1
Send the update
Current update, previous update, baseline. Pick the specification.
Update 07Current
Update 06Previous
BaselineFirst time
Upload the update.Download the summary, the change log, and the comment letter.
For the owner’s rep who signs the acceptance, and the GC who has to get the update accepted the first time.
Send one update for a free sample The sample is yours either way.
You review updates
Owner’s reps, CM firms, GCs reviewing subcontractor schedules.
The thing that hurts is signing an acceptance letter that missed something, and finding out a year later in a delay claim.
Changes since last month, the evidence behind them, and the applicable specification checks. The ones affecting the finish come first.
- Summary: what moved, what held, what to recommend.
- Comment letter: kept findings, ready for your letterhead.
- Change log: what changed since last month.
You submit updates
GCs and subcontractors sending schedules to an owner.
The thing that hurts is a rejected update: the resubmittal takes the week, and the pay application waits behind it.
Before the update goes out, the owner’s review is run on it. What they would reject, you fix first.
- Pre-submission findings: what needs your attention.
- Narrative drafted from the schedule evidence.
- Responses to the owner’s open comments.
Most GCs need both columns. Same file, same package.
How many days of slip came from work not done, and how many from changing the plan?
Your scheduling tool does not answer that. The comparison against last month does. Four things it lists that a DCMA score will not show you.
1
Last month’s late finish is on time this month.
An activity that finished late in the last update now shows a finish inside its planned window. The report lists every actual date that moved and what it moved from.
2
The finish did not move. Something still happened.
A milestone that held its date while the logic, durations, or calendars behind it changed. The report shows the changes that absorbed the slip.
3
A link removed after work started.
Every relationship deleted or changed on an activity that already had progress, with the activities it used to connect. Out-of-sequence work shows up here, whatever the reason for the edit.
4
Weather days added after the month closed.
Non-work days put into a calendar for a period that had already been reported. Dated, counted, and listed against the activities they stretched.
Example · card 2
Finish date · Update 07 vs 06
Held 01 Jan 2027
0 d changeWhat moved underneath
A1060Structural steel erectionDuration 22 → 28 wd+6 wd
A1070Building envelopeLink to A1080 removedlogic
CAL-01Standard 5-day3 non-work days added+3 d
A1090Interior fit-outTotal float 9 → 0 d−9 d
The finish held. The report shows what moved underneath it.
If you submit, these are the four things the owner’s reviewer will find. They are in your pre-submission check before the file goes out.
How the numbers are madeThe writing explains the numbers. It never produces them.
01Numbers are computed from the schedule files.
02Figures trace to the row, rule, or calculation behind them.
03Specification findings name the applicable requirement.
04A check that could not run is never counted as a pass.
What comes back
The same engine runs for both seats. Your documents depend on which side of the table you sit, and which files you send.
Choose a document to preview it.
GIRDEROILLUSTRATIVE SAMPLE
Brookhaven HQ · Update 07
Update review summary
30 September 2026 · Review copyRecommendationAccept with comments
Forecast finish22 Mar 2027
Movement9 days earlier
What needs your attention
- A relationship changed after work started.
- A previously reported actual date moved.
- The narrative does not explain the calendar edit.
Confirm the basis for these changes before issuing your response.
Illustrative content. Your package is built from your files and review decisions.
Three steps
From the files you already have to the documents you need to send.
2
Decide the findings
Review the ranked findings. Include, exclude, or reword them. Confirm the recommendation.
Link removedInclude
Actual date changedReword
Calendar revisedExclude
3
Get your documents
Summary, change log, letter or narrative, and appendix. Built from your decisions.
PDFTo read
WordTo edit
HTMLTo view
File formats
Send the file the way it comes out of the scheduling tool
Primavera P6 or Microsoft Project, exported as you already do it. Nothing to convert, nothing to install, and no change to how your schedulers work.
P6Primavera P6
.XER.XML
PMicrosoft Project
.MPP.XML
Custom workflows
Make it run inside your tools
Updates arrive in a folder or inbox. The review runs, and the draft returns where your team already works. A custom build for your review cycle.
BHQ / Schedule / Update 07
An update is added to the project folder.
BHQ_U07.xer
G
Checked. Ranked. Drafted.
- Schedule changes
- Specification checks
- Your review decisions
The documents arrive
Review summary
Comment letter
Illustrative integration · configured for your firm, not enabled by default.
A fixed-price setup, then support for your templates and review cycle.
Talk through your cycleYour files
Three separate promises: who can see the file, what it is used for, and whether anything in it changes.
Confidentiality
Files stay in your firm’s workspace, separate from other clients.
Request deletion or an NDA before sending a sample. Talk to us about private deployment requirements.
Use
Your files are used to produce your review package, not to train our models.
What the writing does
The engine computes the numbers. Drafted explanations describe those results for your review.
Integrity
Your schedule is never changed.
The package is built from the files you sent. Findings retain the evidence behind the result.
Questions people ask before sending a file
P6 and OPC compare two schedules and list what changed. They do not tell you which of those changes moved the finish and which did not, whether the contractor’s narrative mentions them, which of last month’s comments were fixed, or which paragraph of the specification each one breaks. That is the review. The comparison is the raw material for it. You do not run anything. The update goes in, the review comes back as a letter you can sign.
The engine reads it, compares it to last month’s update, runs the checks, and drafts the package in your template. Then it is sent back to the address that sent it. You review the findings and confirm the recommendation before issuing the documents.
The numbers come from comparing the files. Calculated figures come from the engine; drafted explanations describe those results. Every figure in the package is listed in the appendix with the file row, the rule, or the calculation behind it. A check that could not run says so by name instead of showing as passed. The fastest way to test this is to send an update you have already reviewed and compare the package against what you found.
The files are used for one thing: producing your package. They are held in a workspace only your firm can see, including from other clients. They are deleted on request at any time, and 90 days after the project closes. We sign your NDA before the first file is uploaded. If your firm’s policy does not allow files to leave your systems, the review can run inside them instead. That is the custom build.
No. Not ours, not anyone’s. The rules the engine checks against come from the specifications, not from client files.
You do. The package recommends accept, accept with comments, or reject, and shows the findings behind the recommendation. You change what you disagree with and sign what you agree with. It does not perform forensic delay analysis and it does not change the schedule.
Every activity, whatever its float. The package lists critical and near-critical changes first, because those are the ones that move the finish, and the rest follow in the change log. Nothing is left out because it had float.
Send one update. Get the package back. See if it is worth a second one.
Enter a work email and we send you a private upload link. Upload the update, and the narrative if there is one. Results go to the Girdero review team. One submission per work email.