The Monthly Construction Schedule Review: A Step-by-Step Process

The monthly schedule review is one of the most important recurring activities in construction project controls — and one of the most inconsistently performed. On some projects it is a rigorous, documented process that catches problems early and builds a strong audit trail. On others it amounts to a quick look at whether the completion date moved.

The difference between these two approaches becomes apparent when a dispute arises. The project with the rigorous review process has a contemporaneous record of every schedule change, who made it, when it was made, and what was said about it. The other project has a collection of XER files and vague recollections.

This post lays out a complete, step-by-step monthly schedule review process that is practical enough to actually follow and thorough enough to hold up when it matters.

Before the Review: Set Up Your Environment

Maintain a schedule file log. Every schedule file submitted should be logged with the submission date, the data date, the submitter, and the file name. Change Inspector's Schedule Log module does this automatically — load each file as it arrives and add a note for each entry. Export the log monthly as part of your records.

Archive every submitted file. The submitted XER or XML file should be saved to a project folder with a consistent naming convention: ProjectName_UpdateNumber_DataDate.xer. Never overwrite a previous submission.

Confirm the submission is complete. Check that the file type is correct (.xer or .xml), that it opens without errors, and that it contains the expected project.

Step 1: Administrative Check (5 minutes)

Before reviewing any schedule content, confirm the basics:

• Data date matches the reporting period
• Schedule has been recalculated — check that CPM dates and float values reflect the current data date
• Scheduled completion date — note whether it has changed from the previous submission
• Activity count — note the total and compare to the previous submission
• Baseline assignment — confirm the approved baseline is still assigned in P6

If the data date is wrong or the schedule has not been recalculated, return it to the submitter before proceeding. Reviewing a schedule with stale CPM data wastes time and produces unreliable findings.

Step 2: DCMA Health Check (10 minutes)

Run the DCMA 14-point health check on the submitted schedule before reviewing the comparison. The health check tells you whether the schedule is a credible, well-built model — which is the prerequisite for any meaningful comparison review.

In Change Inspector's Health Check module, note the overall score and any failing checks. Pay particular attention to:

• Missing Logic (Check 1): are there more open ends than the previous submission?
• Negative Float (Check 7): any negative float is an immediate flag requiring explanation
• Missed Activities (Check 11): activities past due as of the data date
• BEI (Check 14): is the project completing activities at the planned rate?

If the health check score has deteriorated significantly from the previous submission, note this in your review findings.

Step 3: Schedule Comparison (20 minutes)

Load the current submission and the previous approved schedule into Change Inspector's Compare module. Work through the tabs in this order:

Schedule Options: check for any changes to P6 calculation settings. Document any changes found.

Overview: review the summary metrics. Note the total count of added, removed, and changed activities. Check whether the scheduled finish date moved.

Activities — Critical first: filter to show Changed activities. Sort by total float to review critical and near-critical activities first. For each changed critical activity, note what changed (dates, durations, status, constraints) and whether the change is expected and authorized.

Activities — Added and Removed: review additions for proper logic connections and reasonable durations. Review removals for legitimate reasons.

Relationships: review all logic changes. Flag any removed predecessors on critical activities or any new relationships that appear to be artificially constraining or releasing activities.

Gantt Diff: sort by Delay. Review the visual picture of the most impacted activities.

Step 4: Float Analysis (10 minutes)

Run the Float Consumption analysis comparing the current submission to the previous submission (or to the baseline if doing a periodic baseline comparison).

Note the top float consumers. Flag any activity that:

• Transitioned from positive float to critical between the two submissions
• Shows float consumption of more than 5 days in a single update cycle
• Is on a near-critical path with a consistent pattern of float erosion

Document these findings specifically — not just "float is decreasing" but "Activity A1050 (Structural Steel Erection, Level 3) consumed 8 days of total float this cycle and now has 12 days remaining."

Step 5: Document Your Findings (15 minutes)

Export the comparison report from Change Inspector to Excel. Add a cover page or summary tab noting:

• Project name, update number, and data date
• DCMA health check score and any significant findings
• Summary of significant changes (critical path movement, milestone shifts, logic changes)
• Open items requiring response from the submitter
• Your acceptance or rejection decision, with conditions if applicable

Send the findings report to the submitter in writing. Retain a copy in the project file. If there are open items, set a deadline for response and follow up.