Data Analytics Portfolio Case Study

Construction Project Controls Analytics

A data-driven early-warning analysis of cost, schedule, change-order, RFI, and contingency performance across a synthetic portfolio of 75 U.S. construction projects.

Project ControlsExcel SQL & SQLiteEarned Value Management Data Visualization

Business Problem

Construction leaders often review cost reports, schedules, change-order logs, RFI logs, and contingency reports separately. This fragmentation can delay recognition of deteriorating project performance. The business task was to identify which projects were most at risk of exceeding budget or schedule and determine which indicators provided the clearest early warning.

Data disclosure: The dataset is synthetic and was created for educational and portfolio demonstration. It does not represent actual In Project LLC clients, contracts, employees, or confidential project records.

Portfolio Snapshot

Portfolio BAC
$5.831B
Forecast EAC
$6.587B
Forecast Overrun
13.0%
Weighted CPI
0.884
Average Delay
33.7 days
Red Projects
50

Executive Dashboard

The dashboard follows an executive decision hierarchy: portfolio exposure, projects requiring attention, performance trends, and concise interpretation.

Portfolio position and health distribution
Portfolio position and health distribution. 50 of 75 projects (67%) sit at Red status; the portfolio is forecast to finish $755.6M (13.0%) over budget at a weighted CPI of 0.884.
Weighted CPI declined from 0
Weighted CPI declined from 0.938 to 0.869 across 48 months, first breaching the 0.90 critical threshold in April 2024. SPI held near 1.00 while average forecast delay still reached 33.7 days.
Forecast overrun concentrates in Mixed-Use (16
Forecast overrun concentrates in Mixed-Use (16.3%); Heavy Civil & Infrastructure is lowest at 9.4%.
Ten projects carry the largest forecast overrun
Ten projects carry the largest forecast overrun. Of the 50 Red projects portfolio-wide, 42 are triggered primarily by CPI below 0.90.

Operational Insights

The diagnostic view examines change-order causes, RFI response performance, and the strength of tested analytical relationships.

Contingency burn ratio explains 81% of the variance in forecast overrun (r = 0
Contingency burn ratio explains 81% of the variance in forecast overrun (r = 0.901) — the strongest early-warning signal tested. RFI response time shows a moderate association with schedule delay (r = 0.517). Correlation does not establish causation.
Owner-directed changes drive the most approved cost ($42
Owner-directed changes drive the most approved cost ($42.8M); unforeseen conditions drive the most delay (700 days). A cost-only change-order review would miss the largest schedule driver.
Every discipline answers more than 70% of RFIs late, with response times clustered between 13
Every discipline answers more than 70% of RFIs late, with response times clustered between 13.9 and 15.5 days — a systemic process constraint rather than isolated underperformance.

Key Findings

Cost exposure

Weighted CPI was 0.884. Forecast EAC was approximately $6.59 billion, or 13.0% above BAC.

Schedule interpretation

Weighted SPI was close to 1.00, but average forecast delay was 33.7 days. Calendar variance remained essential because SPI can converge at completion.

Strongest warning signal

Contingency burn ratio had a strong positive association with forecast overrun: r = 0.901.

RFI performance

Average RFI response time had a moderate positive association with schedule delay: r = 0.517.

Projects Requiring Immediate Attention

RankProjectCPIForecast OverrunDelayStatus
1PRJ-075 — Canyon Ridge Transit-Oriented Development0.75332.9%73 daysRed
2PRJ-009 — Northstar Housing0.75532.5%63 daysRed
3PRJ-046 — Red Rock Residences0.77928.4%84 daysRed
4PRJ-068 — Canyon Ridge Bridge Rehabilitation0.79425.9%55 daysRed
5PRJ-034 — Mountain Gate Community College0.80524.2%38 daysRed

Analytical Workflow

Ask

Defined the business task, stakeholders, performance questions, KPIs, scope, and success criteria.

Prepare

Designed a four-table synthetic relational dataset covering projects, monthly performance, change orders, and RFIs.

Process

Removed duplicates, standardized fields, repaired documented anomalies, quarantined invalid relationships, and validated 22 quality checks.

Analyze

Calculated EVM metrics, forecast exposure, delay, contingency burn, change and RFI indicators, segment comparisons, and correlations.

Share

Created an executive dashboard, operational diagnostic view, concise narrative, and accessible portfolio communication package.

Limitations

The data is synthetic; correlations do not prove causation; EAC uses the simplified BAC/CPI formula; health thresholds are portfolio assumptions; and small group sizes limit some delivery-method and contract comparisons.