A Comparison of Department of Transportation Progress Scheduling Specifications from Across the Nation, SPR-RE23(009)-8H-00, 2024

(2024) A Comparison of Department of Transportation Progress Scheduling Specifications from Across the Nation, SPR-RE23(009)-8H-00, 2024. Transportation, Department of

Preview	PDF A_Comparison_of_Department_of_Transportation_Progress_Scheduling_Specifications_from_Across_the_Nation_Technical_Brief.pdf File Size:129kB
Preview	PDF A_Comparison_of_Department_of_Transportation_Progress_Scheduling_Specifications_from_Across_the_Nation-Final_Report.pdf File Size:454kB

Abstract

One of the primary determinants of project success is completion of the project on or ahead of schedule. Owners therefore pay a great deal of attention to schedule progress and timely project completion. This holds true especially for departments of transportation (DOTs), each of which adheres to its own specification requirements for progress scheduling. This project conducted a comparative analysis highlighting the similarities and differences among the specification requirements of multiple state DOTs, including topics such as definitions, float ownership, software requirements, differentiation of project levels/complexity, progress narratives, preliminary schedules, schedule updates, review and resubmit durations, and as-built schedule development. Preliminary findings indicate that requirements for the use of proprietary scheduling software (e.g., Primavera P6) and the use of cost-loaded critical path method (CPM) schedules for payment purposes are potential sources of conflict between the contracting community and DOTs. Researchers can use the findings from this research to assist DOTs in developing specifications that support the DOT’s mission but that are not burdensome to project management and the contracting industry.