Schedule Compression When a Permit Slips on a Multi-Site Build
An OSP project spans 14 sites over 22 weeks with a critical path through three pole-line permits, two road crossings, and a fiber pull that must follow splice testing. The road-crossing permit for site 7 has slipped 6 weeks due to a jurisdiction backlog. Site 7 is a pass-through node: sites 8 through 11 cannot be spliced until site 7 is complete. The client has a contractual completion date that is now 4 weeks away from being missed. The contractor proposes to crash the schedule by doubling crews on the fiber pull and splicing, adding 18% to labor cost, and by deferring all as-built documentation to the end. Two of the three pole-line permits are approved; the third is pending and covers sites 12 through 14, which are not on the current critical path.
1. Analyze the critical path and determine whether the contractor's crash proposal will recover the 4 weeks.
Read the worked answer
The proposal targets the wrong activities. The 6-week slip is on the road-crossing permit at site 7, and the true constraint is that sites 8 through 11 cannot be spliced until site 7 is complete. Doubling crews on the fiber pull and splicing only helps after site 7 is available; crashing a successor activity that is waiting on a predecessor does not shorten the path and adds 18% labor cost for no schedule benefit. The correct move is to attack the permit itself: escalate to the jurisdiction, confirm whether the crossing can be installed by an alternate method such as directional boring under the road with a separate approval path, or negotiate a temporary lane closure with an approved traffic-control plan that satisfies the road authority. If none of these works, the schedule cannot be recovered on that path and the client must be told early.
The pending permit for sites 12 through 14 is not on the current critical path, but it becomes critical once sites 8 through 11 are released. That permit should be pursued in parallel now, because a second slip would compound the delay. Deferring as-built documentation is not a legitimate schedule recovery; it creates a contractual closeout risk and often costs more to reconstruct later. A defensible plan identifies the real constraint, quantifies the float on each path, and presents the client with options: accept a 4-week extension, authorize the alternate crossing method, or resequence work to complete sites 1 through 6 and 12 through 14 first if their permits allow.
2. The client rejects any schedule extension. Propose a recovery plan with concrete milestones and explain how you would manage the risk.
Read the worked answer
Recovery must come from the constrained path. First, immediately pursue a directional-bore crossing at site 7 under a separate permit category, which often has a shorter review than an open-cut road crossing; set a milestone of permit submittal within 3 business days and approval within 15. In parallel, request an emergency review meeting with the jurisdiction and provide a complete traffic-control plan to remove any completeness objections. Second, resequence non-critical work: complete splicing and testing at sites 1 through 6 and, if the third pole-line permit is approved, at sites 12 through 14, so crews are productive while site 7 is blocked. Third, pre-stage materials, splice trailers, and test equipment at site 7 so work starts the day the crossing is released.
Crashing labor is justified only on activities that are actually on the critical path after site 7 is released; doubling splice crews there may recover 1 to 2 weeks if the work fronts allow parallel splicing. Set milestones: permit resolution by week 2, crossing installed by week 4, sites 8 through 11 spliced and tested by week 7, final acceptance by the contractual date. Manage risk with a weekly schedule review, a written log of every jurisdiction contact, a documented change order for any client-directed acceleration, and a contingency plan that identifies the exact date by which the client must decide between extension and alternate methods. Do not defer as-builts; instead assign a dedicated documenter so closeout does not become the next slip.