Schedule Health Dashboard
DCMA 14-Point Assessment & Quality Compliance Analysis
Executive Summary
Baseline Assessment Note
This report is scored out of 13/14 criteria. Excluded: C10 (Resources) — marked N/A due to project phase or data availability. An approved baseline is available.
Only 5 of 13 criteria passed
Schedule quality requires immediate attention with multiple critical deficiencies identified. (Note: Scored out of 13 criteria)
Feasibility gap vs baseline/contract finish
CPLI 0.933 | Contract: 2026-08-31 | Forecast: 2026-09-30 | Float: -22d (22 days late vs baseline finish)
Lead relationships found
7 negative lag relationships detected. Leads create unrealistic schedule compression and should be eliminated. → Action: Replace leads with overlapping activities or adjust activity definitions.
Excessive lag usage
10.6% of relationships contain lags (target ≤5%). Review and justify each lag or break down activities. → Action: Create intermediate milestones instead of using lags where possible.
High float activities detected
149 activities with float >44 days indicate missing relationships or incorrect sequencing. → Action: Review high float activities to ensure proper integration into schedule logic.
Long duration activities
38 activities exceed 44 working days. Break down into smaller work packages for better control. → Action: Decompose long activities into 1-week activities for improved tracking.
Missed task dates
19 activities incomplete despite passing planned dates. Update actuals and reforecast remaining work. → Action: Mark completed activities and update progress on in-progress work immediately.
38%
Health Score
RED STATUS
Key Performance Metrics
Criteria Passed
5
of 13 total criteria
C10 N/A - scored out of 13
›
No criteria passed yet
Criteria Failed
8
requires attention
›
No criteria failed yet
Compliance Rate
38%
overall quality score
›
Load schedule to see breakdown
Overall Rating
F
assessment grade
›
Load schedule to see grading scale
DCMA 14-Point Assessment
Comprehensive evaluation of schedule quality based on Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) 14-Point Assessment criteria. Each criterion measures a critical aspect of schedule health and reliability.
Health Score Breakdown 👆 Click cards for details
Logic & Flow
2/4
Fair
›
Complete assessment to see breakdown
Resources & Progress
0/2
Poor
›
Complete assessment to see breakdown
Constraints & Float
2/4
Fair
›
Complete assessment to see breakdown
Performance
1/3
Poor
›
Complete assessment to see breakdown
DCMA-14 Status by Criterion
Per-criterion DCMA-14 status — one row for each of the fourteen criteria, color-coded by result. PASS means the criterion met its threshold; FAIL means it did not; N/A applies to baseline-dependent criteria like CPLI and BEI when no baseline is loaded. Reading down the chart shows exactly which criteria failed without having to count slices in a doughnut.
| Criterion | Status |
|---|---|
| 1. Logic | Pass |
| 2. Leads | Fail |
| 3. Lags | Fail |
| 4. Relationship Types | Pass |
| 5. Hard Constraints | Pass |
| 6. High Float | Fail |
| 7. Negative Float | Pass |
| 8. High Duration | Fail |
| 9. Valid Dates | Fail |
| 10. Resources | — |
| 11. Missed Tasks | Fail |
| 12. Critical Path Test | Pass |
| 13. CPLI | Fail |
| 14. BEI | Fail |
Top Schedule Problems
Activity-level problem volume across the eleven countable DCMA categories. Each bar is the number of activities (or relationships) that fail that criterion's threshold — e.g. activities missing predecessors or successors, with negative-lag leads, exceeding the 44-day duration cap, with negative float, or with invalid actual/forecast dates. Diagnostic criteria C12 (Critical Path Test), C13 (CPLI), and C14 (BEI) are scalar metrics, not counts, and appear in the Summary text below.
Missing Logic
8
Leads
7
High Duration
38
Neg Float
0
Baseline vs Current Comparison
⚠️
Baseline Date: April 2, 2025 | ⚠️ 78 tasks added | ⚠️ 30 days late
Task Metrics
Baseline Tasks
327
BL
Pre-baseline scope snapshot
Current Tasks
405
CR
Live scope as of data date
Tasks Added
+78
+Δ
327 → 405 net change
Scope Growth Rate
+23.9%
%Δ
Above 10% threshold — review growth
Schedule Metrics
Baseline Start
2025-04-02
BS
Current Start
2025-07-01
CS
Baseline Finish
2026-08-31
BF
Current Finish
2026-09-30
CF
Variance Analysis
📊 Performance Indices
Risk Analysis
Overall Risk
8.9
High Risk
Schedule
8.0
Scope
8.5
Resource
8.5
Execution
8.3
Key Findings
- 🔴 Primary Risk: 40.5% increase in required productivity cannot be achieved with baseline resources. Immediate resource augmentation is essential.
- ⚠️ Secondary Risk: 23.9% scope growth indicates inadequate change control. Further additions will compound compression risks.
- 📊 Schedule Impact: 61-day schedule compression combined with 78 added tasks creates impossible math: 23.9% more work must be completed in 11.8% less time. Late start compounds the crunch.
- 🎯 Summary: Project carries elevated execution risk with 11% completion confidence. Without mitigation, significant delays may occur.
8.0
8.5
8.5
8.3
61-day compression. HIGH RISK: Critical schedule pressure - path forward requires executive decision
+23.9% growth (+78 tasks). HIGH RISK: Change control failing - scope freeze essential
40.5% productivity gap. HIGH RISK: Baseline staffing inadequate - immediate augmentation critical
61 day compression with 90 day start delay creates execution pressure.
23.9% scope growth (78 tasks) indicates inadequate change control.
40.5% productivity increase required creates critical resource intensity.
Combined schedule compression, scope expansion, and resource intensity create significant execution complexity.
What this means:
Schedule Compression Risk of 8.0/10 measures the pressure from completing work faster than baseline.
🚨 Critical Risk Level: Extreme schedule compression creates severe execution risks:
Primary Concerns:
• Quality degradation - rushed work leads to defects and rework
• Resource burnout - sustained high-pressure environment unsustainable
• Safety risks - corners may be cut under time pressure
• Coordination failures - compressed schedule limits planning time
Expected Impacts: Projects with compression >30% face elevated risk of:
• Schedule overruns beyond current forecast
• Increased defect rates requiring rework
• Higher turnover of key personnel
💡 Critical Actions:
• Conduct feasibility review with technical leads
• Establish quality checkpoints that cannot be skipped
• Create stress management and morale support programs
• Request baseline revision if compression is unrealistic What this means:
Scope Expansion Risk of 8.5/10 reflects 78 new tasks (23.9% growth) added after baseline.
🚨 Critical Scope Creep: Over 20% scope growth indicates breakdown in change control:
Typical Root Causes:
• Inadequate requirements definition in baseline
• Weak change control board or approval process
• Customer/stakeholder scope additions without timeline adjustment
• Discovery of work not captured in original planning
• "While we're at it" syndrome - bundling unplanned work
Business Impact:
• Budget overruns as unplanned work consumes resources
• Schedule delays compound as new work competes for resources
• Team confusion about true project boundaries
• Stakeholder dissatisfaction with "moving target"
💡 Immediate Actions:
• Freeze scope - implement strict change control
• Review all additions with sponsor to prioritize vs defer
• Document scope baseline and get stakeholder sign-off
• Establish formal change request process with impact analysis What this means:
Resource Intensity Risk of 8.5/10 reflects 40.5% productivity increase required vs baseline.
🚨 Severe Resource Pressure: Requiring >30% productivity increase is typically unrealistic:
Productivity Constraints:
• Human productivity has natural limits
• Learning curve for new team members reduces effectiveness
• Coordination overhead increases non-linearly with team size
• Quality suffers when resources are overloaded
• Burnout risk increases exponentially under sustained pressure
Industry Benchmarks:
• Adding resources to late project often makes it later (Brooks' Law)
• Sustainable productivity improvements rarely exceed 15-20%
• Overtime effectiveness drops sharply after 2-3 weeks
💡 Viable Options:
• Negotiate scope reduction to match available capacity
• Request timeline extension to realistic completion date
• Add carefully selected, experienced resources early
• Implement process improvements to eliminate waste
• Automate repetitive tasks to improve efficiency What this means:
Execution Complexity of 8.3/10 combines schedule compression, scope growth, and resource intensity into overall execution difficulty.
🚨 Extreme Complexity: Multiple high-risk factors create compounding execution challenges:
Compounding Effects:
• Schedule pressure + scope growth = quality risks
• Resource intensity + compression = burnout risks
• Scope creep + resource limits = unmet commitments
• All factors combined = project failure risk
Warning Signs to Monitor:
• Key personnel resignation or sick leave
• Increasing defect rates or rework loops
• Missed milestones becoming frequent
• Team morale deterioration and conflict
• Stakeholder complaints about lack of progress
💡 Executive Intervention Required:
• Escalate to executive sponsor immediately
• Conduct honest project health assessment
• Develop fundamental reset plan (scope, schedule, or resources must change)
• Consider project restructuring or temporary suspension to replan
• Do not continue with unrealistic plan - risks are too high 8.0 8.5 8.5 8.3 8.0 8.5 8.5 8.3 33.3 8.3
Schedule Compression Risk of 8.0/10 measures the pressure from completing work faster than baseline.
🚨 Critical Risk Level: Extreme schedule compression creates severe execution risks:
Primary Concerns:
• Quality degradation - rushed work leads to defects and rework
• Resource burnout - sustained high-pressure environment unsustainable
• Safety risks - corners may be cut under time pressure
• Coordination failures - compressed schedule limits planning time
Expected Impacts: Projects with compression >30% face elevated risk of:
• Schedule overruns beyond current forecast
• Increased defect rates requiring rework
• Higher turnover of key personnel
💡 Critical Actions:
• Conduct feasibility review with technical leads
• Establish quality checkpoints that cannot be skipped
• Create stress management and morale support programs
• Request baseline revision if compression is unrealistic What this means:
Scope Expansion Risk of 8.5/10 reflects 78 new tasks (23.9% growth) added after baseline.
🚨 Critical Scope Creep: Over 20% scope growth indicates breakdown in change control:
Typical Root Causes:
• Inadequate requirements definition in baseline
• Weak change control board or approval process
• Customer/stakeholder scope additions without timeline adjustment
• Discovery of work not captured in original planning
• "While we're at it" syndrome - bundling unplanned work
Business Impact:
• Budget overruns as unplanned work consumes resources
• Schedule delays compound as new work competes for resources
• Team confusion about true project boundaries
• Stakeholder dissatisfaction with "moving target"
💡 Immediate Actions:
• Freeze scope - implement strict change control
• Review all additions with sponsor to prioritize vs defer
• Document scope baseline and get stakeholder sign-off
• Establish formal change request process with impact analysis What this means:
Resource Intensity Risk of 8.5/10 reflects 40.5% productivity increase required vs baseline.
🚨 Severe Resource Pressure: Requiring >30% productivity increase is typically unrealistic:
Productivity Constraints:
• Human productivity has natural limits
• Learning curve for new team members reduces effectiveness
• Coordination overhead increases non-linearly with team size
• Quality suffers when resources are overloaded
• Burnout risk increases exponentially under sustained pressure
Industry Benchmarks:
• Adding resources to late project often makes it later (Brooks' Law)
• Sustainable productivity improvements rarely exceed 15-20%
• Overtime effectiveness drops sharply after 2-3 weeks
💡 Viable Options:
• Negotiate scope reduction to match available capacity
• Request timeline extension to realistic completion date
• Add carefully selected, experienced resources early
• Implement process improvements to eliminate waste
• Automate repetitive tasks to improve efficiency What this means:
Execution Complexity of 8.3/10 combines schedule compression, scope growth, and resource intensity into overall execution difficulty.
🚨 Extreme Complexity: Multiple high-risk factors create compounding execution challenges:
Compounding Effects:
• Schedule pressure + scope growth = quality risks
• Resource intensity + compression = burnout risks
• Scope creep + resource limits = unmet commitments
• All factors combined = project failure risk
Warning Signs to Monitor:
• Key personnel resignation or sick leave
• Increasing defect rates or rework loops
• Missed milestones becoming frequent
• Team morale deterioration and conflict
• Stakeholder complaints about lack of progress
💡 Executive Intervention Required:
• Escalate to executive sponsor immediately
• Conduct honest project health assessment
• Develop fundamental reset plan (scope, schedule, or resources must change)
• Consider project restructuring or temporary suspension to replan
• Do not continue with unrealistic plan - risks are too high 8.0 8.5 8.5 8.3 8.0 8.5 8.5 8.3 33.3 8.3
Predictive Analytics
Forecasted Completion
Nov 13, 2026
Most likely scenario
Analysis: Based on current progress, scope trends, and resource availability, project completion is forecasted. This includes buffer for identified risks and normal construction variability.
Delay Probability (45+ Days)
22%
Based on risk profile
Risk Factors: Calculated from schedule compression, scope growth, critical path pressure, and failed DCMA criteria. Higher percentage indicates greater likelihood of significant project delays without corrective action.
Additional Resources Needed
+25%
Critical trades needed for remaining work
Resource Analysis: To meet target completion date, additional resources are required to accelerate critical path activities and maintain schedule. Focus on trades with highest productivity impact.
Critical Path Pressure
High
High pressure on critical path activities
Pressure Index: Measures how much schedule compression has occurred on critical path. Higher pressure indicates less float available and greater vulnerability to delays. Monitor closely for activities with negative float.
Scenario Analysis
✓ Best Case
With immediate resource augmentation (+25%) and scope freeze, completion possible within 21 days of current forecast. Requires executive sponsorship and rapid mobilization.
◆ Most Likely
With standard mitigation (enhanced monitoring, selective resource adds), expect completion within 33 days of baseline. Requires sustained focus and active risk management.
✗ Worst Case
Without mitigation, continued scope creep and resource constraints could extend completion by 45-60 days beyond current forecast. Risk of cascading delays increases.
Detailed Comparison
Summary
Project is feasible but carries elevated execution risk. Success requires immediate resource augmentation, strict scope control, and enhanced monitoring. The 23.9% scope increase with 61 day compression creates a 40.5% productivity requirement increase. Without mitigation, 22% probability of 45+ day delay exists. Executive attention and active risk management are essential.
Strategic Recommendations
Immediate Action Required
Critical Priority
30-day delay + 40.5% productivity demand = high-probability failure scenario requiring executive intervention.
Required Actions (Next 48 Hours)
1
Emergency Sponsor Meeting
Present options: Add 3 FTEs, reduce scope by 12%, or accept 5-week extension
2
Stop Non-Critical Work
Focus 100% of resources on critical path activities only
3
Daily Leadership Standups
15-minute executive check-ins to remove blockers instantly
4
Freeze All Changes
Zero-tolerance scope freeze until recovery plan implemented
⚠️
Without Action: Current trajectory suggests 39-day actual delay with very low completion confidence.
High Priority Actions
Risk Mitigation
Risk score 8.9/10 indicates elevated failure probability. Multiple risk factors compounding.
Risk Response Actions (Next 2 Weeks)
1
Weekly Risk Reviews
1-hour session with full project team to surface emerging issues
2
Contingency Planning
Develop "Plan B" for top 5 risks (what if critical path delays 2 weeks?)
3
Early Warning Dashboard
Track leading indicators (productivity, quality, morale) not just lag indicators
4
Escalation Protocol
Clear triggers for when issues get escalated to sponsor
💡
Prevention ROI: 5 hours/week on risk management now prevents 50+ hours of crisis management later.
Recommended Actions
Enhanced Monitoring
Track leading indicators that predict problems before they're visible in schedule.
Key Performance Indicators
1
Weekly Production Rate
Actual tasks completed vs planned (target: ≥95% of plan)
2
Critical Path Float
Days of buffer remaining on longest path (alert if <7 days)
3
Quality Metrics
Defect rates, rework hours (early warning of cutting corners)
4
Team Velocity
Is productivity stable or declining? (burnout indicator)
5
Change Request Rate
New requests per week (should decrease over time)
📅
Dashboard Cadence: Update metrics every Friday, review with team Monday morning. 15 minutes of prevention beats hours of crisis management.
Optimization Opportunities
Process Improvement
Small process improvements can yield significant schedule compression.
Quick Wins
1
Eliminate Handoff Delays
Co-locate teams or use collaboration tools to cut approval cycles by 30%
2
Decision Speed
Empower project team to make minor decisions without escalation
3
Meeting Efficiency
Cut recurring meetings by 25%, make remainder action-focused only
4
Automation
Automate status reporting, document generation, data entry (saves 5-10 hrs/week)
5
Prefabrication
Move work off critical path into controlled environments where possible
🔄
Continuous Improvement: Hold monthly retrospectives to identify process bottlenecks. Team knows the issues - provide forum to surface improvements.
DCMA 14-Point Assessment
Comprehensive evaluation of schedule quality based on Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) 14-Point Assessment criteria. Each criterion measures a critical aspect of schedule health and reliability.
C1
Logic
287 checked
0 failed
100%
PASS
All activities (excluding the first and last milestone) shall have at least one predecessor and one successor.
Manual Override:
📋
Assessment
PASS - All activities have at least one predecessor and one successor, establishing a complete logic network.
Corrective Action Plan
C2
Leads
653 checked
7 failed
99%
FAIL
Leads (negative lags) shall not be used in schedule logic.
Manual Override:
📋
Assessment
FAILED - 7 leads detected. Leads allow successors to start before predecessors finish, which creates artificial compression and masks poor logic. All leads should be eliminated and replaced with proper finish-to-start relationships.
⚠️ Failed Activities
(7 activities)
▲
Corrective Action Plan
- 1Filter the relationship view for Lag < 0 (in P6: Activities > Relationships > group/sort by Lag).
- 2Print the list and walk the trades. Each lead means somebody is starting before the predecessor finishes — verify that's actually possible on site.
- 3If the work truly overlaps, replace the lead with a Start-to-Start + positive lag. If it doesn't, the predecessor needs to be split.
- 4Document any lead you keep with a one-line note in the activity Notebook field. DCMA reviewers will ask.
Heads up
A lead in the schedule is almost always the scheduler papering over a logic problem. If you can't write a one-sentence justification a superintendent would sign, get rid of it.
C3
Lags
653 checked
1 failed
100%
FAIL
Intelligent Override Applied
Lags shall not be excessive (generally should not exceed 5% of relationships, and no individual lag should exceed 44 working days).
Manual Override:
%
📋
Assessment
FAILED - 10.6% of relationships contain lags (threshold: 5%). Excessive lag usage indicates waiting periods aren't modeled as actual activities, reducing schedule transparency.
⚠️ Failed Activities
(1 activity)
▲
Corrective Action Plan
- 1Filter relationships for Lag > 0 working days. Bucket them by intent: cure time, procurement, owner approvals, design review, transport.
- 2Anything > 10 days becomes a discrete activity. 'Concrete Cure - 14d', 'Long-Lead Switchgear Fab', 'Owner Submittal Review' — make the wait visible.
- 3Real technical waits stay as lags but only if they're under ~5 days (mortar set, paint dry, cooldown).
- 4Add the new activities into the WBS where the work happens, not in a 'Lags' bucket — the trade superintendent needs to see them in context.
Heads up
Procurement lags hide schedule risk. The day the supplier slips, you have no activity to status — your forecast still calculates clean and the project drifts silently.
C4
Relationship Types
PASS
Finish-to-Start (FS) relationships shall be predominantly used.
Manual Override:
%
%
%
%
📋
Assessment
PASS - 94% Finish-to-Start (threshold: 90%). Also includes 4.6% SS, 1.4% FF, 0.0% SF. Straightforward logic.
Corrective Action Plan
C5
Hard Constraints
287 checked
0 failed
100%
PASS
Hard constraints (Must Start/Finish On) shall be eliminated. DCMA targets zero hard constraints; industry practice allows <5% with documented justification for contractual milestones only.
Manual Override:
📋
Assessment
PASS - Minimal hard constraints. Schedule maintains flexibility and can calculate properly.
Corrective Action Plan
C6
High Float
287 checked
149 failed
48%
FAIL
High float (typically >44 working days) shall be minimized.
Manual Override:
📋
Assessment
FAILED - 149 activities with high float (>44 days). High-float activities indicate missing logic connections or activities not properly integrated into the project network.
⚠️ Failed Activities
(149 activities)
▲
Corrective Action Plan
- 1Sort the activity list by Total Float descending. Anything over 44 working days needs scrutiny.
- 2First check: does the activity have a successor at all? Open-ended activities float to infinity. Add the missing successor.
- 3Second check: is it on the wrong calendar? A 5-day activity on a 7-day calendar will read very differently from one on a Mon-Fri calendar.
- 4Third check: is the scope actually optional? If yes, mark it LOE or move it to a separate WBS so it stops contaminating the critical-path calc.
Heads up
High-float work is where most contractors hide bad logic. The reviewer's eye goes to the critical path; everything else gets a free pass. That's where the schedule rot starts.
C7
Negative Float
287 checked
0 failed
100%
PASS
Negative total float indicates activities calculated as finishing later than the schedule's driving completion date/constraint. This check flags any eligible activities with negative total float. Note: if the contractual finish is not modeled to drive float, negative float may be zero even when the forecast finish is later than the baseline/contract finish.
Manual Override:
📋
Assessment
PASS - Zero negative float. Schedule is not over-constrained and can calculate properly.
Corrective Action Plan
C8
High Duration
287 checked
38 failed
87%
FAIL
Activity durations shall be reasonable (≤44 working days).
Manual Override:
📋
Assessment
FAILED - 38 activities exceed 44 working days. Long-duration activities reduce schedule control and make progress measurement difficult. Break into smaller tasks.
⚠️ Failed Activities
(38 activities)
▲
Corrective Action Plan
- 1Sort by Original Duration descending. Anything over 44 working days gets a hard look.
- 2LOE activities (project management, supervision, dewatering) can stay long with a Notebook entry explaining why.
- 3Real work activities get split. Find a natural breakpoint — a deck pour, a floor finish, a system test — and split there.
- 4Add interim milestones at the breakpoints so progress reporting actually means something. A 90-day activity at 45% complete tells you nothing; two 45-day activities, one done and one 0%, tells you everything.
Heads up
A long activity with high % complete is a black box. You can't tell if the back half is on track until it's too late. The DCMA-14 industry-standard guideline recommends activity duration ≤44 days for tracking granularity; your contract may permit longer durations on intentionally aggregated work.
C9
Valid Dates
395 checked
103 failed
74%
FAIL
All activity dates shall be valid and logically sequenced.
Manual Override:
📋
Assessment
FAILED - 103 activities have dates inconsistent with the Status (Data) Date (forecast dates in the past and/or actual dates after the status date). Update progress and reschedule to remove dates that fall outside the status window.
⚠️ Failed Activities
(103 activities)
▲
Corrective Action Plan
- 1Run Tools > Schedule with the Date Check option on. Look for Actual Start or Actual Finish AFTER the data date — that's a data-entry error 100% of the time.
- 2In-progress activities with remaining duration = 0 but % complete < 100: either status it complete or restore the remaining duration.
- 3Verify the data date is right (Project > Properties). Then F9 with 'Recalculate retained logic'.
- 4Check the trades who entered actuals — usually one person mass-entered the wrong week.
Heads up
Bad actuals corrupt every forecast downstream. CPLI, BEI, finish variance — none of them mean anything until the dates are clean.
C10
Resources
282 checked
0 failed
100%
N/A
Resources shall be assigned to activities to enable workload analysis and schedule realism validation.
Manual Override:
%
📋
Assessment
NOT SCORED (N/A) — TASKRSRC section not found in XER export. (282 eligible activities ≥1d)
Corrective Action Plan
C11
Missed Tasks
38 checked
19 failed
50%
FAIL
Tasks that should have started or completed shall be managed.
Manual Override:
📋
Assessment
FAILED - 19 missed tasks (activities that should have started/completed by data date but remain unupdated). Schedule not being properly maintained.
⚠️ Failed Activities
(19 activities)
▲
Corrective Action Plan
- 1Filter for Activity Status = Not Started where Early Start < Data Date — these should have started but didn't.
- 2Filter for Activity Status = In Progress where Early Finish < Data Date — these should be done but aren't.
- 3Status each one: actual start/finish if the work is done, updated remaining duration if it's still going, delay reason in the Notebook if it slipped.
- 4Talk to the project manager about each missed item. If the cause is owner-driven (RFI, change, access), flag it for a potential claim before the trail goes cold.
Heads up
A missed task isn't a schedule problem — it's an execution signal. The schedule's job is to make it visible. If you 'fix' it by sliding the dates without statusing what actually happened, you've buried the evidence.
C12
Critical Path Test
PASS
Network integrity and critical path coherence: no logic cycles; finish must be reachable from start; and critical (TF≤0) activities should form a coherent chain. SCREENING TOOL ONLY: This dashboard performs network-integrity checks (no cycles + connected critical chain ≥90%). It does NOT replicate the formal DCMA C12 perturbation test, which requires perturbing each critical activity by +1 day and verifying project finish moves by exactly +1 day (a CPM recalculation not implemented in this self-contained dashboard). Use this as a health-screening signal; do NOT cite it as a formal DCMA C12 PASS in contract claims or forensic submissions — run the cpp-forensic-mcp `critical_path_validator` or an external CPM tool for the formal test.
Manual Override:
📋
Assessment
PASS - Continuous critical path of 35 working days from start to finish. CPM calculation is functioning correctly.
Corrective Action Plan
C13
CPLI
FAIL
CPLI (Critical Path Length Index) indicates feasibility against the baseline/contract finish. In this dashboard: CPLI = (Baseline/Contract Finish − Data Date) ÷ (Forecast Finish − Data Date). Pass threshold: CPLI ≥ 1.0. Requires a baseline schedule.
Manual Override:
📋
Assessment
FAILED - CPLI: 0.933 (threshold: ≥1.0). Critical path has compressed significantly vs. baseline, indicating potential unrealistic acceleration or missing logic.
Corrective Action Plan
- 1Recalculate: CPLI = (Critical Path Length + Total Float) ÷ Critical Path Length. Below 1.00 means the path can't recover its own slip.
- 2Identify the constraint or milestone driving criticality. If it's a contract milestone, you have an EOT conversation coming.
- 3Compression options before you ask for an extension: re-sequence near-critical work to feed criticality, fast-track overlap, then crash with crews/overtime as the last resort.
- 4If you're crashing, model it on a copy of the schedule first — added crews often create resource conflicts that make the path worse, not better.
Heads up
CPLI = 1.00 doesn't mean you're fine — it means you have zero room. One bad weather week, one late submittal, and you're sub-1.00. Treat 1.05 as your real floor.
C14
BEI
FAIL
BEI (Baseline Execution Index) = (baseline tasks actually complete by data date) / (baseline tasks scheduled to be complete by data date). Uses Start/Finish dates from current schedule. Pass threshold: BEI ≥ 0.95 (i.e. at least 95% of baseline-due tasks have actually completed). Requires baseline.
Manual Override:
📋
Assessment
FAILED - BEI: 0.615 (threshold: ≥0.95). 24 of 39 baseline tasks complete. Progress lagging 39% behind schedule.
Corrective Action Plan
- 1Recalculate: BEI = (Activities Actually Finished by Data Date) ÷ (Activities Baselined to Finish by Data Date). Below 0.95 = trending late.
- 2List every baselined activity that should be done but isn't. Sort by Total Float — anything near-critical is the priority.
- 3For each one, decide: status it complete (with the real actual finish), update remaining duration, or escalate the cause to the PM. No fourth option.
- 4Track BEI weekly. The trend matters more than the snapshot — a flat 0.92 is recoverable; a slope from 0.98 to 0.85 over four updates is the real problem.
Heads up
BEI is the easiest DCMA metric to game by re-baselining. Don't. If you re-baseline to fix BEI, you've also reset every variance metric — and an experienced reviewer will catch the gap between the original baseline date and the new one.
Executive Schedule Intelligence
Schedule Grade
F
Critical · 5/13 Pass
This schedule is critically deficient with only 5 of 13 criteria passing. The schedule cannot be relied upon for project planning or performance measurement. Fundamental reconstruction is required including logic development, constraint removal, and duration rationalization. Recommend engaging scheduling expertise to rebuild the integrated master schedule.
Summary
405 activities, 655 relationships. 5 of 13 DCMA criteria passing (38%) — grade F (Critical). Failing: C2 Leads, C3 Lags, C6 High Float, C8 High Duration, C9 Invalid Dates, C11 Missed Tasks, C13 CPLI, C14 BEI. Top problem volumes: 149 high-float activities; 103 activities with invalid dates; 38 high-duration activities. Forecast finish is 30 calendar days late vs baseline (2026-08-31 → 2026-09-30). Schedule is not suitable for project management without reconstruction. Engage an experienced IMS specialist to rebuild logic, remove non-contractual constraints, and re-baseline. Current state is unacceptable risk for cost/schedule commitments.
Overall Quality Rating
Recommended Corrective Actions
Auto-generated corrective action plan based on 8 failing DCMA criteria (5 passing). Failing criteria: C2 Leads, C3 Lags, C6 High Float, C8 High Duration, C9 Invalid Dates, C11 Missed Tasks, C13 CPLI, C14 BEI.
Priority actions:
• Leads: Remove negative lag (lead) values; restructure logic with explicit overlap activities or change relationship types.
• Lags: Justify each lag in writing; replace lags with discrete activities where feasible (DCMA preference).
• High Float: Investigate activities with > 44 working days of total float — likely missing or incorrect logic.
• High Duration: Break activities longer than 44 working days into smaller, monitorable pieces.
• Invalid Dates: Update statused activities so actual dates ≤ data date and remaining work > data date.
• Missed Tasks: Re-status any task whose finish date has passed but is not marked complete.
• CPLI: Improve CPLI toward 1.00 by recovering critical-path slip; document recovery approach.
• BEI: Improve BEI toward 1.00; investigate activities completed late and recover lost productivity.
Re-run the health review after corrective actions are implemented to confirm improvement.
Next Scheduled Review
Report Information
Generated: May 3, 2026 10:24 AM
•
Source: Current Schedule (Data Date: 2025-07-01 17:00 | Day: 2025-07-01 | Cal: Mon-Tue-Wed-Thu-Fri [clndr_data])
•
Schedule Run: 2025-10-17 10:50 | Day: 2025-10-17 | Δ108d
•
Baseline: Baseline Schedule (Data Date: 2025-04-01 17:00 | Day: 2025-04-01)
•
Baseline Run: 2025-10-16 14:47 | Day: 2025-10-16 | Δ198d