DCMA 14-Point Schedule Check vs. Construction Scheduling Reality: What Planners Must Know & An Expert’s Perspective

Home DCMA 14-Point Schedule Check vs. Construction Scheduling Reality: What Planners Must Know & An Expert’s Perspective

As a project scheduler, I’ve often come across a recurring question: Should every construction schedule be forced to pass the DCMA 14-Point check?

On paper, the Defense Contract Management Agency’s 14-Point Schedule Assessment is a solid framework. It helps evaluate the technical health of a schedule — making sure logic is sound, links are clear, and durations are reasonable. In theory, it’s a great quality gate.

But here’s the truth: construction isn’t theory. It’s messy, unpredictable, and influenced by everything from weather delays to late approvals and site conditions. Forcing construction schedules to fit neatly into the DCMA template can sometimes do more harm than good.

The DCMA’s checklist was originally built for defense contracts, but today it’s widely applied in project scheduling. It tests:

  • Limits on constraints and lags
  • No open ends in the network
  • A clear critical path
  • Caps on float and activity durations
  • No negative float
  • High logic density

It’s a useful tool. But the challenge comes when we apply these rigid rules to construction scheduling, where reality doesn’t always match the math.

Constraints Aren’t “Bad” — They’re Reality


Permits, approvals, and weather windows are real. Removing them just to pass a check creates a “perfect” schedule that ignores actual risks.

Lags Reflect Site Logic


Concrete curing, inspections, mobilization — these can’t be squeezed into fake activities. Lags are sometimes the most honest way to show dependencies.

Not Every Open End is Wrong


External deliverables or placeholders happen. Forcing artificial links just to close open ends adds noise, not clarity.

Critical Path is Dynamic


On a construction site, the critical path shifts constantly. Passing a test doesn’t guarantee it matches what crews are actually battling day to day.

Float Isn’t the Enemy


Large float values are normal in phased construction. Artificially cutting float doesn’t make the project more urgent — it makes the data less truthful.

Negative Float Tells a Story


It signals real delays and risks. Hiding it creates false optimism and masks accountability.

Long Durations Can Be Necessary


Procurement packages or deep foundations often exceed 44 days. Breaking them down just to tick a box adds admin effort, not project value.

Too Many Links = Clutter


Construction often works in work packages. Over-linking every single task makes the schedule heavy, complex, and harder for teams to follow.

At the end of the day, a construction schedule isn’t about “passing” an audit. It’s about helping the project team succeed.

Field teams don’t ask if the float is capped at 44 days. They ask:

  • What’s next week’s plan?
  • Where are the bottlenecks?
  • Do we have enough resources?
  • What risks should we prepare for?

That’s why good schedulers balance both worlds. We respect the DCMA’s logic checks — but we don’t lose sight of what the site really needs: clarity, accuracy, and transparency.

The DCMA 14-Point check is a strong tool for measuring schedule quality, but it was never meant to replace professional judgment. In construction, realism beats perfection.

A schedule that passes every DCMA test may look good in a report — but if it hides constraints, ignores delays, or overcomplicates the logic, it won’t help deliver the project.

As planners, our goal should always be this:

Build schedules that tell the truth, support decision-making, and drive successful outcomes.

Because at the end of the day, projects aren’t delivered by passing a test — they’re delivered by teams on the ground.

Comment