Philip,

While i belive that you did not read throughly my posts, i’ll make more clarifications to make it easier for you.

First of all i would like to bring to your attention that what i’m saying is not my own inventions, it is well know methodologies and standard specifications, i recommend you do some study and reading in this area.

Please refer to the schedule specification in any US contract, it sould be section 01321N in the specification, you migth get an idea.

On the other hand, the contract (include the specifications) is an agreement between two parties. The employer has the ability to put whatever condition, and Contractors will submit their proposals for the Employer consent. one of the conditions is the schedule (programme in UK) specifications. If you as a contractor do not like the specificatins, simply do not make a proposal, anyway other contractor who make planning will most likely make a proposal.

Also, plesae do not take my saying in the extreme, the empolyer is not interested in setting a specific float for certain activites, no specifications say that the excavation shall have 4 days float!! but general restraints to the programme is a must as it is discovered recenlty, Also, the Employer do not usualy interefer in the sequence of the works, unless their is a specific milestone or something.

Finally, what i’m trying to say is that the critical path and the float can be controled and manupilated to considerable certain amount, until it reaches the physical limits. You can make your programme in many scenarios to model the reality. Simply, THERE IS NO ONLY ONE RIGHT WAY TO CONSTRUCT A PROJECT, and usually, you have more than model comply with the specification, as a contractor pick what suits you better!!

I hope that’s clear

Oscar,

Thank you for replying. I liked the egg projectv :)

I do not agree with you in that post also, for the following ressons:

1) you are comparing construction project of years to cooking project of total 15 Mints!! In this case the float you should seek in your cooking project is about 7 seconds not 7 days, and of course we have that float during cooking.

2) Also, you are considering one egg, but if you considered 100 egg, you can chage the sequence a bit, may be call your friend to help you, add more tools, hence, you can do 70 egg, and your friend can do 30 for example, or 50 50, hence you can plan to finish whenerver the contract or in this case the people need to eat, which of course involving manupilating the programme to model the relaity, so you know what you should do to acheive that.

3) However, you should not take my talking here to the extreme that EVERYTHING can be fast tracked or crashed, Actually, there is mandatory releations and miniimum durations governs any projects, but you still have a lot to do to make a certain scenario for the project.

4) We also, as planning engineers, should distingush between the critical activities in the critical path, and the risky or serious activities. critical activites in the critical path could be anything, it is just critical because it in somehow governs the project completion dates, while in the other hand, risky activities could be very costly, need special experience, and may be have 20 days float, but we can not consider it critical from the perspictive of a programme. it will be only critical if it came to the critical path. However, it is always good practice to put the risky activities in the critical path if you can so you can monitoring it, for sure the risky activities in this case have to have hidden float. or if you do not like to use this methodology, you have to be sure that the risky activities are away form the critical path as you can.

5)It is un-argumented that you control the critical path, my opinion, if yoy are letting the critical path to control you (unless you like it) then you did not do any planning.


Finally, I would like to tell you that the programme specifications i talked about before is a standard specification in the US contracts. and it has a lot of aspects and benifits, we might discuess lately in another thread.

With respect to all.

Walied Abdeldayem, PMP

Walied
Thank you for your lovely long post.
Let me explain why I think the client is manipulating the programme and its not planning.
Say I want to boil an egg and I have all the resources ie egg, cooker, electricity, water, and pot
First activity I get the pot
Second I fill it with water
Third I put the egg in
Fourth I cook it dependent on soft or hard boiled
Fifth I take it out

Eating it is not cooking it so that does not count allthough it provides the client satisfaction and could result in all the activities having some or no float dependent on how hungry I am.

Now is the above a logical path yes and if I constrain it the activities will have float or no float dependent on the timing of the process.

Could I make 50% of the activities with no or float less than 7 days no cos the programme is a logical link all activities are start to finish relationship.

If the client asks you to do that you must do the following.

First activity I get the pot
first a) I listen to Britney Spears on the radio
Second I fill it with water
Second a) I read the paper
Third I put the egg in
Third a) I look at other recipes for eggs
Fourth I cook it dependent on soft or hard boiled
Fourth a) I eat an apple
Fifth I take it out
Fifth a) I wash up

Now I have a programme with 50% critical activities because I have manipulated the programme by adding spurious activities.

I hear what you say about planning being neccessary and I agree with you however I do not think that a client structruing the output is any more than manipulation to avoid claims.

Sorry for the lengthy mail
Oscar

Oscar,

Actually that is planning for sure, planning is dynamic and should be used to answer very important question, if you want your project to success, this question is what shall I do to meet the project requirements. Planning is a phase of the project management life cycle, and as we know, any project is constrained mainly by: Time, Cost, Customer satisfaction, Scope, and Quality. It’s well know also that the requirements and specifications are part of the scope, which when met, result in customer satisfaction.

Manipulating reality on the other hand, comes if you are trying to hide the negative float during monthly or weekly updates.

As far as I’m concern, planning for a project involves the following:
1) WBS
2) Activity definition
3) Activity duration estimating
4) Activity sequencing
5) Resource loading
6) Cost Estimate
7) Cost Budgeting

After doing the above for the first cycle, you should have your planned programme, BUT it most likely do not follow the constraints and assumptions of the project. Some of the constraint you have is simply FOLLOW THE EMPLOYER AND THE CONTRACT SPECIFICATINS, which could need another cycle of planning to be met.

To do that, you start the iteration process of the planning, which might involve all or some of the following:
1) increase resources (Labours, Tools, equipment, money, etc..) for certain activities so they take less durations and get maximum or at least the applicable range of float.
2) change sequence of certain activities, hence, decreasing the critical path activities.
3) re-estimate cost, and budget.

For example, for a project of 100 villas, if you have only one team doing vila by villa the project will be very long, and most of the activities will be in the critical path, so increase your resources, make another team for example, and start both team in different zones, you can finish almost (theoretically) in half of the first duration, and you have critical path complying with the specifications.

The disaster or the reality manipulating comes if the Contractor originally did not follow the right planning methodology as above, and employed only one team, and after that realized that he must employ double the labours, which in his case wasn’t reflected in his pricing and budgeting, hereafter, he starts to manipulates the programme without real justifications. He will never finish in time, his project will fail, because it will be over cost, did not meet the stakeholder expectations (no customer satisfaction), and not on time. And he will wish he had planning Engineer.

I hope that’s clear.

I’m also recommending closing that thread as it went far from the original discussion of float ownership, if you like we could start other thread for the disruption or any other subject you like to discuss.

Thank you for reading that long thread.

Walied Abdeldayem, PMP

Walied,

To repeat the first sentence of my last post

"I didn’t say disruption had occurred, just that if it had, the contractor could claim."

For one party to claim damages for the other parties use of float, the party must have suffered a loss in the first place directly due to the other parties use of the float.

Therefore if the Employer uses up float and causes the Contractor no loss, the Contractor has no loss to claim for, and vice versa.

Generally whichever side you believe should own the the float, or no one, the issue is largely an academic debate of little importance in reality. Cause, effect and damage incurred will determine the Contractors right to claim in 99% of cases.

If the programme is incorporated into the contract, which it usually isn’t, or the contract states who owns the float, things may get more interesting but the principle of no loss, no entitlement to damages will stil usually prevail.

Hi guys,

The answer is fairly simple, use logic and resource levelling, and destroy all float, ie all activities have minimal or zero float, and as a result, the client does not want to own nothing, so there is no argument. You must just have the skills to explain the lack of float, and this can be ascribed to various problems, lack of available resourses, deliveries, etc

Dear Andrew , and Bijaya,

please note that you are making further assumptions to my exmaple, what u are saying is special case that could happen or could not happen. also, it can happen even there is no use of float, may be in acceleration order or deletion of certain works.

Andrew, I do not agree with you, there is a big difference between disruption and float using, and i wonder why u assumed that disruption occured? who said that when float is being used there will be disruption always?!!!! the contractor can claim disruption or any other damage if the contractor suffers damages due to the decision of the Owner, this can happen in delay, and could happen in acceleration as well, however, the float using is another issue. My example was clear that there is nothing else, just pure using of float, no disruption, no delays, no extra overhead, simply no damage!! and this situation is not theoritical or imagination, it happens alot and too often. but of course if it lead to damage to the Contractor the Contractor can claim for THAT damage, not for the float being used by the Owner, for example in the contractor cliam the title will be "Claim for Damage due to suspending the elevators works" and also please not that he can not say just disruption, the claim must be very specific, that damage, once more, might or might not happen, it is not based on the float consuming.

Se,

please refer to the following courts decisions:

1) ASBC Nos. 22,617,22,930,23,095,23,188,85-1 BCA |17,931 (1985)

2) 728 F. Supp. 12 (D.D.C 1990) 938 F.2d 230 (D.C. Cir. 1991)

3) IBCA Nos. 3236 et al., 96-2 BCA | 28,415 (1996)

hmmm, there is about 20 here, i can write it all if you like.

All of the above court decisions, and more, rejected the contractor EOT claim and damages, because the owners decisions did not impact the contractor performance, and there was float.

thank you,

Walied Abdeldayem, PMP

Andrew,
My example did not say that there is a disruption, and disruption is not a nicessary result from a delay, it could happend in acceleration as well, and may not happen at all.

In addition, even if the owner caused diruption, the contractor can claim for disruption, not for Float used by the Owner!! i hope it is clear for all. it is compeltly different situation, delay might cause disruption, and may not.

Once more, according to many courts dicisions, float belong to the project, and serves who come first.

Walied Abdeldayem, PMP

Hi guys,

I agree with Stephen,

I do not know why we have an arguments in a solved issue, which was solved by many courts. I agree that the float issue was an argument, but that was early 1970s.

For all who claim that the float is belong to the contractor alone, please answer this:

- in the approved programme, a certain activity had 10 days float, the owner delayed the approved material related to this activity for 10 (or less) days.

1) can the contractor claim for time extenstion? (No)
2) can the contgractor claim for any combensation? (No)

I think from the above situation it is clear that the owner used a float of certian activity, and the contractor has nothing to do! this is a un-doubt issue in any court, and is addressed by the Time Impact Analysis for delay analysis.

regards,

Who does it belong?
Who can use it?
Who need to pay it?

I do not know who does it belong.
But once you have a delay, you are using the float.(no one can change the fact)
the question is do you need to pay it?

IMO it is depend on the contract.

e.g. a project is divided into 4 contracts. the client defined LD milestones for each contract.
if the first contract caused 1 week delay of his LD milestone
. that means he used 1 week of the total float, and he need to pay it (LD)

the 2nd contract also had 1 week delay,but it was cause by late delivery of equipment supplied by the client. that means he also used 1 week of total float, but he do not need to pay it

Clearly defined contract and interface milestones should minimize the problem.

Nice to see this arguement goes on and on. No definative answer to the question but possible outcomes:

1. The contract defines who owns it expressly.
2. The contract defines who owns it impliedly, eg the programme is a contract document and to vary it required an instruction from the CA.
3. Contractor owns it - see arguements below
4. Employer owns it - ditto 3.
5. The best option in my opinion, who needs it can use it as long as it does not cost the other party any money. If it does then the party using it should compensate the other party - which 99.9999999% of the time would be the Employer compensating the Contractor. I’m trying to think of where the Contractor may use it at a cost to the Employer - I’m sure there must be an obscure reason somewhere.

Hi Se,

I think you are right. It`s strange, I was doing a bit of research on this subject, and it seems to have caused problems on a number of occasions. The best advice I was able to find was get the question of "ownership" sorted out in the contract.

An article about who owns the float that I found quite interesting can be reached through the link below:

Who Owns the Float

Regards

Chris Oggham

The argument goes like this ... who owns the contingency in the contract price. The contingency in the contract price is for the contractor not the client.

I hope this explains.

Anees

Se

Come across this before with previous jobs. The arguments used have been that the contractor ’owns’ the float which therefore gives him some contingency for delays. If the client owns the float then their argument is that activities - and possibly the project - can finish earlier.

The contract can use the float to allow for delays, to give a ’comfort factor’ and assign his resources the best way - smoothing, levelling etc.

Cheers

Nige