of sequence

• Remobilize

Solutions

• Cover delay in subcontract

• Make sure employees are trained

• Involve your lawyer and consultant early rather than

late

• Use of Digital Diary

Next Steps in the Research

About the Study Booklet itself

Questions?

Example of Use

• The project was estimated to take 750 man-days and took instead 916 man-days.

• The project went reasonably well with no major problems such as extreme weather but the labor reports showed that the workers could not reach the production rates that your experience estimators expected, in fact, it was only 83%.

Calculating Fragmentation• Most of the work was available for the drywallers to work in the correct

sequence.• There were some occasions where it was necessary to remobilize the

workers to go back to areas that had already been worked upon but nothing that out of the ordinary

• This project was unusual in having more “hurry up and wait” situations though where the contractor needed to keep adding workers for short time periods and then reducing the number of workers shortly thereafter due to schedule problems from the general contractor

• The result is that you filled out the Fragmentation scoring sheet as follows.

What was the impact of: (Circle one value in each row) None Low Moderate High Severe

Out of sequence work 0 1 2 3 4

Remobilization and Go Backs 0 1 2 3 4

Ramp Ups and Ramp Downs of labor forces 0 1 2 3 4

Sum of circled scores:

Fragmentation = Sum/3

76

Calculating Congestion• The general contractor was able to avoid having trade stacking occur on this project

but the high intensity of the schedule and resulting staffing requirements meant that your own crews did not have enough space to work.

• Also while the other trades did not get in your workers way, they were frequently having to work their way around the supplies and equipment on the job-site.

• The congestion worksheet is then filled out to calculate an overall congestion score.

What was the impact of: (Circle one value in each row) None Low Moderate High Severe

Trade stacking (Labor congestion due to other trades) 0 1 2 3 4

Labor congestion of your crews 0 1 2 3 4

Congestions due to materials and equipment 0 1 2 3 4

Sum of circled scores:

Congestion = Sum/3

Was it Likely that the Loss was the Result of Congestion and Fragmentation?

• Productivity loss occurred but can it be explained by the congestion and fragmentation?

Plot the Results

ProjectProject