Our Approach to Scheduling and Project Controls

A schedule is only useful if it reflects how the work will actually run. Our approach is built on that: programs grounded in real productivity, sequenced with the people who execute the work, and supported by records that stand up when a project is tested. The background is tertiary mathematics and over 20 years on major mining, heavy industrial and infrastructure projects, applied to schedules that hold on site, not just at the approval gate.

One Program, Two Stages

The program that wins the work is the program the project is measured against. Once the contract is awarded, the tender program becomes the baseline program: held under change control, updated on actual progress and used to assess every delay and claim. So we build the tender program as if it will be delivered, because it will be. Sequence, durations, resourcing and procurement windows are set at tender to a standard the delivery team can work to and the contract record can rely on.

Built With the People Who Run the Job

The best program is developed from the ground up with the supervisors and leading hands who understand the constraints. We build work sequences with the execution team, set durations from verified productivity rates rather than a previous project’s template, and level resource logic against what is actually available. The result is a program the site recognises as theirs and will work to, not one imposed on it.

Realism Over Compliance

Passing a schedule health check is the floor, not the finish line. A program can clear every DCMA schedule quality metric and still carry durations and assumptions that will not survive first contact with site. We test the realism behind the structure: whether the sequence matches how the work will run, whether hold points and approvals reflect how they actually function, and whether the critical path is defensible. Compliance gets the schedule through the gate. Realism gets the project delivered.

Built on the Record

Delay and disruption are won or lost on the quality of contemporaneous records. We build schedules that capture what happens as it happens, so progress, variance and cause are documented in real time rather than reconstructed after a dispute. Applying forensic thinking during delivery, not only after a claim arises, surfaces embedded delay while there is still time to act on it.

On a $59M earthworks project, that record showed the client’s own approval and RFI processes added 28 days to every critical decision. Tracing 215 approval transactions supported a six-month extension of time and avoided a formal dispute. Read the case study.

Senior and Delivered Directly

The work is delivered directly, with senior attention on every engagement. That means findings that rest on the evidence regardless of who engages us, and a program shaped by your operation and its constraints, not a generic template.

These principles run through every service, from tender program development, forensic delay analysis and schedule risk analysis to shutdown planning and Primavera P6 scheduling.

Common Questions

How do you build a program that holds on site?

By building it with the people who will deliver the work. Sequences are developed with the execution team, durations are set from verified productivity rates and the resources actually available, and approvals, hold points and interfaces are scheduled as part of the logic. The site team tests and affirms the program before it is committed, so it reflects how the job will run.

Is passing the DCMA 14-point checks enough?

No. The DCMA checks test the structure of a schedule: logic, float, constraints and critical path integrity. A program can pass every check and still be a poor plan if its durations, sequence or access assumptions do not match reality. The checks are the minimum standard; realism is tested separately.

Why does the tender program matter after the contract is awarded?

Because it usually becomes the baseline. The agreed tender program is held under change control and used to measure progress and assess delay, so any weakness built in at tender carries through to delivery and to every claim that follows.

Talk to us about how this approach applies to your project.