DCMA 14-point schedule assessment: checks, evidence and practical examples
Understand what the 14 checks flag, which results need source evidence and how to use the findings without mistaking a screening score for a validated programme.
What does the DCMA 14-point schedule assessment measure?
The DCMA 14-point assessment is a schedule-quality screening framework. It can reveal missing dependencies, unusual float, constraints and other problems that deserve a planner's attention. It is not a guarantee that the project will finish on time or a substitute for reviewing the status update in Primavera P6.
SEQNCS runs an independent, DCMA-aligned analysis of supported XER exports. Its FREE Schedule Check presents individual results with measured values, documented thresholds and offender evidence where available. Some checks require baseline dates, resource assignments or schedule recalculation that may not be present in an XER.
The 14 checks: practical interpretation
| Check | What to investigate |
|---|---|
| 1. Logic | Incomplete activities without predecessors or successors, excluding defensible project endpoints |
| 2. Leads | Negative relationship lags |
| 3. Lags | Positive relationship lags that may obscure sequencing |
| 4. Relationship types | Share of Finish-to-Start relationships and the justification for other types |
| 5. Hard constraints | Fixed-date constraints that can override driving logic |
| 6. High float | Long total float that may indicate disconnected work or unusual logic |
| 7. Negative float | Activities indicating a date or constraint conflict |
| 8. High duration | Excessively long work activities that limit progress visibility |
| 9. Invalid dates | Actual or forecast dates inconsistent with the data date |
| 10. Resources | Unassigned duration-bearing work when resource loading is available |
| 11. Missed tasks | Activities missed against a valid approved baseline |
| 12. Critical path test | Structural continuity of a completion-driving chain, not a substitute for an injected-delay recalculation |
| 13. CPLI | Critical Path Length Index, based on completion timing and float data |
| 14. BEI | Baseline Execution Index, requiring genuine baseline progress targets |
Threshold conventions vary by assessment methodology and may include SEQNCS-specific warning bands. Always consult the per-check methodology and threshold displayed by the tool; do not treat a green status as contractual acceptance.
Example: how to interpret missing logic
Imagine an incomplete activity has no successor and is not an accepted project completion milestone. It can appear finished on a Gantt even though the network does not connect it to the completion target. The logic check should identify the offender activity—not merely report a project-level percentage.
SEQNCS evaluates incomplete DCMA activity records and exempts identifiable legitimate start/finish endpoints. The result includes the measured proportion and the activities involved. Inspect those activities in Schedule Explorer, then decide whether a relationship is genuinely missing or the network has a documented exception.
The file contains PM001 (“Monthly Project Controls Cycle 01”), an ordinary TT_Task record, as well as M000 (“Notice to Proceed / Project Start”), a TT_Mile milestone. This demonstrates why activity-type distinctions matter. These two records are not presented as test offenders.
Missing data must not become a false pass
Two checks make this especially important: missed tasks and BEI. An XER may contain target dates without containing an approved baseline. Treating those target dates as though they were approved baseline evidence would make the result misleading. SEQNCS therefore reports these checks as not assessed when identifiable baseline data is missing rather than manufacturing a score.
Similarly, if no resource or role assignments are present, the resource test cannot fairly label every activity unresourced. SEQNCS reports the limitation and separates milestones from duration-bearing work activities in that analysis. This is a reason to inspect source completeness alongside the quality indicators.
How to use DCMA findings in a revision cycle
- Record the version and data date. A quality score without a source revision is hard to reproduce.
- Review failed and warning checks. Prioritize logic, constraints and date validity rather than chasing the overall score.
- Export the offender evidence. Use the free Excel register to locate IDs, responsible disciplines and the issues to correct.
- Correct the source P6 programme. Check each proposed change against project logic and constraints; keep documented exceptions.
- Re-export and re-run. Compare the new check results and confirm that corrections did not introduce other issues.
For auditability, SEQNCS FREE includes a summary PDF with sample offenders and an Excel offender register. The PDF sample is not the complete evidence set.
What this assessment cannot establish
A schedule-quality screen does not establish a valid critical path by itself, an entitlement to an extension of time or the responsibility for a delay. Some checks rely on information not available in the XER, and injected-delay validation requires actual schedule recalculation. Treat the output as a disciplined review starting point alongside the published SEQNCS methodology.
Run a traceable DCMA check
Review thresholds, measurements and offender evidence for a supported Primavera P6 XER file.
Open Free Schedule Check