Project: GOLDEN EAGLE WATER INFRASTRUCTURE

Overall Schedule Health Score

A single, overall assessment of schedule structure, logic, dates, float, constraints, resources and calendars.

Executive Summary

Translates the detailed checks into a concise management view of schedule reliability, exposure and immediate priorities.

GOLDEN EAGLE WATER INFRASTRUCTURE is rated Good with a calculated health score of 90, based only on information available in the uploaded schedule. The separate DCMA-aligned review applied 10 single-schedule checks. The schedule is generally well structured, but targeted corrections remain before full reliance on the forecast. The highest priorities are: Repair critical-path logic gaps; Close current forecast logic gaps; Review excessive float.

Schedule Improvement Plan

Shows where the score was lost, why it matters and the practical corrections that can improve the next schedule submission.

Weighted score across the health areas that can be assessed from one uploaded schedule. Missing information is marked Data not available and is excluded; it never creates a failure or score penalty.

Project Overview

Confirms the schedule identity, reporting cut-off date and the volume of planning data assessed.

Top Issues and Benchmarks

Prioritises the findings that matter most. Each item shows the affected population, the benchmark used and the next practical action.

Look-Ahead Delivery Analytics

Shows work due to start or finish soon, highlighting overdue activities and potential delivery blockers.

The 12-week outlook contains 56 activities, including 23 critical activities and 0 with potential delivery blockers. 0 incomplete activities have a forecast start or finish before the data date.

S-Curves & Progress Analytics

Compares earned, actual and forecast labour or cost using data genuinely available in the uploaded schedule.

As at 2026-09-01, 7,639.6 actual labour hours and 7,345.7 earned labour hours are reported. Forecast labour hours are 38,433.8, a variance of 0.8% against the current budgeted total.

Weekly Manning

Estimates the average workforce required each week from budgeted labour hours and each activity's assigned calendar.

Weekly labour demand is calculated from exported labour-resource target hours using each activity's assigned calendar and calendar exceptions.

Schedule Distribution Analytics

Shows how activity status, float and remaining duration are distributed so unusual concentrations are easy to identify.

79 incomplete activities (40.3% of assessed float values) have 10 working days or less total float. 6 executable activities (3.1% of assessed durations) have more than 44 working days remaining.

Resource Loading Coverage

Checks whether incomplete delivery activities have resources or roles assigned. It measures coverage, not workforce capacity.

191 of 191 eligible incomplete activities (100.0%) have a resource or role assignment. 0 activities have no assignment.

Open Resource Analytics to review weekly demand by labour resource using activity-calendar working hours.

DCMA-Aligned Schedule Quality Checks

Applies the schedule-quality checks that can be assessed from one file. Baseline comparison and native scheduling tests belong in the comparison workflow.

10 single-schedule checks were applicable: 9 passed, 0 need review and 1 failed. The remaining 4 checks require an approved baseline comparison, source data that was not exported, or a native scheduling-engine test.

Equal weighting of testable DCMA checks: Pass = 1 point, Review = 0.5 points and Fail = 0 points. Not Tested checks are excluded from the calculated score.

The DCMA-Aligned Check Score uses a separate pass/fail assessment method and may differ from the Overall Schedule Health Score.

Schedule Dates & Duration Analysis

Checks reporting dates and activity durations for conditions that can hide slippage or weaken progress measurement.

6 activities need date or duration review: 6 exceed 44 working days, 0 have inconsistent values, and 0 contain actual dates after the data date.

6 activities (2.1%) have an original duration of at least 43.4 days, equal to 10% of the 434.0-day activity date span.

Longest Path & Driving Path Analysis

Identifies the chain of work most likely to control the forecast finish and the issues that could make that path unreliable.

26 activities are identified using Primavera driving activity flag, with 210.6 total remaining working days across the listed activities. 2 activities contain logic, constraint, float, resource or date findings.

Method: Primavera driving activity flag

Primavera identified the driving activities but did not export Float Path 1 order. They are displayed chronologically and should not be read as a calculated network sequence.

Critical Path Analysis

Highlights activities with little or no scheduling flexibility and the milestones most exposed to delay.

63 incomplete activities (32.1%) are critical and 16 are near-critical with up to 10 working days of float. 1 critical activities have missing logic and 0 are constrained.

Method: Total Float <= 0 hours

Logic & Relationship Analysis

Reviews how activities are connected, including complex links, leads and lags that can make the forecast difficult to trust.

331 relationships equal 1.14 relationships per activity and 2.28 predecessor/successor connections per activity. 0 (0.0%) are not Finish-to-Start and 1 (0.3%) contain leads or lags. 5 discrete activities have three or more predecessors.

Logic Gap Analysis

Finds activities that are not properly connected to the schedule network and may move without affecting the project finish.

5 discrete activities (1.7%) have missing predecessor or successor logic across the whole schedule, including completed work. Level of Effort and WBS Summary activities are excluded.

4 incomplete discrete activities (2.0%) have missing logic. Level of Effort and WBS Summary activities are excluded from this current-forecast measure.

Constraints Analysis

Shows date controls applied to activities and distinguishes hard constraints from softer planning restrictions.

No date constraints were found on incomplete activities.

Float Analysis

Shows where the programme has no contingency, limited flexibility or unusually high float that may signal weak logic.

148 of 196 assessed activities (75.5%) have negative, zero or high float and warrant management review.

Calendar Analysis

Checks the working weeks, shifts and exceptions that directly affect activity dates and resource demand.

2 calendars were found; 1 use extended or unusual working patterns. 175 incomplete activities use those calendars.

Management Action Plan

Provides the detailed, prioritised corrections behind the Executive Summary and Improvement Plan.

Recommended Management Actions

Lists the highest-value corrections in priority order so the planning team can improve the next submission.

Positive Controls

Recognises schedule controls that are working well and should be preserved during corrective action.

• No negative total float was found on incomplete activities.
• No relationship leads were found.
• No high-confidence date inconsistencies were identified.
• Resource-loading coverage is 100.0% of eligible activities.

Assessment limitation: 4 additional DCMA checks require an approved baseline comparison or a native scheduling-engine sensitivity test. Missing data is not treated as a failure.