Construction Program Management and Inspection Guide

Progress and Quality of Work
Report Item
Time Elapsed: 121 percent
Progress of Work: Unsatisfactory
At the time of this inspection, the asphalt concrete leveling
work was substantially completed and the contractor was just
beginning the paving of the base lift, starting at the westerly
end of the project.
The contractor hopes to start paving operations the first week
in August.
Currently the contractor is behind schedule but he has
developed an accelerated schedule that shows he may complete
the work on time.
It was clear that the contractor on this project has done
everything he could to maintain his construction schedule.
However, the nature of the somewhat abnormal rains this
summer combined with the volcanic silt in this area has slowed
his progress. It is important to note that the contractor did
work every time that soil conditions allowed.
The contract time was extended 42 days to completion time of
252 days. The contractor used 253 days and is being charged
one day of liquidated damages.
For a project of this magnitude, it appeared that very little
construction activity was occurring at the time of the
inspection. Construction weather and soil conditions were
ideal. (Note: time = 15 percent, work = 3 percent)
Although the percentage of work completed (16 percent) lags
the percentage of time elapsed (50 percent), it is anticipated
that the contractor will complete this project on time. Once
the paving operations commence, the percentage of work
completed will accelerate.
Appendix F: Examples of Reporting Practices
CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)
Comments
It is undesirable to get report heading data such as this without
an explanation and a projection of future progress or actions to
be taken. Expansion of statistical data is encouraged.
This example of project status presents a meaningful picture of
the ongoing major work on the project at the time of
inspection.
Future scheduling is appropriate for reporting. Is this ahead of
or behind schedule?
Information on revised scheduling is also of interest.
This comment is not as speculative as the last one. It is
apparent that some support for the conclusion probably exists
in addition to the general statements here. The level of
support here is fully acceptable. It is helpful if the information
source can be identified (e.g., project engineer, diaries, etc.).
This is a factual report of contract time charges, but it really
adds very little value to the report without further explanation.
Also, it does not discuss justification for the 42-day extension
or whether it was agreed to by FHWA.
The inspecting engineer should add sufficient information to
clarify the reasons why no construction has taken place,
his/her reaction to these reasons, and a remark resolving the
issue of lack of progress.
A logical explanation has been included for the slow progress
to avoid creating alarm on the part of the reader.
Continued on next page
F–3