A good client relationship won’t save a bad baseline

The contract often doesn’t help

“Lawyers or corporate legal advisors aim to make contracts as watertight as possible. However, when unpopular clauses are removed during the contract closing phase, this sometimes leads to a lack of consistency within the contract.” (Bart Plevoets)

For legal professionals, a contract may serve as a legal shield, but for project controls professionals, it primarily functions as an operational compass:

• What are the expectations regarding the schedule?
• How should reporting be done?
• How should changes be managed?

This places high demands on both the quality and the tone of a contract.

Despite positive developments toward more “modern” contract models that encourage collaboration, practice still lags behind. Many legal professionals have extensive experience and can draw on a vast database of contracts and clauses. But does reusing clauses from the past really offer the best guarantee for successful projects in the future?

Traditional contracts tend to pit parties against one another. Directive clauses leave little room for contractor initiative or innovation. A typical example is the requirement for a detailed schedule, prepared according to the critical path method, including deliverables and monthly updates. Admittedly, we often go along with this ourselves, as illustrated in our blog post “Tender and Contract Requirements related to Scheduling”. The result is sometimes an excessively large baseline schedule with poor structure, leading to negative consequences for management, progress measurement, and potential delay analyses. Is this really the best way to approach scheduling?

This isn’t a plea to pay less attention to the contract. On the contrary, every member of the project team should be familiar with at least the sections of the contract that are relevant to their role. After all, it is within these clauses that the rights and obligations concerning project control and scheduling are defined.

So, how can it be done better?

Keep the requirements realistic during the tender phase

In fact, much can be traced back to an early stage in the project’s lifecycle: the client’s initial tender request. Especially in a competitive environment, elements can be introduced that ultimately hinder the project’s success. A classic example is when the client imposes an unrealistic schedule on the bidders. Because of the competitive nature of the process, contractors may submit a schedule they already consider unfeasible. Within that simple dynamic lie so many factors that can (and will) lead to derailment, that this issue truly deserves to be placed at the top of the agenda.

“Designers should be involved in the tendering process to work together with the client toward realistic scheduling specifications.” (Bart Plevoets)

Much revolves around creating the right incentives. Including project duration as an award criterion in the tender specifications is a risk factor for unrealistic schedules. Some mechanisms exist to mitigate this risk, but we must continue to think critically about how to improve the approach.

Show the right mindset

When it comes to mindset, I’ve seen both good and bad examples. Some clients start from the trenches, viewing the project as a battle from day one. Others, however, adopt a cooperative and understanding attitude, setting the tone for achieving a positive outcome for both parties through collaboration.

As the late Luc Hellemans, former director of Lantis and a true bridge builder, put it bluntly:

“Our contractors are here to earn some money. That is fine.” (Luc Hellemans)

There can be no doubt about this: the client must lead by example by adopting a cooperative and understanding attitude from the very start, both in communication and in documentation. For scheduling, this means establishing clear agreements on:

• Baseline management
• Change management
• Progress control
• Transparency regarding float and buffers (see our blog post A time buffer is not the same as total float)

Only in this way can we create an environment that fosters collaboration and enables the successful delivery of projects.

Responsible Contractors

Don’t take just any risk

Things often go wrong as early as the tender phase, when contractors bid on projects with unrealistic specifications or schedules. This is a shared responsibility, but contractors frequently start from a weak position because they prefer not to lose a project to competitors. Still, they should not hesitate to point out when certain requirements or imposed timelines are unachievable.

Bigger and better

Another factor that contributes to a suboptimal dynamic is the desire to take on increasingly larger projects. I know several examples of companies with experience in relatively small projects that have recently made, or wish to make, the leap into the “champions league” of projects. It should not be underestimated how much more demanding large projects are for project teams: a high degree of project controls maturity is crucial.

Bent Flyvbjerg, in his book How Big Things Get Done, cites the example of the “Boston Big Dig,” where it was naively assumed that many small contractors could successfully complete this massive project together. The result was a derailed budget and schedule:

“The Big Dig had too many small contractors working on disconnected scopes, which led to coordination problems, safety failures, and skyrocketing costs.” (Bent Flyvbjerg)

Documentation is key

The previous two points concern project selection, but within a project, contractors must also manage effectively. Positions must be supported by facts and proper documentation. To do this, contractors must be organized to capture and manage contemporaneous data. For example, when few or poor-quality schedule updates are available, it becomes much harder to safeguard one’s rights in the event of delays.

Strive for transparency

There are few projects where the contractor has only one schedule. Usually, there’s an “internal” and an “external” version. The quote “We can’t show this schedule, because then the client will see we still have float” sums it up perfectly. Is it naïve to claim there should only be one schedule? Not necessarily. Scenario planning for internal analysis makes sense, but the shared schedule should be representative and transparent to create a level playing field and foster trust. Achieving this requires not only trust but also sufficient project controls maturity, both from the contractor as well as the client.

Increase knowledge and maturity within the project team

Sometimes, project teams on the contractor’s side lack sufficient understanding of scheduling processes, leading to an aversion toward planning. Budget management often receives proper attention, while time management, although equally important, is perceived as more complex and less tangible.

When agreements around scheduling, float, and buffers are clear and understood by all parties, transparency increases. This requires both technical knowledge and a mindset shift toward greater trust and collaboration.

Conclusie

There’s work to be done. In Belgium, there is need for a community which advocates for realistic specifications, transparent communication, and a collaborative mindset. In the coming weeks, we’ll explore what lessons can be learned from today’s projects and how they can inspire the tender and contract documents of the future.