Methodology
The 100-Point Schedule Assurance Framework
A schedule is only worth trusting if its quality can be measured the same way, every time. This is how I make that objective — and automatic.
A Python-based Primavera P6 engine reads each contractor submission and scores it identically every cycle — DCMA 14-point principles alongside a bespoke 100-point Employer compliance framework. The 100-point Employer framework is the primary, project-specific assurance methodology; the DCMA 14-point assessment is a recognised, complementary schedule-quality check — the two are distinct, and the 25% → 83% result is measured against the 100-point framework. It underpins Baseline and Progress Integrity in the wider framework.
Mega-projects don’t fail overnight — they fail one unmitigated delay at a time.
Contractor schedule quality was inconsistent and could not be trusted to govern the job.
The 100-Point Employer Schedule Assurance Framework, scored via Python and Primavera P6.
Every submission scored the same way each cycle; exceptions surfaced by dimension.
Target corrective action at the weakest dimensions, and monitor the same measure.
Schedule quality lifted from ~25% to over 83% against the framework — and held.
The problem it solves
When “good” is a monthly argument.
Manual review can catch a bad programme, but not fast enough or consistently enough across every submission cycle. Reviews vary by reviewer and by month, so the definition of an acceptable schedule becomes a recurring negotiation rather than a fixed standard. The answer is to make “good” automatic — a single, rules-based definition of quality that every submission is measured against, the same way, every time.
How it works
How the engine runs.
Audit
Score every P6 submission against the 100 checks.
Diagnosis
Surface what fails — by category and severity.
Rectification
Fix the logic, constraints and float that break the plan.
Monitoring
Hold the standard cycle after cycle; watch the trend.
In detail — inputs to management action
Inputs
Every contractor Primavera P6 submission, each cycle, in a consistent export.
Tests
DCMA 14-point principles plus a bespoke 100-point Employer compliance framework, applied identically to every programme.
Scoring
Each submission scored the same way, so quality is a number — comparable across contractors and across months.
Exceptions
Failures surfaced by category and severity, pointing the reviewer straight to what needs attention.
Trend
Power BI turns the same data into management intelligence — trend and exposure over time, not raw tables.
Management action
A defined, published standard contractors can see and work to — governance holds every submission to it.
What it tests
Six assurance dimensions.
The 100 checks group into six dimensions. The specific rules are Employer-confidential; the dimensions and representative examples below show the breadth of what a credible programme must satisfy before its dates are trusted. DCMA 14-point checks provide a recognised schedule-quality reference within this; the 100-point framework provides the broader, programme-specific assurance structure. Neither is an externally certified standard.
Baseline Integrity
Whether the programme is a credible, agreed starting point.
If the baseline is unsound, every measurement made against it inherits the flaw.
The accepted baseline, the contract programme clause, the basis of durations and sequence.
Whether the baseline can be relied on as the control reference — or must be corrected first.
Logic & Network Integrity
Whether the network behaves, or is held together artificially.
A network propped up by constraints and lags cannot react to progress, so its dates cannot be trusted.
The relationship set, the constraint log, lag justification, the open-end report.
Whether the programme can be trusted to forecast, or is being driven by artefacts.
Progress Integrity
Whether reported progress is real and measurable.
Every forecast and claim rests on progress; unevidenced progress makes both indefensible.
Actual dates against site records, the progress method, the out-of-sequence report.
Whether reported progress can be accepted, or must be re-verified before decisions.
Forecast Integrity
Whether the forecast follows from progress and logic.
Leadership commits on the forecast; a forecast held by a constraint misleads it.
Remaining durations, the driving path, recovery assumptions, the slippage trend.
Whether the completion date can be planned against — or is optimistic.
Critical Path & Float
Whether the driving path is real and float is behaving.
Time entitlement and priority follow the critical path; a false path misdirects both.
The longest path, total and free float distribution, near-critical paths, constraint effects.
Where to focus recovery, and whether delay exposure is correctly located.
Governance & Reporting
Whether the output supports governance and decisions.
Assurance that never reaches a decision is cost without value.
The coding structure, the comparability of the score cycle to cycle, escalation records.
Whether the programme picture can drive escalation and executive action.
Representative examples only — the full rule set is Employer-confidential. DCMA 14-point principles · bespoke 100-point Employer framework · Python + Primavera P6 · Power BI reporting.
One approach, four layers
Not separate sections — layers of the same method.
The principle — measure time, risk and change against defined integrity.
The detailed assurance layer — how programme quality is scored.
The engine — Python + P6 scoring every submission the same way, into Power BI.
The point — reliable programmes let leadership decide on evidence, not assertion.
The result
Quality that can be seen, and held.
On the AED 21B Hudayriyat West programme, contractor schedule conformance rose from around 25% to over 83% — and because the standard was consistent and automated, it held there. Reliable programmes meant reliable forecasts, and reliable forecasts let the Employer decide on evidence rather than assertion. A seven-volume Project Controls Management System set the common standard the engine enforced.
Get in touch
Discuss schedule assurance, DCMA compliance and automated programme quality.