Improving Constructability in Energy Project Planning

💡The Path of Construction - Planning with the End in Mind In project execution, one of the most underestimated tools for success is the Path of Construction (PoC). Too often, construction planning is reduced to Gantt charts and work sequences. But the PoC is more than that: it is a strategic backbone that defines how the project will be built in alignment with time, space, resources, safety, and logic. The Path of Construction answers critical questions: ✅ Which zones or systems should be built first? ✅How do we open the site progressively to support safe, efficient, and continuous work? ✅ What are the critical spatial and sequencing constraints we must anticipate before they become blockers? The PoC is not an afterthought. It must be developed early, starting as early as the Conceptual Phase, and refined during the Basic Design, as engineering and procurement planning mature. It lays the foundation for the breakdown of the project into Construction Work Areas (CWAs) and Construction Work Packages (CWPs), guiding WorkFace Planning and aligning all disciplines under a shared execution strategy. But none of this is possible without front-end planning and a strong Constructability mindset. Constructability is what brings field intelligence into engineering decisions at the right time. It challenges the design to support the logic of execution. It ensures that work can be performed safely, productively, and in the right order. When Constructability is applied early, the PoC becomes more than a schedule: it becomes a map of certainty, reducing changes, mitigating delays, and protecting continuity. Without a well-developed PoC, teams often fall into the trap of reactive construction: ❌ Out-of-sequence activities ❌Congested work zones ❌ Idle resources ❌ Constant firefighting on site But when we plan with the end in mind, the Path of Construction becomes the vehicle that connects early design decisions with site realities: bridging planning and execution, and turning vision into results. The Path of Construction is not about when we build, it’s about how we enable the project to be built right. #TheConstructionThinkers #Constructability #AWP #ProjectExecution #FrontEndPlanning #Construction #JESA

Glen Palmer, PSP, CFCC, FAACE and I are honored by AACE publishing another of our Top Ten series of papers in the Cost Engineering Journal. Resource management sits at the heart of project success—and, too often, at the root of costly construction claims. Why Focus on Resources? Most construction schedules are built on assumptions about production rates, durations, and quantities. But when resource planning falls short—whether due to unrealistic manpower peaks, lack of skilled labor, or poor coordination—projects risk delays, cost overruns, and disputes. Rather than waiting for claims to arise, Palmer and Carson argue for a proactive approach: plan, validate, and monitor your resources from day one. Key Takeaways from the Top Ten Approaches: 1. Validate Resources by Discipline: Go beyond surface-level schedule checks. Detailed resource validation—using field-experienced personnel—can identify unrealistic resource peaks and prevent unachievable schedules. 2. Formalize Punch and Warranty List Management: Avoid never-ending completion and warranty periods by developing comprehensive, early punch lists and using structured warranty management systems. 3. Check Resource Earning Curves: Ensure planned progress is actually achievable by comparing planned manpower curves and production rates to real-world constraints. 4. Manage Schedule Compression: When compressing schedules, understand the risks and costs of acceleration and recovery. Use structured analysis and documentation to avoid disputes. 5. Review General Conditions Labor: Monitor and budget field overhead costs carefully, and avoid relying on variable, hard-to-track level-of-effort activities. 6. Use Constructability Reviews: Always have experienced field experts review “fast-tracked” project schedules to spot resource and constructability problems early. 7. Address Trade Stacking and Overcrowding: Analyze crew concurrency and area usage to prevent inefficiencies from too many workers or trades in the same space. 8. Specify Resource Requirements in Schedules: Include resource histograms and percent curves in scheduling specifications to enable thorough schedule reviews. 9. Plan for Resource Availability: Evaluate the availability of skilled labor and specialty resources, especially on large or geographically constrained projects. 10. Minimize Inefficiencies from Disrupted Trade Work: Align procurement, sequencing, and trade starts to reduce disruption, and use targeted planning to ensure work is completed efficiently on the first attempt. Conclusion: Resource-related claims are often avoidable with disciplined planning, honest schedule validation, and ongoing monitoring. By following these ten approaches, project teams can dramatically reduce the risk of disputes, keep projects on track, and protect both profit and reputation.

Effective Project Development for Pumped Storage Projects (PSP) Pumped Storage Projects (PSP) are among the most complex and capital-intensive energy infrastructure developments. Unlike other renewable and conventional power generation technologies—such as solar, wind, and thermal—PSP projects involve intricate technical, contractual, and physical interfaces. This complexity demands a disciplined, proactive approach to planning, design, and execution to mitigate risks, control costs, and optimize schedules. The Critical Role of Early-Stage Development The foundation of a successful PSP project is laid in the early development phase. Decisions made at this stage have an outsized impact on cost, schedule, and risk. Yet, traditional procurement models often delay the integration of design and construction teams, leading to misaligned priorities, increased risks, and costly rework. A more effective approach is to establish a unified design and delivery team early in the process, ensuring that project risks are systematically addressed and that execution is optimized from the outset. Key Principles for Successful PSP Development 1. Strategic Early Investment Owners must recognize that effective risk mitigation requires upfront investment in thorough investigations, feasibility studies, and constructability reviews. Cutting corners during early-stage planning often results in escalated costs and delays during construction. 2. Integrated Design & Delivery Approach Instead of the conventional segmented procurement model, PSP projects benefit from early appointment of a single design and delivery team. This allows for: • Holistic risk management • Optimized procurement strategies • A streamlined transition from design to execution 3. Execution-Oriented Planning A project should not simply be designed—it should be designed for execution. This means engaging engineers and contractors early to ensure that design solutions are practical, efficient, and de-risked before construction begins. 4. Proactive Risk Management Many PSP project failures stem from insufficient planning and poor understanding of interface challenges. A structured approach to risk management, including early geotechnical, hydraulic, and environmental assessments, is crucial for long-term success. 5. Shifting the Mindset Owners and stakeholders must shift their focus from running a procurement process to building a collaborative, execution-focused team. A well-integrated team reduces uncertainty, minimizes delays, and enhances cost predictability. The Bottom Line The more complex the project, the earlier key decisions must be made. Investing in the right areas at the right time is not an added cost—it is cost control in its most effective form. By prioritizing early integration of design and delivery teams, PSP projects can achieve higher certainty in cost, schedule, and performance, ensuring long-term success in a competitive energy market.

If you're a first time project leader or manager, you're probably making this mistake 👇 Waiting until construction starts to catch design issues. By then, it’s too late—problems have a way of compounding. The solution? Conduct constructability reviews during the design phase of a construction project. These reviews help projects: ✅ Spot issues that may arise during construction ✅ Propose solutions and fix errors early on. ✅ Ensure that the proposed design can be practically built and efficiently operated. We can't control everything in a project, but we can make sure our plans are good to go. This is where we can really make a difference. Upfront involvement from someone with the right construction knowledge and experience has major benefits to outcomes. The earlier, the better! Just look at the Construction Cost Influence Curve—it says it all. What’s been your biggest win from an early constructability review?

This may be a controversial statement, and not everyone will agree. But after 16+ years in the industry, here is one truth that keeps proving itself: If you are managing construction but do not understand how decisions made in preconstruction affect the field, you are managing blind. Projects do not fall apart because of bad crews; they fall apart because of unclear assumptions, incomplete drawings, and early decisions made without constructability in mind. The gap between design intent and build reality is where most project risk hides. And the only way to close that gap is through structured preconstruction and field-informed planning. Here is why that matters: • Preconstruction is where cost and schedule certainty are built. • Bringing field experience into early coordination prevents rework and delay. • Constructability reviews turn design discussions into buildable plans. Every project looks perfect on paper until someone tries to build it. The teams that understand both the drawing table and the jobsite are the ones who deliver predictability, not surprises. Construction management is not just about staying on schedule. It is about ensuring that every early decision can withstand the realities of the field. #ConstructionInsights #PreconstructionPlanning #ConstructabilityReview #ConstructionRisk #OwnerRepresentation #ProjectDelivery #ConstructionLeadership #RealEstateDevelopment #LosAngelesConstruction #BuildingConstruction #RiskManagement

How Does Constructability Concept During Planning Phase Contribute to Cost Certainty in Infrastructure Projects? Mega infrastructure projects are inherently risky, with many uncertainties involved. Statistics show that, on average, real infrastructure projects deliver 67% over budget and 44% behind schedule. Therefore, proactively predicting future risks/changes that may be encountered during construction, operation, and maintenance phases is critical for reducing the reported overruns and achieving cost certainty goals. Constructability is a commonly used framework for owners to proactively identify the sources of future changes, preventing unnecessary costly expenses during and post-construction phases. Research shows that effective constructability reviews during the design development phase can resolve up to 75% of field problems and mistakes. According to a case example provided by CII (2009), the life cycle costs of an Oil Production Facility in the US were reduced from $3.8 billion to $1.4 billion, mainly due to the upfront implementation of a constructability program during the design development phase [1]. Research conducted by [2] highlighted the importance of focusing on project life cycle costs during constructability review rather than just design and construction costs, as owner organizations have been suffering from the costs of reworks during the O&M phases of their projects. The attached figure shows that these two phases include around 50% to 80% of the total life cycle costs. Despite the high cost, the risks associated with these phases (operability & maintainability) are often underestimated during constructability reviews, causing significant changes and overruns during these phases. In my recent post, I emphasized the significance of Early Contractor Involvement (ECI) through collaborative contracts and incentivization strategies for managing life cycle risks early on. Despite many public owners in North America adopting and accelerating these contracting models, there remains skepticism in the market regarding the value and cost-effectiveness of ECI during the planning phase. The above research shows that the cost of early contractor involvement during planning is minor (if implemented effectively) compared to the cost of resolving field problems and mistakes. Addressing 75% of field problems and mistakes early provides several times the cost savings compared to dealing with them later. In your view, what are the benefits and challenges of implementing constructability reviews during the planning phase? Your thoughts are appreciated. Source: [1] https://lnkd.in/giEQnBGp [2] https://lnkd.in/gqDiJiBY #riskmanagement #decisionmaking #value #constructability #costoverrun #costsaving #infrastructure #transit #rial #uncertainty #moeroghabadi Hatch