The Vanishing Buffer on a Fast-Tracked Tenant Fit-Out
Your firm contracted for a 14-week tenant fit-out: schematic through construction documents, plus construction administration. The fee is a lump sum based on 320 architectural labor hours. At the end of week 6, the project architect reports 210 hours consumed and the design development set only 70% complete. The client added a second-floor mezzanine scope in week 4 without a written change order; the principal told the team to 'keep it moving and we'll true up later.' The structural consultant's invoice is running 20% over its original proposal because of the mezzanine. Two staff members were pulled onto a larger pursuit for 3 days each. The client has a hard lease-commencement date and has begun asking for a revised schedule showing no slippage.
1. Diagnose what is happening to the work plan and identify the two or three most consequential facts the project manager must act on now.
Read the worked answer
The plan has lost integrity in three linked ways.
- Scope grew without a baseline update. The mezzanine added work, but hours, schedule, and fee were never re-baselined. The 320-hour budget now describes a smaller project than the one being designed, so every earned-value comparison is against a false baseline. At 70% DD with 210 of 320 hours spent, the team has consumed roughly 66% of budget for maybe 40-45% of the original scope once the added mezzanine is separated out.
- Resource was silently reassigned. Six staff-days left the project with no schedule adjustment. That is a real capacity loss the plan must absorb or replace.
- Consultant cost is drifting because the mezzanine changed structural demand, and the overage is currently unfunded.
The PM's immediate actions: quantify the mezzanine scope in hours and consultant dollars, issue a formal change order request before more work accrues, re-baseline the schedule with the actual remaining capacity, and tell the principal in writing that 'true up later' is creating unbilled exposure. The lease date is a constraint to test against the re-baselined plan, not a promise to reaffirm.
2. The client insists the lease date cannot move. Lay out how you would re-plan the remaining work and what you would tell the client, distinguishing what is negotiable from what is not.
Read the worked answer
Start by converting the constraint into a decision. Re-baseline remaining work honestly: remaining original scope plus mezzanine, at the team's demonstrated productivity. If that exceeds the weeks available, present the client with explicit trade-offs rather than absorbing the gap silently.
Negotiable levers:
- Scope phasing: defer non-critical mezzanine finishes or a portion of FF&E coordination to a post-occupancy package.
- Sequence compression: overlap CD and permitting with a defined long-lead package, accepting rework risk priced into the change order.
- Added resources: bring in a second production architect, funded by the change order, to shorten the CD tail.
- Consultant acceleration: pay structural to compress its review cycle.
Not negotiable:
- Unpaid scope. The mezzanine and the consultant overage must be authorized in writing before work continues.
- Quality gates. You will not skip code review or coordination checks to hit a date; state that plainly.
Tell the client: here is the re-baselined plan, here is the date it supports, and here are the priced options that recover the lease date. Ask for a decision by a specific date, because indecision itself consumes the float.