I conducted a limited "covert reconnaissance" operation, meeting with a couple of QSs and a Symmal Project Manager from BTA to gather informal feedback on the challenges they encounter in their day-to-day tasks, especially concerning forecasting.
Here's a summary of the key issues they raised:
Month-End Timeline:
A recurring theme was the tight month-end timeline. BTA's monthly cycle begins on the 25th with the receipt of Payment Claims from subcontractors. Unlike the standard LOR timeline, which requires accruals by the 2nd of the following month, BTA requires them by the 28th of the same month. This leaves insufficient time for QSs and engineers to review and assess the claims, as many dockets received in the preceding days remain uncoded and are allocated to a "balancing account." This makes forecasting difficult and inaccurate, with costs scattered across various accounts.
The situation is compounded by the receipt of official CTD figures on the 4th of the month, followed by forecast reviews on the 7th. This limited timeframe prevents them from correcting misallocated costs, accurately assessing performance, and extrapolating data for the forecast.
Docket Management:
While they are satisfied with Virtual Superintendent (VS) for docket management, there's a significant lag between subcontractors starting on-site and being onboarded into the system. Even entered dockets are often miscoded due to the sheer number of cost codes, which supervisors haven't fully mastered. They estimate only 25% of dockets go through VS, forcing engineers to maintain their own spreadsheet trackers for accrual assessment. Symmal is particularly frustrated with this lack of visibility into costs and productivity.
Forecasting Process and Tools:
The current forecast spreadsheet (apparently inherited from John Holland) isn't integrated with PRISM or COINS, resulting in significant manual data entry. Engineers are expected to maintain traceability to Estimate line items, which often have different granularity than the delivery team's tracking requirements. The large number of cost codes further complicates the process, leading to misalignments between budget, actuals, and forecasts. The short turnaround time of 3-4 days for completing the forecast makes this period hectic and prone to errors. One engineer mentioned having at least $900,000 in costed but un-forecasted expenses simply because he couldn't determine their proper allocation.
COINS Structure:
Dividing the project into four separate COINS contracts creates duplication of effort and ambiguity regarding responsibilities for managing subcontract scopes. Cross-journaling costs and commitments between the four projects leads to frustration, as disconnected teams rely on each other to initiate journals, which isn't a seamless process. Change management is also complex, as budget owners have commitments against their codes from other projects due to urgent activities on the critical path, leaving insufficient time to award project-specific contracts.
Unassigned Budget Visibility:
The concept of assigned/unassigned budgets creates a disconnect between package managers and their "unassigned" scope, which cost planners forecast separately without considering factors beyond changed quantities. The teams believe this produces unrealistic forecasts, and they cannot reflect reality until the budget is "assigned" to them, forcing them to rebuild it from scratch.


Suggest a comprehensive plan with practical actions to address these issues