(1) Explain your problem, don't simply post "This isn't working". What were you doing when you faced the problem? What have you tried to resolve - did you look for a solution using "Search" ? Has it happened just once or several times?
(2) It's also good to get feedback when a solution is found, return to the original post to explain how it was resolved so that more people can also use the results.
Morning,
Pretty new to the concepts of planned completion date/completion date and terminal float, so pls bear with me.
Should planned completion date and completion date be the same on an initial programme submitted for acceptance?
Thanks.
Printer-friendly version
Send to friend
(1) planned completion date = date when contractor's programme shows he will complete the works
(2) completion date = date when contract stipulates work must be completed by
(3) early planned completion date = a special case of (1), when it is earlier than (2). This is when you get terminal float.
Gary, both you and Anoon are referring to a "planned early completion date"/"early planned completion date".
I have not come across this terminology, is this the "planned completion date"?
There is no contractual obligation either way.
For an employer, I see it as a good thing for your contractor to be showing an early planned completion, because:
a) it means some contractor delay can occur without impacting on your completion date
b) there's a stronger chance of getting beneficial use early
c) it is indicative that the contractor has put some thought into his programme durations, rather than just filling up the time between start and completion.
Thanks Gary.
We (employer) operate under NEC3.
Trying to understand pros/cons of the initial contractor's showing terminal float or not as we receive both types.
I have not found anything under lasue 31.2 that says it should or it should not.
I guess if you have any intention to complete your project early, you need to reveal it to your client in the early stage of the project (Planned Early Completion); otherwise, you may not get any chance of claiming for acceleration cost.
Thanks Mike.
Thinking about it now, this makes prefect sense for the contractor to have have some terminal float on the initial programme as this "absorbs" contractor's delays, am I corect in saying this?
How then is the terminal float duration assessed? Is there maximum/minium?
E.
It largely depends on what type of contract you are worknig under.
If it's an NEC type contract, which recognises terminal float as belonging to the contractor, then yes generally your planned completion would be earlier than completion date on initial programme (but doesn't have to be)
If it's a contract type where terminal float belongs to the client or the "project" (ie whoever runs late first), then it is the contractor's interest to show planned completion = completion date by hiding float in task durations, and in the client's interests to try and catch him doing it (difficult to prove).
Hi Emmanuelle
Welcome to planning planet
It is good planning practice to have the planned completion date a bit earlier than the contract completion date.
This is sometimes called "Terminal Float" and the contractor often claims it as his own buffer.
Best regards
Mike Testro
Email: PPadmin@planningplanet.com
Replies