WVDOH CPM scheduling requirements: Standard Specifications §108.3

The West Virginia Division of Highways states its critical path method requirement in the body of its own Standard Specifications for Roads and Bridges, 2023 Edition (adopted 16 December 2022), at §108.3, "Prosecution of the Work" — not in a special provision. Because it sits in the book every contract incorporates, there is no tier to classify and no bid item to look for.

The supplements were read and neither revises this section. The 2024 and the 2025 Supplemental Specifications were both searched: neither carries a Division 100 entry for §108, and the only occurrence of "108" in either is a cross-reference to a different subsection. So the 2023 text is the operative text, and this page cites it without a supplement qualifier. That is a measurement rather than an assumption, and it is the first thing an agency reviewer will check.

What §108.3 requires

The 90-day payment gate

Most scheduling specifications attach no consequence to a late schedule beyond the general remedies of the contract. §108.3.1 attaches one directly: the official Schedule must be completed within 90 calendar days of Contract award, and after 90 days payment is withheld until the Schedule has been reviewed.

Read with the three clocks above it, the section describes a staircase rather than a single deadline — a preliminary schedule at 30 calendar days, a detailed one at 60, the Engineer's review running 14 calendar days from receipt, and the whole sequence landing inside 90.

None of those dates is recorded in a schedule file. A schedule carries a data date; it does not carry the date it was submitted or the date of Contract award. This project treats every one of these deadlines as a fact about the submission rather than about the schedule, which means it does not check them, and its silence about them is not a statement that they were met.

Fifteen numbered criteria, and the one nothing else could decide

§108.3.2 states fifteen numbered criteria governing how the schedule is built in P6. Six of them are properties of the exported file: which calendars may exist and how they must be named, which activity must come first, which must come second and with what lag, how progressed activities are recalculated, and which constraints are permitted.

Two are worth describing in full.

• Criterion 5 prohibits global calendars, and criterion 8 carves out exactly one exception, naming it precisely — a WVDOT standard five-day workweek with holidays, which must exist as a global calendar so resources can link to it. P6 records the calendar type on the calendar record, so this is decidable from the file. The check is scoped to the calendars activities actually use rather than to every calendar row, because a large share of the calendar rows in any real export are resource calendars that no activity is scheduled on, and a check reading "not a project calendar, therefore global" over the whole table would convict calendars nobody used.
• Criteria 9 and 10 name two activities. Project Award must be the first activity and a milestone; Notice to Proceed must follow it by a stated lag — thirty days ordinarily, seven where the Contract carries an incentive/disincentive clause. Whether that clause exists is a contract fact, so it is asked for rather than guessed.

Several criteria are stated and not decided here, and the reason is the same one each time: the field is not carried in this engine's schedule model. The Project Resource Tree and Cost Accounts Tree, Project Codes, and Global Activity Codes all fall there. A check over an absent field passes every schedule, which is the least useful result available.

A second document, and a real problem with it

WVDOH also publishes a Construction CPM Schedule Review Manual — 342 pages of Primavera P6 training material written for the Division's Construction Engineers and Area Engineers, built around two schedule review checklists it publishes in full and then walks item by item. It is not a term of the contract, by its own opening words, so where this project reports against it, it reports an observation and never a failure.

Its specification cross-references do not all resolve against the 2023 Edition, and that is a finding worth stating. Three were checked. One cites a subsection that is correct today. One cites a clause number for the Preliminary Construction Schedule that belongs to Extension of Contract Time in the 2023 book; the preliminary schedule is elsewhere. One cites a section number that in the 2023 book is Field Office and Storage Building. The manual is written against an earlier edition.

The consequence for anyone using it: read the specification citations out of the 2023 book directly, and treat the manual's checklist item labels as the stable identifiers, because those are the manual's own and cannot go stale against a specification revision. That is what this project does — its specification rules cite the 2023 book, and its manual rules cite checklist items.

Also worth knowing: WVDOH's separate Construction Manual directs the Project Engineer or Supervisor to review each schedule against the specification within fourteen calendar days, and refers that person to internal training documents for schedules.

What this page does not tell you

• It does not tell you which clauses govern your project. The incorporated contract documents govern — the edition named in the contract, the supplemental specifications in force at letting, and any special provisions. An agency name alone does not establish which clauses apply. The supplement reading above was done on the 2024 and 2025 supplements and says nothing about later ones.
• A time impact analysis requirement was not found in §108.3. Time extensions route to §108.6, which was not read clause by clause for this page. That is an absence in what was read, not a finding that no such requirement exists in the contract.
• Every deadline in the table is a fact about a submission, and a schedule file records none of them. They are stated here so a reader knows they exist, not because this project checks them.
• One rule rests on this project's own arithmetic and says so — the negative-float check reads a backward pass computed here rather than a column Primavera wrote. Where the two disagree, the report says which number it used.
• This project computes and reports; it does not decide submissions. It states what the imported schedule contains and checks it against the clauses cited. Excusability, entitlement, and whether a schedule is adequate are not questions it answers. The reviewing authority determines acceptance.

Related pages

• How state DOT scheduling specifications compare.
• UFGS scheduling requirements.
• Glossary — total float, retained logic, lag, milestone.
• What the engine does and limitations.
• The conformance rule catalogue and the standards map §2.7, which records how §108.3 and the review manual were read and what was refused.

Source: web/pages/wvdoh-scheduling.md. Source commit date: 2026-09-11.