If you’re a contractor heading into execution on a major infrastructure program, read this carefully.
Because the mistake I’m about to describe is more common than anyone admits. And by the time most teams discover it, it’s too late to fix.
The dam schedule looked achievable.
370 metres of embankment.
A spillway.
Erosion control structures.
A new pump station and water transfer infrastructure.
Complex. But sequenced.
And the baseline had been approved. Then we were brought in. Not because something had gone wrong. Because the contractor wanted an independent schedule review and health assessment before the baseline was formally submitted to the client.
Smart call.
What we found wasn’t a catastrophic problem.
It was something subtler and far more common.
The schedule had been built by people who understood construction. But the Extension of Time clauses in the contract had not been factored into how the program was structured.
Specific risks – ground conditions, weather windows, regulatory approvals, were present in the risk register. But they weren’t reflected in the schedule logic in a way that would support an EOT claim if those risks materialised.
The work was planned correctly.
The risk wasn’t protected.
There’s a difference.
And that difference – if left unaddressed becomes a very expensive argument later. We worked with the contractor to restructure the critical path logic around those risk events.
Not to inflate the program.
Not to create claims that weren’t real.
To make sure that if the risk materialised, the schedule would tell the truth about its impact. And the contemporaneous record would support the entitlement.
The baseline was finalised.
The client approved it.
And the contractor went into execution with a program that would actually protect them, not just represent them. If you’re about to submit a baseline, ask yourself one question before you do: If the biggest risk on this program materialises tomorrow, does my schedule tell the truth about what that does to my completion date? If you’re not sure, get an independent set of eyes on it before it’s approved.
Contract first, method second.
Always.
Have you ever reviewed a schedule that was technically sound but commercially exposed?
