The following are considered to recover the schedule, EXCEPT:

The following are considered to recover the schedule, EXCEPT:

• A. The CM may require the Contractor to prepare and submit a recovery schedule demonstrating the Contractor's proposed plan to regain lost schedule progress.
• B. If the recovery plan is rejected, the recovery plan should be incorporated into the construction schedule
• C. If delays are caused by the contractor, the CM should require the contractor to submit a recovery plan. The recovery plan should include physical activity, such as increasing the crew size, working overtime, etc. rather than artificially reducing the balance of the schedule to fit in the remaining time frame by arbitrary duration reduction (especially of activities such as a punch list and clean up) and increased activity overlap.
• D. Should the CM find the plan not acceptable, the CM may require the Contractor to submit a new plan.

Answer: (B)

Handling schedule recovery involves the CM asking the contractor to lay out a concrete recovery schedule showing how lost time will be made up, evaluating that plan, and insisting on revisions if needed. The emphasis is on plans that actually restore progress through real actions—like adding crews or working overtime—rather than manipulating the schedule by shrinking durations or overlapping work inappropriately. The option that does not fit is the idea that, if a recovery plan is rejected, the rejected plan should be incorporated into the construction schedule. Once a plan is deemed unacceptable, it should not be inserted into the schedule; instead, the contractor is expected to submit a new, acceptable plan. That iterative revision process is central to effective schedule recovery. The other approaches align with proper practice: initiating a recovery plan, evaluating and potentially rejecting it while requiring a better one, and focusing on tangible acceleration efforts rather than artificial duration cuts.

Handling schedule recovery involves the CM asking the contractor to lay out a concrete recovery schedule showing how lost time will be made up, evaluating that plan, and insisting on revisions if needed. The emphasis is on plans that actually restore progress through real actions—like adding crews or working overtime—rather than manipulating the schedule by shrinking durations or overlapping work inappropriately.

The option that does not fit is the idea that, if a recovery plan is rejected, the rejected plan should be incorporated into the construction schedule. Once a plan is deemed unacceptable, it should not be inserted into the schedule; instead, the contractor is expected to submit a new, acceptable plan. That iterative revision process is central to effective schedule recovery. The other approaches align with proper practice: initiating a recovery plan, evaluating and potentially rejecting it while requiring a better one, and focusing on tangible acceleration efforts rather than artificial duration cuts.