A complete Schedule Quality report on a real-format Primavera P6 programme — the DCMA 14-point assessment plus four further checks, scored 0–100, with the failing checks explained, the activities behind them named, and a plain-language narrative you can put in front of a client.
The eight pages below are the actual deliverable, not a preview of one. Print it and you get eight A4 sheets. Your schedule never leaves your browser — the file is parsed on your device and nothing is retained.
Section 1 is the score and what it means. Section 2 explains the three checks that failed and the four that warned — these are the only checks that require action. Section 3 names the activities behind them and section 4 is the narrative for circulation.
Appendix A is the full 18-check register with every value, target and result, and Appendix B the provenance. A passing check needs no explanation in the body, so it lives in the register.
The programme scores 73 out of 100, four points below the previous revision and under the 75 threshold we treat as healthy. Eleven of the eighteen checks pass, four warn and three fail.
Weighted across 18 checks. Healthy threshold 75; R10 baseline scored 77.
Passed, warned and failed. The three failures carry most of the deduction.
Schedule quality is a measure of how trustworthy the programme is — whether the dates it produces can be relied on. It says nothing about whether the project is going well; a badly performing project can have an excellent programme, and a well performing one can have a programme nobody should believe. At 73 this network is broadly sound: the logic is mostly complete and the critical path is credible.
The decline is concentrated in the structural steel scope. Negative float rose from 4 activities to 17, and hard constraints from 1.4% to 2.6%. Both are symptoms of the same thing: dates being held in place by constraint rather than by logic once the sequence came under pressure.
Eleven checks pass and need no comment; they are recorded in Appendix A. The seven below are the whole of the actionable content.
| # | Check | Value | Target | What it means here |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7 | Negative float | 17 | Zero | Seventeen activities cannot be completed by their required dates as logic stands |
| 14 | Hard constraints | 3.1% | <2% | Dates pinned by constraint rather than logic; masks true float |
| 5 | Leads (negative lags) | 6 | Zero | Six links pull a successor earlier than its predecessor finishes |
| # | Check | Value | Target | What it means here |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Missing logic (open ends) | 5.0% | <5% | Exactly on the boundary — concentrated in the MEP rough-in chain |
| 6 | Out of sequence | 11 | Zero | Progress recorded against logic that says it could not have happened yet |
| 11 | CPLI | 0.94 | ≥1.0 | The critical path is 6% longer than the time available |
| 17 | BEI | 0.91 | ≥1.0 | Activities are completing at 91% of the baseline rate |
Negative float, hard constraints and negative lags all appear in the same scope and in the same revision. When a sequence comes under pressure and the dates are held rather than re-planned, this is the signature it leaves. Fixing the constraints will reveal more negative float before it reduces it, and that is the correct direction of travel.
The activities driving the score, ordered by slip against the R10 baseline. Each is named so the finding can be acted on rather than merely noted.
| Activity | Name | Issue | Baseline | Current | Slip |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A1422 | Erect columns Grid G, L4–6 | Negative float | 10 Jul 27 | 28 Jul 27 | +18d |
| A1733 | Pre-pour inspection, Level 3 | Hard constraint | 02 Aug 27 | 14 Aug 27 | +12d |
| A1801 | MEP rough-in, Zone A | Open end | 19 Aug 27 | 26 Aug 27 | +7d |
| A2104 | Curtain wall install, North | Negative lag | 03 Sep 27 | 09 Sep 27 | +6d |
| A2240 | Lift core handover | Out of sequence | 21 Sep 27 | 25 Sep 27 | +4d |
Every threshold above is configurable per organisation. Where your standard differs from the DCMA default, the score recalculates against yours.
Written for circulation. Every figure in it is traced to an activity in section 3 or a check in Appendix A.
The programme scores 73/100, four points below the previous revision and under the 75 healthy threshold. The decline is concentrated in the structural steel scope, where 17 activities now carry negative float — most critically A1422, Erect columns Grid G, which has slipped 18 days against the R10 baseline and is driving the longest path.
Three activities have been re-anchored with hard constraints, above the 2% target. Constraints of this kind mask true float and should be replaced with logic wherever the sequencing they represent is genuine. Open-ended logic sits at exactly 5.0%, on the warning boundary; closing the successor links on the MEP rough-in chain (A1801 and its siblings) would recover both the open-ends and the out-of-sequence checks.
Net effect on the forecast finish is an 18-day slip to 19 November 2027, recoverable with constraint cleanup and resequencing of the Grid G erection. Every figure in this narrative is traced to the activities listed in section 3.
Produced from fictional project data for illustration. No real schedule, client or contractor data is used or implied.
Every check with its measured value, the target applied and the result. Checks 1–14 are the DCMA 14-point assessment; 15–18 are the additional checks.
| # | Check | Value | Target | 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 percentage | 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 |
| Weighted Schedule Quality Score | 73 / 100 | |||
Which checks moved between the R10 baseline and this revision, and by how much. Only checks whose result changed or whose value moved materially are listed.
| # | Check | R10 | R12 | Result change | Points |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7 | Negative float | 4 | 17 | WARN → FAIL | −3 |
| 14 | Hard constraints | 1.4% | 3.1% | PASS → FAIL | −2 |
| 11 | CPLI | 0.99 | 0.94 | WARN → WARN | −1 |
| 1 | Missing logic (open ends) | 7.1% | 5.0% | FAIL → WARN | +1 |
| 17 | BEI | 0.95 | 0.91 | WARN → WARN | −1 |
| Net movement, R10 → R12 | −4 | ||||
Check 1 is the only improvement, and it is a disclosure rather than a gain: closing open-ended logic revealed delay that was previously invisible. A programme whose only improving check is an honesty correction is worth reading carefully.
This is the entry assessment: how the network is built. The Programme Assurance Review adds three further layers — contract compliance, execution readiness and completeness — and returns an accept / accept-with-comments / reject decision. The Executive Brief distils this report for a board and is included with it.
Load your own Primavera P6 or Microsoft Project schedule and explore every metric free — the viewer, the scoring, the drill-downs. You only pay when you want the report. No card required to look.
The Programme Assurance Review takes the same file further: contract compliance against NEC4, JCT or FIDIC; whether the phases actually hand off to each other in the logic; and whether the programme models the whole job through to handover. It returns an accept / accept-with-comments / reject decision across 21 pages.