A schedule of values is a breakdown of the contract sum into the individual work items that make it up, used as the basis for progress payments. Each line carries a description, a value, and a percentage complete that determines what gets invoiced that month.
Despite the name, it has little to do with the project schedule in the programme sense. It is a payment instrument, usually submitted by the contractor for approval at the start of the job, and it governs cash flow for the life of the contract.
A simple structure might read: mobilisation, earthworks, foundations, structural steel, roofing, envelope, mechanical, electrical, interior finishes, closeout. The sum of the line values equals the contract sum. In practice the breakdown is far more granular, and how granular is itself a decision with consequences.
The schedule of values decides how much of your work converts into cash each month, so its structure is worth more attention than it usually gets.
Too coarse and progress becomes unprovable. A single line for interior finishes worth four million means every monthly valuation is an argument about whether the work is at thirty or thirty five percent. Breaking it down by floor and by trade converts that argument into a countable fact.
Too fine and the administration overwhelms the benefit. Twelve hundred lines requiring monthly assessment produces a valuation nobody can complete on time and a quantity surveyor who checks samples rather than the whole.
Mismatched to the programme and nothing reconciles. If the schedule of values is organised by trade package and the construction schedule by area and floor, physical progress cannot be mapped to value without a manual translation every month. That translation is where errors and disputes originate.
The practical answer is to align the two structures deliberately at the outset. When a schedule activity maps to a value line, progress reporting and valuation stop being two separate exercises performed from two different sets of assumptions.
Front loading means weighting early line items above their true cost so that more money is drawn in the opening months. It is common, widely understood, and a persistent source of friction.
The contractor's argument is that early costs are real: mobilisation, bonds, insurance, temporary works, procurement deposits and long lead deposits all land before much visible progress exists, and payment terms rarely reflect that.
The owner's concern is exposure. If early work is over valued, the money paid exceeds the value in place, and if the contractor fails later the owner is left funding completion from a shortfall. This is precisely what retention is designed to mitigate, and why owners scrutinise the opening schedule of values closely.
The workable middle ground is transparency: separate genuine early costs into their own identified lines rather than distributing them invisibly across the work. An explicit mobilisation line can be discussed. A quietly inflated foundations line becomes a credibility problem the moment anyone notices.
Monthly valuation disputes almost always reduce to one question: what evidence supports the claimed percentage? A number typed into a spreadsheet is an assertion. Photographs, signed inspections, delivery records and field confirmations tied to the activity are evidence.
Two definitions prevent most arguments if agreed in advance. First, what counts as complete for each line: materials delivered, installed, tested, or accepted. Second, how partial progress is measured: by quantity installed, by area, or by a defined milestone within the line.
Stored materials deserve their own treatment, since they are typically paid on different terms requiring proof of delivery, insurance and sometimes off site bonding.
Where Playbook helps is upstream of the valuation itself. Progress is captured at the activity by the people performing the work, with photographs and confirmations attached where they happened, so the monthly application is assembled from a record that already exists rather than reconstructed from memory and site walks in the last week of the month.
What is a schedule of values in construction?
A schedule of values is a breakdown of the total contract sum into individual work items, each with an assigned value. Progress against those items determines how much the contractor can invoice in each payment application.
Is a schedule of values the same as a construction schedule?
No. Despite the name, a schedule of values is a payment document breaking the contract sum into priced items. A construction schedule sets out activities, durations and dependencies over time. The two should be structured to align, but they serve different purposes.
What is front loading a schedule of values?
Front loading is weighting early line items above their actual cost to improve early cash flow. Owners resist it because it creates exposure if the contractor fails later. Identifying genuine early costs such as mobilisation and bonds as separate lines is the more defensible approach.
How detailed should a schedule of values be?
Detailed enough that progress on each line can be demonstrated rather than argued, but not so detailed that monthly assessment becomes impractical. Aligning the breakdown with how the construction schedule is organised makes both reporting and valuation considerably easier.
Note to editors:
High-resolution images and interviews with PYBK leadership team members are available upon request.
Project controls is the discipline of measuring whether a project is going to hit its time and cost targets, and providing early enough warning to do something...
There is no single best construction scheduling tool, and any list that names one is answering a different question from the one you are asking. What exists...
OAC stands for Owner, Architect, Contractor. An OAC meeting brings those three parties together on a regular cycle, usually weekly or fortnightly, to review...
