|
|
|
ISSUE 03 — SCHEDULE RISK
The schedule gave the sub 11 days — the GC kept 9 weeks
Every schedule is a contract document. Most subs never read it like one.
|
|
The schedule isn’t a timeline. It’s a liability assignment.
|
|
The GC sends over a baseline schedule as a PDF. Two hundred activities, maybe four hundred, Primavera export with the logic stripped out. The electrical sub opens it, finds their activities, checks the start and finish dates, and moves on. Maybe the PM flags that rough-in starts too early. Maybe the foreman asks about access. Nobody reads the whole thing.
That schedule is a contract document. The durations, the sequencing, the float assignments, the milestone constraints. Every one of those is a claim waiting to happen or a claim defense the sub just gave away. The GC’s scheduler didn’t build that schedule to help the sub succeed. They built it to protect the GC’s liquidated damages exposure. The sub’s risk is baked into the logic, and nobody on the sub’s side is reading the logic.
|
|
$185K — Energization milestone with zero float and no testing window
The schedule showed a hard energization milestone with the electrical sub’s switchgear terminations, megging, and testing compressed into an 11-day window. No float. No contingency. The GC’s preceding concrete and drywall activities had 9 weeks of total float between them. When concrete ran three weeks late, the electrical sub absorbed the entire compression. The PM didn’t catch the float imbalance at baseline review. By the time the sub mobilized overtime crews to hold the milestone, the cost was $185K in premium labor, and the sub had no schedule basis for a change order because they’d accepted the baseline without comment.
|
|
|
$74K — Commissioning duration that doesn’t exist on the calendar
Division 01 required a 6-week commissioning period before substantial completion, with functional performance testing on every system and the electrical sub providing a dedicated technician for the full duration. The schedule showed commissioning as a 12-day activity overlapping with punch list. The spec said 6 weeks. The schedule said 12 days. Nobody on the sub’s team compared the two documents. When the commissioning agent showed up and started testing on the spec’s timeline, the sub had a technician tied up for four weeks longer than planned at a loaded labor rate the estimate never carried.
|
|
|
$52K — Manpower curve that front-loaded the sub’s peak into winter
The schedule sequenced electrical rough-in to peak in December and January. Thirty-eight electricians on-site during the two months with the shortest daylight, the worst weather delays, and the highest absenteeism. The GC’s concrete work peaked in September. Mechanical rough-in peaked in October. Both trades got the mild weather. The electrical sub got ice storms and 40% daily no-shows. The schedule was technically buildable, but the sequencing guaranteed the highest-cost labor months would land on the electrical scope. The premium for winter conditions, overtime backfill, and weather delays came in at $52K above the bid.
|
|
|
Every one of those was a real pattern on a real commercial electrical job. The schedule told the story. Nobody on the sub’s side read it.
|
|
WHERE THE SCHEDULE BURIES THE SUB |
Three things a schedule tells you if you know how to read it.
|
| |
|
01
|
Float ownership and who absorbs the compression
Float isn’t free time. It’s a buffer that belongs to someone. In most GC schedules, the float is stacked on the GC’s early activities and stripped from the sub’s downstream work. When early trades run late, the sub absorbs the compression because their activities have zero float to give. The baseline schedule is the moment to flag that imbalance. Not three months in when overtime is already burning.
|
|
|
| |
|
02
|
Spec-to-schedule mismatches that create unfunded obligations
The spec says 6 weeks of commissioning. The schedule shows 12 days. The spec says the electrical sub provides a full-time technician. The schedule shows a part-time resource. Those mismatches aren’t accidents. They’re cost transfers. Whoever catches them first gets to price them. Whoever catches them last gets to absorb them.
|
|
|
| |
|
03
|
Sequencing decisions that assign weather risk and peak labor to the sub
Which trade peaks in which month isn’t random. It’s a scheduling decision. Front-loading electrical rough-in into winter months means the sub carries the weather risk, the absenteeism, and the premium labor. That risk has a dollar value, and it should be visible in the bid. A sub who reads the schedule before signing the contract can either price the winter premium or push back on the sequencing. A sub who reads it after signing can only write checks.
|
|
|
|
WAR STORY · UNIVERSITY SCIENCE BUILDING · ~$4.1M ELECTRICAL |
|
|
Picture a mid-size electrical shop awarded the electrical package on a new university science building. Four stories, heavy lab infrastructure. Emergency power, redundant feeders, BAS integration, fume hood controls tied to the electrical scope. The contract value looked strong, the GC had a decent reputation, and the schedule showed a 16-month build.
The PM reviewed the baseline schedule the way most PMs do. Scanned for the electrical start date, checked the rough-in duration, and flagged that the panel schedule activity looked too short. The GC adjusted the panel activity by two days. The PM signed off on the baseline.
What the PM didn’t catch was the float distribution. The GC’s site work and structural activities carried a combined 47 days of total float. The electrical rough-in through trim-out sequence carried three days. The lab casework installation, which had to complete before the electrical sub could set devices, terminate controls, and energize, carried zero days of float and was on the critical path. The sub’s work was sequenced directly behind the single most delay-prone activity on the project and had no schedule buffer to absorb it.
Casework ran five weeks late. The electrical sub was told to accelerate. The PM asked for a time extension and was pointed to the baseline schedule. The sub’s activities had no float, so any delay to their start was their problem to solve unless they could prove the GC caused it. The casework delay was owner-furnished scope, and the GC’s position was that it wasn’t their procurement.
The sub ran ten weeks of overtime to hold the energization milestone. Premium labor, shift differential, additional supervision, and a second lift rental came in at $130K over the bid. The PM filed a change order citing the casework delay. The GC rejected it. The sub had accepted a baseline with zero float on their critical-path predecessor and never raised it as an issue. The documentation trail showed the PM signed off on the schedule without comment.
The job finished on time. The margin finished at 4% instead of 12%.
|
|
Print this before your next baseline schedule review.
Paste this prompt into Claude or ChatGPT. It generates a one-page schedule review checklist with the ten questions every electrical sub should ask when the GC sends over a baseline schedule. Print it. Bring it to the next schedule review meeting. Use it as a manual reference so nothing gets accepted without the right questions on the table.
|
|
THE PROMPT
|
|
You are an electrical construction project manager reviewing a GC's baseline schedule for a commercial project. Generate a printable one-page reference checklist titled "Electrical Sub's Baseline Schedule Review - 10 Questions."
List 10 questions an electrical subcontractor's PM should ask when reviewing a GC's baseline construction schedule. For each question, include:
- The question (bold)
- A one-sentence explanation of why it matters and what risk it catches
Questions should cover: float distribution between GC and sub activities, energization milestone constraints, commissioning duration vs. spec requirements, predecessor logic on electrical activities, peak manpower timing and seasonal risk, testing and inspection windows, substantial completion definition, milestone penalties or LDs, resource loading assumptions, and schedule update and recovery procedures.
Format as a clean single-page checklist with checkboxes. No narrative, just the questions and risk explanations. Make it something a PM can print and bring to a schedule review meeting.
|
|
|
That gives a checklist. The paid tool reads the actual schedule and flags every risk automatically.
|
Electrical Schedule Assessor
|
|
The Electrical Schedule Assessor reads a project schedule, whether it’s a Primavera P6 export, Excel, or PDF, and flags every risk that falls on the electrical sub. Float imbalances, spec-to-schedule mismatches, compression traps, unfunded commissioning durations, and sequencing decisions that transfer weather or manpower risk to the sub. Instead of reviewing a 400-line schedule in a meeting and hoping the PM catches the buried logic, the assessor reads the whole thing and delivers a prioritized risk report.
Available as a hands-on service engagement or a self-serve download. One of over two dozen AI tools built specifically for electrical estimating and project management. Browse the full catalog at sparki.academy.
|
Read the schedule like a contract, because it is one.
|
|
The baseline schedule review is the last chance to flag float imbalances, compression traps, and unfunded durations before they become the sub’s problem. Every risk the PM catches at baseline is a risk they can price, push back on, or document. Every risk they miss is a change order the GC will reject because the sub already accepted the schedule.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not ready yet? Grab the free Spec Book Risk Checklist and run it on your next bid.
|
|
|
|
Bid sharper. Manage tighter. Stop leaving margin on the table.
|
|
|
|
Estimating and project management workflows for the small Electrical Contractor.
sparki.academy
You’re receiving this because you signed up at sparki.academy.
|
|