On our campus expansion, stormwater permitting is 90 days and utility relocations are running 12 weeks, so I need civil to hit 30/60/90 to keep foundations starting week 22. How are you structuring scope, RFI turnaround targets, and weekly coordination to hold the critical path in P6 without redesign churn before GMP lock?
Split civil into two packages and put stormwater/utility in a “permit‑critical” WBS with zero float in P6; issue an IFP at 30% to start the 90‑day clock, and batch non‑permit changes weekly to avoid pre‑GMP churn. For the 12‑week relocations, lock the design no later than week 10 to protect a week 22 foundation start, and treat that package like a mini‑GMP — any moves after require a formal addendum against allowances. @laygarc’s SLA is close, but I triage permit‑blocking RFIs for same‑day answers and push everything else to a 2‑day batch; does your AHJ allow early stormwater filing?
Quick example: building on @jackson63, we set a pre‑agreed “field‑adjust matrix” with the utility owner and GC — offsets up to 2 ft, invert tweaks ±0.2 ft, and in‑kind structure swaps are pre‑authorized via sketch — so RFIs don’t bottleneck and P6 stays green without redesign churn; could you get the utility to bless ranges like that up front?
Before you lock the 60 package, front‑load Level A SUE and potholing in weeks 1–2 and make it a P6 predecessor — without it, that 12‑week relocation window will blow up when inverts shift. Then run a simple “variance log” against the permit submittal: changes within ±0.1 ft slope or ±3 ft alignment are auto‑accept; outside that triggers a quick CCR with owner/GC to prevent churn before GMP. Do you have budget to push SUE that early?
I’d set a 60% “no-touch” tag on FG/utility layers and drop zero-duration “RFI decision” nodes into P6; permit-layer RFIs get a 48‑hour SLA, everything else 5 days, plus a 15‑minute Tuesday triage with the scheduler — treat those layers like wet concrete. Caveat: if late geotech/survey shows up, push it through an assumptions log tied to the GMP exhibits so it’s an add, not redesign; who’s your single change gatekeeper, @jackson63 or the CM?
Quick example: we’ve carved out an early-works package — IFC spine utilities, temp bypass, and E&S/grading — submitted as a separate permit set so those pieces can freeze at 60 while laterals and finishes ride to 90 without touching the “GMP lock” scope. In P6, we drive the foundations start only off those early milestones and put a hard constraint on the laterals package so it can’t ripple the critical path. Can your AHJ accept an early E&S/early site permit, or do they hold all earthwork until the full stormwater approval?
On the 90‑day stormwater, carve a permit‑ready calc + basin sizing memo at 30% and submit by day 10 to start the clock, then make that submittal a P6 predecessor to 60% civil so you’re not redesigning late. Also have @scheduler set a finish‑no‑later on ‘week 22 foundations’ and push a weekly negative‑float snapshot to the team; caveat is any post‑60 tweaks touching that memo need to go through a change ticket — will your AHJ take a calc/memo pre‑submittal?
We’ve had good luck carving a “foundation influence zone” mini‑set that locks civils within 20 ft of footings at 60%, plus a permit‑agnostic temp outfall, so the week‑22 foundations aren’t hostage to the 90‑day stormwater clock. In P6 we gate that with a single FIZ‑freeze milestone and only allow tweaks via a pre‑agreed A/B decision matrix to avoid “before GMP lock” churn. Would that work with your 12‑week utility relocations, or do you need the zone wider?