Tower C — Commercial Tower & Podium

Programme R12 — monthly submission review

Submitted by

Calderwood Construction Ltd

Reviewed for

Meridian Estates (owner)

Data date

28 February 2026

Contract

JCT D&B 2016

Activities

3,842

Assessment

18-check DCMA + 4

Acceptance decision

WITH COMMENTS

Accept with comments

The programme meets the minimum acceptance score and can be received into the record, but it carries conditions the contractor must resolve in the next revision. It is not rejected, and it is not accepted clean. The specific conditions are listed below.

73 · B+

Quality score

Checks passed

Warnings

Failed

Acceptance rule applied: Schedule Quality Score ≥ 65 · failed checks ≤ 3 · warnings ≤ 6.
Measured: SQS 73 ✓ ≥ 65 · failed 3 ✓ ≤ 3 · warnings 5 ✓ ≤ 6 — thresholds met, but three failed checks trigger conditions. Thresholds are configurable per organisation on the Criteria tab.

Check-by-check gate result

#	Check	Measured	Requirement	Result
1	Missing logic (open ends)	5.0%	<5%	WARN
2	Logic density	2.5	2.0–3.5	PASS
3	Finish-to-start relationships	86%	>80%	PASS
4	Lags	3.1%	<5%	PASS
5	Leads (negative lags)	6	Zero	FAIL
6	Out of sequence	11	Zero	WARN
7	Negative float	17	Zero	FAIL
8	Near-critical (float ≤10d)	8.2%	<10%	PASS
9	High float (>44d)	9.4%	<10%	PASS
10	Critical path test	12%	<15%	PASS
11	CPLI	0.94	≥1.0	WARN
12	High duration (>44d)	4.2%	<5%	PASS
13	Insufficient detail	3.8%	<5%	PASS
14	Hard constraints	3.1%	<2%	FAIL
15	Soft constraints	4.4%	<5%	PASS
16	Milestone coverage	2.6%	>2%	PASS
17	BEI (baseline execution index)	0.91	≥1.0	WARN
18	SPI (schedule performance index)	0.93	≥1.0	WARN

Conditions of acceptance

Three items must be corrected in the R13 resubmission

Remove the 6 negative lags (Check 5 — FAIL). Negative lags (leads) compress the network artificially and hide true float. Replace each with a positive finish-to-start relationship or an explicit overlap justified in the basis memo.
Clear the 17 negative-float activities (Check 7 — FAIL). Negative float means the programme is showing work that cannot be completed within the current logic. Re-sequence or agree an extension so no activity carries negative float at acceptance.
Reduce hard constraints to below 2% (Check 14 — FAIL, currently 3.1%). Hard date constraints override the network and mask the true critical path. Replace date-anchored activities with driving logic wherever the sequence is genuine.

The five warnings (open ends at the 5% boundary, out-of-sequence progress, CPLI, BEI and SPI all below 1.0) are noted but do not by themselves prevent acceptance under the configured rule. They are early indicators of schedule pressure and should be watched in the trend review rather than treated as resubmission blockers.

Methodology

Acceptance gate. The scorecard applies the organisation's configured acceptance rule to the 18-point schedule-quality assessment (the DCMA 14-point checks plus four supplementary indices). The verdict is one of ACCEPT, ACCEPT WITH COMMENTS, or REJECT, determined by the score threshold and the permitted number of failed and warning checks.

Configurable thresholds. The minimum score, maximum failed checks and maximum warnings shown here are defaults; each organisation sets its own on the Criteria tab so the gate reflects its acceptance standard rather than a generic one.

Decision support, not certification. This scorecard is an aid to the acceptance decision. The reviewing party remains responsible for accepting, conditionally accepting, or rejecting the submission; it is not a contractual determination.

This is a condensed sample. The Submission Scorecard is generated automatically with every Schedule Quality report and gates the submission against your own configurable acceptance thresholds.