Hard Logic vs Soft Logic
Last reviewed 9 September 20261,943 words9 min read
Physics vs preference; why the distinction decides claims
🟩 In one line: Hard logic is a relationship the physical work forces (you can't pour the slab before the columns); soft logic is a relationship you chose for resources, access or preference (pour Zone A before Zone B). Both are legitimate in a baseline, but when a delay hits, soft logic is the first thing a reviewer asks you to change — and the first thing an analyst asks you to justify keeping.
👤 Who this is for: Juniors building logic; mid-level planners defending a critical path; seniors deciding whether a "delay" is really a sequencing choice. You should know relationship-types-explained and total-float.
First, let's be honest about why this page exists
Planners draw soft logic all the time and forget it's soft. Two years later the critical path runs through "Block C before Block D", the Employer delays Block C, and the contractor claims the whole project moved. The Engineer's reply: "Why didn't you just start Block D?" If the answer is "because the programme said so", the claim is in trouble.
The reverse also happens: a reviewer strips out soft logic to make float appear, and the contractor loses a legitimate resource constraint because nobody wrote down why the link was there. The distinction is not academic. It decides who owes whom time.
🟨 The standard — what "good" looks like
| Source | What it says (paraphrased) |
|---|---|
| SCL Protocol 2nd ed., Part B Guidance on programme preparation and on mitigation | Programme logic should reflect a realistic plan; when delay occurs, the Contractor is expected to take reasonable steps to mitigate, which includes re-sequencing where soft logic allows |
| AACE RP 29R-03, section on logic validation | Distinguishes physical (mandatory) logic from preferential/resource logic; analyst must identify which governs the delay |
| AACE RP 49R-06, Identifying the Critical Path | Preferential logic can create a critical path that isn't the true minimum path; analyst should test it |
| PMI Practice Standard for Scheduling, 3rd ed. | Mandatory dependencies (hard) vs discretionary dependencies (soft) — discretionary should be documented |
| GAO Schedule Assessment Guide, Best Practice 2 (sequencing) | Logic should reflect how the work must be done; "soft" or "preferred" logic should be identified and justified |
| DCMA 14-Point, Metrics 1–4 (logic, leads, lags, relationship types) | Doesn't distinguish hard/soft but flags the patterns soft logic often produces — SS/FF chains, lags used as sequencing |
| NEC3/NEC4 Cl 31.2 | Programme shows the order and timing of operations the Contractor plans — soft logic is expressly permitted as "how the Contractor plans" |
🟢 Rule to remember: every soft link in the baseline gets a reason in the Notebook. If you can't write the reason, it's a preference you'll be asked to abandon.
How it actually works
The three kinds of logic.
| Type | Also called | Driven by | Example | Can it be changed in a recovery? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hard | Mandatory, physical | Physics, sequence of construction, safety | Formwork before rebar before pour; waterproofing before backfill; MEP first fix before wall closure | No |
| Soft — resource | Preferential, resource logic | Limited crews, one crane, one hoist | Level 5 pour after Level 4 pour (same formwork set); Zone B blockwork after Zone A (one crew) | Yes, at a cost — second crew, second set |
| Soft — preference | Preferential, discretionary | Access route, client preference, convenience | Finish car park before landscaping (to keep access); build east tower first | Yes, often at little cost |
Some add a fourth: external — driven by third parties (authority approval before energisation). Treat it as hard for the contractor's purposes, but note who owns the dependency.
How to tell them apart on a real link. Ask one question: if I had unlimited people, equipment and access, would this link still be needed? Yes → hard. No → soft.
Where soft logic belongs.
| Situation | Model it as |
|---|---|
| Single crew moving zone to zone | Soft FS links, Notebook "one crew, resource logic"; or resource-load and level |
| One tower crane serving two blocks | Soft links between crane-dependent activities, Notebook "TC1 shared" |
| Client wants Phase 1 handed over first | Soft links or a Finish On or Before milestone with reason |
| Access route through Zone A | Soft link with Notebook "site logistics — access via Zone A until road complete" |
P6 mechanics. P6 has no field for hard/soft. Options:
| Method | How | Pros / cons |
|---|---|---|
| Relationship comment | Activity Details > Relationships > Comments column (P6 R8.3 onward) | Best — lives on the link; exports in TASKPRED comments field |
| Activity Notebook topic "Logic Basis" | Admin > Admin Categories > Notebook Topics; note per activity | Good for chains; not per link |
| Activity code "Logic Type" on successor | Codes: HARD / SOFT-RES / SOFT-PREF | Filterable; per activity not per link |
| Layout filter on relationship comments | Filter successors where comment contains "SOFT" | Quick review before submission |
How the distinction plays in delay.
| Scenario | Hard logic on the path | Soft logic on the path |
|---|---|---|
| Employer delays a predecessor | Successor genuinely can't start; delay flows through | Engineer asks why you didn't re-sequence; you need the resource reason documented |
| Contractor asked to recover | Only crashing (more hours/resources) available | Re-sequencing available and cheaper — usually the first mitigation |
| Forensic analyst tests the as-planned critical path | Path stands | Analyst may remove soft links to find the "true" longest path; if the reason was documented, it stands as resource logic |
| Float ownership argument | Float is what it is | Employer argues soft logic hid float; contractor argues it's a genuine resource constraint |
📜 Mitigation and re-sequencing
Under SCL Protocol guidance and most standard forms, the Contractor must take reasonable steps to mitigate — not incur significant extra cost, but not sit still either. Re-sequencing through soft logic is the textbook "reasonable step". So:
- If the delayed activity is followed by soft preference logic, you are expected to re-sequence and the EOT is reduced accordingly.
- If it's soft resource logic, you're expected to consider re-sequencing; if that needs a second crew or second formwork set, that's acceleration, not mitigation — you can offer it but the cost sits with the Employer if the delay is theirs.
- If it's hard logic, there's nothing to re-sequence; the claim proceeds.
Document the reason at baseline stage and this conversation takes five minutes instead of five weeks.
🟥 Where people go wrong
- Drawing soft logic and calling it hard when challenged. "The slab can't start until the other block's slab is done" — physically it can; you only have one formwork set. Say so. The resource reason is legitimate; the fake physical reason gets exposed in the first site visit.
- Stripping all soft logic to please a reviewer. Now every zone starts on day one with unlimited crews, float appears everywhere, and the programme is a fantasy. Soft resource logic is real; keep it and label it.
- Not documenting the reason. Eighteen months on, nobody knows whether "Block C before D" was crane, crew or the client's preference. Now it's whichever side argues better.
- Using lags as soft logic. "FS +10 days" to hold a start back for crew availability. Reviewers see an unexplained lag; DCMA Metric 3 flags it. Use a link to the real driver, or a constraint with a reason (leads-and-lags).
- Confusing soft logic with a constraint. A Start On or After for access is a constraint with an external cause. A soft link is your choice. Don't put a constraint where a link to the access milestone would do.
- Building the tender programme on soft logic, then treating it as the contract sequence. The client accepted a plan, not a physical law. If you change the sequence for your own reasons, you don't get time for it.
⚖️ When you're challenged
"Why didn't you just start Zone B when Zone A was delayed?" "The link is resource logic — one blockwork crew, stated in the Notebook and the SBM at baseline. Starting Zone B meant a second crew, which we offered as acceleration on 14 March. Without that instruction, the delay to Zone A flows through."
"This link is soft. We're removing it and your float goes to +12." "It's soft resource logic, not preference — the formwork set is the driver. Remove the link and the programme assumes a second set we don't have and weren't priced for. If you want the float, instruct the second set."
"Your critical path is artificial — it's all preferential." "Every link on it is tagged. Six are physical, three are shared tower crane, one is the access route through Zone A. Each has a reason. Show me which one you think is optional and we'll test it."
"Can we re-sequence to recover?" "Yes — the soft links are filtered in this layout. Re-sequencing façade Zones B and C saves 5 days at no cost. Anything else needs extra resource."
📄 Related pages
- Relationship types explained — FS/SS/FF/SF mechanics
- Leads and lags — why lags are the wrong tool for soft sequencing
- Construction Sequencing and Method — where hard logic comes from
- Standard Sequences — reference hard logic by trade
- Mitigation and the duty to mitigate — what re-sequencing you owe
- Schedule Basis Memorandum — where resource logic reasons get recorded
- Critical path vs longest path — why preferential logic can hide the true path
- Building a Recovery Plan — soft logic as the first lever
✏️ Worked example
A hospital extension in Abu Dhabi. Employer delays access to the east wing by 30 days. Baseline critical path: east wing structure → east wing envelope → east wing MEP → commissioning. West wing was sequenced after east wing.
| Link on path | Type | Reason recorded | Reviewer's position | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| East wing access → east wing piling | External / hard | Employer possession date | Accepted | Delay starts here |
| East wing piling → east wing raft | Hard | Physical | Accepted | Flows through |
| East wing raft → west wing raft | Soft — resource | "One piling rig, one raft crew — SBM 6.4" | Challenged: "start west first" | Contractor showed rig demobilisation cost; Engineer instructed re-sequence as acceleration, cost paid |
| East wing envelope → east wing MEP first fix | Hard | Weathertight before services | Accepted | Flows through |
| East wing MEP → west wing MEP | Soft — preference | Not recorded | Challenged | Contractor couldn't show a reason; re-sequenced at own cost; EOT reduced |
Result: 30 days of Employer delay, 22 days awarded. The 8-day reduction came entirely from the one soft link with no reason written down.
📖 References
- SCL Delay and Disruption Protocol, 2nd ed. (2017), Part B Guidance — programme preparation; mitigation
- AACE RP 29R-03, Forensic Schedule Analysis — logic validation
- AACE RP 49R-06, Identifying the Critical Path
- PMI, Practice Standard for Scheduling, 3rd ed. — dependency types
- GAO, Schedule Assessment Guide (GAO-16-89G), Best Practice 2
- NEC3 / NEC4 ECC Cl 31.2 (check the edition in your contract)
- Oracle, P6 Professional User Guide — Relationships, Notebook Topics
From the field
Experience from working planners. Unreviewed — read it as experience, not guidance.
Add what you know about hard logic vs soft logic. What worked, what the consultant pushed back on, what you would do differently next time. A paragraph is plenty.
Contributors get their name and one link on the site — your own templates, course or consultancy. We take nothing and hold nothing.
Add your experience