Float belong to the owner

Ownership of float is always a question of debate. Everyone wants to ownthe float. Float ownership depends purely on contract specification and if the specs are silent, float should be either used by the one who use it first (first come first serve) or 50-50.

For new contracts, prior to signing the contract agreement, the ownership of the float should be identified in contract specs.

Hi Guys,

I am new in this site. I never thought a site like this actually exist. and it feels good.. because most of the time projects here in the Philippines only have one planner in a project. And i have no one to talk on matters in planning and scheduling. Specially if your counter part in the contractor side don't know how to speak English(pure chinese who needs interpreter).

Anyway, I am a Planner by accident, because our planner suddenly took another job. And I filled the shoes. Nevertheless, I had always been in Project Management, Project Coordination and Control. Also taking up Master's degree in Management.

Eventhough Primavera is just a tool, its was hard to start . Started from scratch a year ago (with no formal training), and as of now i feel im doing progress. But I have no one to compare with.

That's why I hope i can learn much from here.

First: On the issue of Floats;

As i could remeber there are two floats: Total float and Free Float, we all know the meaning of each float.

So, Who owns the float?

For me being part of the agreement between two contracting parties, each parties are entitled to the float. that is why we have a claims analysis to determine who cause the delay in the first place (which also translate to the usage of float).

For some, they will just divide the float by two, for the owner and the contarctor, lets face it both parties affects the delay in a project one way or another.

It is previously metioned that we should look on the work plan, well i would also prefer it that way (crushing the activity if possible) but because of financial contraints contarctors would mostlikely use the floats without acquirng delays (idealistically).

But Floats are not very useful specially when the critical path changes from time to time. this is why using floats should be controlled.

I hope that my answers would help.

Also I hope you guys would be helpful for issues i might raise.. more power to all.

Hi Guys,

I am new in this site. I never thought a site like this actually exist. and it feels good.. because most of the time projects here in the Philippines only have one planner in a project. And i have no one to talk on matters in planning and scheduling. Specially if your counter part in the contractor side don't know how to speak English(pure chinese who needs interpreter).

Anyway, I am a Planner by accident, because our planner suddenly took another job. And I filled the shoes. Nevertheless, I had always been in Project Management, Project Coordination and Control. Also taking up Master's degree in Management.

Eventhough Primavera is just a tool, its was hard to start . Started from scratch a year ago (with no formal training), and as of now i feel im doing progress. But I have no one to compare with.

That's why I hope i can learn much from here.

First: On the issue of Floats;

As i could remeber there are two floats: Total float and Free Float, we all know the meaning of each float.

So, Who owns the float?

For me being part of the agreement between two contracting parties, each parties are entitled to the float. that is why we have a claims analysis to determine who cause the delay in the first place (which also translate to the usage of float).

For some, they will just divide the float by two, for the owner and the contarctor, lets face it both parties affects the delay in a project one way or another.

It is previously metioned that we should look on the work plan, well i would also prefer it that way (crushing the activity if possible) but because of financial contraints contarctors would mostlikely use the floats without acquirng delays (idealistically).

But Floats are not very useful specially when the critical path changes from time to time. this is why using floats should be controlled.

I hope that my answers would help.

Also I hope you guys would be helpful for issues i might raise.. more power to all.

Hi Danya

Thank you for a blast of fresh air into an old and rather stale debate.

There are of course many methods of hiding float and in my careerr as a delay analyst I have invented some and discovered a lot of others.

Purely in the interests of research what is your preferred method of hiding float so no one can find it?

Best regards

Mike Testro

IMO (and I have read all your politically correct statements which unfortunately dont always work with scheming contractors or bullying Clients):

Float belongs to the person who hides it best

:)

Mohammed, I have worked on both sides of the fence and i have to say, unless you can prove that the contractor will miss the contract milestone, you shouldnt penalise him but rather order him / her (as i am a woman :)) to accelerate or mitigate the lost time (throw more resources at the job or bring on a seperate subbie to do that work etc). You may have to pay for it, but that is something you have to negotiate (who's at fault etc). I would look at your contract which will discuss EOT and costs.

Float is not real – it did not exist in any contract before 1957 and has limited use.

If you want to understand ‘float’ see: Calculating and Using Float @  http://www.mosaicprojects.com.au/PDF/Schedule_Float.pdf and more importantly:

Float - Is It Real? @ http://www.mosaicprojects.com.au/Resources_Papers_043.html

As my colleague Earl Glenwright, PE, PSP often reminds me, there is an Eastern Pennsylvania (Pennsylvania Dutch) saying that is very applicable to the misunderstanding and use of ‘float’

   "As you travel on thru life brother
           Whatever be your goal,
                Keep your eye upon the donut
                       And not upon the hole"

And so it is with ‘float’. Practical schedulers keep their focus on working the plan, not the ‘float’.

I agree with the openion saying that the project own the float
who ever consume it has it . the counter side has not any right to claim any thing towrd him .

- Any schedule approved become part of the contract and taken in account during any claim/ disput raised between the project participator .

is it is client right to have damages if the contractor consume some float with out affecting the contract milestones??????????

Dear Mike,



Your suggestions is completely correct. It is needed to be detailed and pointed at the schedule if we are aware of what is going to be happen. The Critical point about that subject is (Maybe I cannot explain clearer) that majority of the times planning of testing, comm. or inspections will be prepared nearly 50% of the system completions so the CLIENT always will use the early dates as their own subc.&procurement schedule, so as a CONTRACTOR we should not depend on floats and plan our works according to that.



Apart from all, I am a fresh collegue of yours, I will try to learn and share from/with all of you here.



Best Regards,



Safak

Hi Safak



You say that you have been a planner for 2 - 7 years.



Before that you must have gained a lot of experience in your field by actually building things.



You say that if you "can’t climb everest don’t plan to" which is the same philosphy that I have been trying to promote since I started with PP.



I agree with all your points except one.



If you know that there is going to be a test period carried out by another sub contractor - but you do not know how long - then fill the gap between "ready for valve lagging" and the latest date for "start valve lagging" with an activity called "valve testing by others".



This will put the clients work firmly in the middle of the critical path and it will sharpen his attention.



When the testing is done put the actual duration in place.



This will either give you more float or demonstrate delay.



Please let us have more input on other threads.



Best regards



Mike Testro

Charlie,



Critical is normally taken to mean that demonstrated to be on the critical path of a programme in a CPM analysis and I would agree with Ronald that this is the longest path dictating the completion of the project.



If sectional completion dates are involved then it is the longest path of activities dictating the completion of each section AND the longest path dictating the completion of the project. Using zero float as a measure of criticality is useless if the programme is full of constraints. Constraints are usually one of the first things any analyst will look for in a programme to see where the contractor has been trying to prop up his case.



That said, as a recent Scottish case showed that accurate CPM analysis is not always possible and a number of activities could be thought of as being "critical to completion" although they would not all show up as being critical in a CPM analysis. ie, it was obvious that completion was delayed by these events such as variations to the scope of work given after the current completion date had passed.



Most contracts tie the entitlement of an eot to an employer liable event that has caused a delay to the completion date. I’ve been involved in some contracts that didn’t and the discussions and debate become pretty lively then. But normally, if the event doesn’t cause delay to the completion date then there is no entitlement to an eot, although disruption might be claimable.



The eot is normally the period of delay equal to the delay to the completion date, not the duration of the event itself – hence float amongst other things is taken account of. I’m ignoring those contracts that give entitlement to an eot for “likely delay” rather than “actual delay” such as the JCT conditions.



So when determining what the eot should be it is a case of working out what the events affect on the completion date is, not the event lasted for 60 days therefore the eot is 60 days.



But like everything we discuss on here, the devil is in the detail of the contract wording. This will define under what circumstances entitlement to an eot arises and what needs to be considered in working out the period of the eot.



If your contract does tie any entitlement to an eot to the delay to the completion date then your contractor can not just say “I plan to start but I can not start so I was able to start after 60 calendar days, therefore, as per delay analysis as built as plan: I’m entitled to 60 calendar days”.

Critical Delay Caused: This can be derived from as-built programme. Ownership of float question comes only during entitlemnet of extension of time by contractor.



Ownership of float depends upon which method u r using to demonstrate entitlement to own the float. The method depends upon the evidence available, existing progrtamme evidence and particular circumstances. There are mainly only two methods, of which there r different variants and hybrids given different names (Impact as-planned, as-planned v/s as-built, as-built but-for, collapsed as-built, time impact method, window slice method).



Method of analysis will b means of demonstrating causation and inevitably and this will be theoretical based on disputed facts and opinion, even though u r using as-built method.



The method of analysis using as-built programme has d advantage that it creates accurate record of actual progress if based on traceable evidence. In practice, it is necessary to focus the analysis on key areas of delay to avoid unnecessary expense. This makes the method iterative. It is not usually sufficient to simply compare the as-built programme to the planned programme without verifying the planned programme. It is necessary instead to prepare a construction logic which explains the sequence of events and reasons for the actions taken and delay caused.



The method of analysis using time impact or snapshot approach requires base programme initially adopted by the contractor to be updated for each event. The update requires the construction logic to be examined for any change with new activities created if necessary and the durations re-evaluated. This update may create a new critical path and an extended period. The updated programme is then updated for the next event and so on. If data is not available at the time of the delay then another method needs to be used. The advantage of this method is that it records the unfolding of events and places actions in context.



Ownership of float is not a weekly meeting issue and will be raised only during EOT claims. Whatever method is adopted, it is necessary that the expert preparing the programme understands the construction issues involved as well as the limitations of the particular programme software and the method. The expert must also be able to explain the analysis to allow the judge, arbitrator, and adjudicator or A/E to understand.



Cheers,



Ravi

Andrew



You are a very interesting person. You add the phrase



"amount of critical delay cause"



of which the most influential word is "CRITICAL"



This means a process to identify critical



What critical, critical as if a man is dying that why he is in critical condition or



Critical as in critical path, meaning activities with total float equal to zero (take note Mr. Ronald Winter prefers longest path since activities with total float equal to zero can be manupulated by setting constrainst "zero total float")



I’ll come back, i have lots of work to do,



but this is intersting because I will move on to



the impact of your idea as applied to delay analysis as built as plan wherein the contractor can just say "I plan to start but i can not start so i was able to start after 60 calendar days, therefor,



as per delay analysis as built as plan: I’m entitled for 60 calendar days

Charlie,



You be rude, never known that before: Actually going through your example as per SCL Protocol:



Excavation has 90 days float



Start of excavation delayed by 60 days by Employer, (reasonable mobilisation period should be allowed following employer delay).



Excavation still has 30 days float - therefore can not be critical to completion and would not entitle the contractor to any extension of time.



If the numbers were reversed, (90 and 60), then the contractor would normally be entitled to 30 days eot.



Under the Protocol ,(and most contracts), you are only entitled to an eot for the amount of critical delay caused.

Anoon,



This is why I proposed the owner will own the float.



The cpm schedule is usually prepared by the contractor. The owner representative will review the cpm schedule, but, the contractor will always assert that this is his program, this is the way he tender the project, this is the way he intend to built the project, etc. etc. blah blah blah.



So nobody can stop the contractor from manipulating the float.



Scenario 1, activity excavation have float of 90 calendar days, day one the contractor cannot start due to owner responsibility (maybe no access given) after 45 calendar days, site access is available, but contractor cannot start work because the equipment to start excavation was sent to another project, finally after 60 calendar days, contractor was abel to start digging.



as per eotprotocal by scl???????, contractor claim 60 calendar days delays including associated cost.



MY RESPONSE!!!!!!!!!!



BULLSHIT



EOT protocol by scl is not part of contract document.



Since i am rude and unethical, i will be sent to another project, 4m X 4m doghouse.



Then, I will resigned.



Anobody want to hire me.

Just for clarification – when I say ongoing delay, I mean that critical delay caused when the event is over.



Say the employer instructs a variation and it’s going to take 20 days to do it and the contractor is entitled to an eot for this variation. The contractor plugs this new activity into the programme and it causes 20 days of critical delay. The contractor does have an obligation to try and reduce this 20 days if he can, maybe by reprogramming the work sequence, possibly by increasing resources on the variation work, etc, etc.



The contractor does what he can and at the end of doing the variation work he has managed to reduce the critical delay to 15 days. The contractor is entitled to 15 days eot for this variation.



There is no further ongoing obligation on the contractor during the rest of the project to try and reduce the 15 days. His obligation is only to mitigate the affect of the event itself as and when it occurs.



Once it’s finished, there is no further obligation on the contractor BUT there is an obligation on the contract administrator now to award an eot in a fair and impartial manner, (subject to notice provisions etc).



And if this process was properly followed on every contract - there would be a lot less disputes.

the starting point is, there is no (always!) approved Program/Schedule that shows the float, so nobody ever cares what the float is all about! the problem arise once the contractor invented the program with the fabricated floats! or no float at all!

There are always some simple things contract drafters could do to make this area of project management simpler - like expressly state who owns the float, but for some reason it never seems to happen. The NEC has taken the trouble to sort out terminal float though.



I don’t know of a standard form that states, (impliedly or expressly), that the contractor is obliged to mitigate a delay that he is entitled to an extension of time for once that entitlement has accrued - other than an obligation to make the delay as short as possible in the first place by using reasonable or best endeavours.



If the contractor was under an ongoing obligation to reduce a delay then how could you ever ever work out what the eot should be during the project?



For example - the actual critical delay was 10 days but as the Contract Administrator I think the contractor should be able to reduce that to 5 days by the end of the project so I’m going to give him a 5 day eot - this would make a nonsense of any eot provisions and risk lots of arguments over the prevention principle if the contractor failed to reduce the delay to 5 days by the end of the project let alone a lot of arguments from the contractor that he is entitled to the full 10 days.



If the delay is 10 days and the entitlement to an eot is 10 days there is no further obligation on the contractor to mitgate that 10 days. I know eot’s are rarely that simple or clear cut but this is at least the starting position.



Float, personally I think if the contract is silent then the starting point should be the project owns it, it’s the fairest starting point and afterall, if the parties had thought about it at the time of contract and wanted it to be different wouldn’t they have said so in their contract? Answers on a postcard to that please!!!!!!!!!

Hi All



It is difficult to distinuish between a contractor going faster than planned and too much time in the programme to start with.



It is common practice for planners to pad out durations to use up float and it all comes unstuck when the work is progressed.



As I said - it is better to put in some time contingency bars to absorb the float.



Best regards



Mike T.

Andrew,



Interesting and bright idea.



This makes project management complicated. I think PMI should take your idea seriuosly and start revamp the whole project management though.



I still believe in the traditional project management though: on schedule, within budget and within specified quality.



Who own the float?????? Let this be stated in the contract to avoid misunderstanding and I would prefer: the owner own the float, in this way the contractor will prepare a cpm schedule with minimal float.





Constructive acceleration may help save the day for best project management practive, maybe, but then what will become of our peers from forensic claims specialist??



Cheers

Dear Planners,



In first glance, consuming from float should never cause a time extension Claim because it will not effect the end dates (I assume). But the float is a tool which CONTRACTORS are using with some other indicators to cover their asses (I worked on CONTRACTOR side on my projects) unfortunately.



In a good construction schedule it is impossible to have 0 floats in every activity due to mathematical nature of CPM. But a good resource loaded, detailed and forecasted schedule should have smaller floats. A work should not plan to be completed at some 5 days in next 2 months. There will be a time to be planned due to procurement, crewing, QA inspections or others.



Who owns the float? I don’t know who owns the float but CLIENT will (should) emphasize and force the CONTRACTOR to have short floats and usage of early dates and resource histograms as a project progress monitoring tools at the planning & control procedures, construction schedule approval period. These items can be included in CONTRACT with the Lvl1 CCMS.



The reason to force the early dates as a target is that apart from the critical path system, item or works in locations should have an agreed completion dates apart from any contractual, cost associated and total project completion dates. There can be many commissioning activities could be done by CLIENT ‘s other subcontractors or there can be other paper work that lead a further effect on your scope that are impossible to identify at the preparation of CONTRACTORS Construction schedule. For example, the leak tests that are going to be performed by other subcontractor of your CLIENT will affect your scope as you cannot insulate the valves and fittings. Some activity you think that have floats, can be critical in reality. You cannot know until that kind of items become visible.



Somebody will show up and talk about the Everest like S-Curves because of using early data in all sort of progress monitoring. But the best schedule is which you are going to do really. If you cannot climb Everest do not plan it. The front-loaded work schedules are highly popular due to budget and early high-profit margins for some Project Managers (Management Teams). Some Project Managers (Management Teams) tends to have back-loaded programs that requires less value to earn in the start of the project to keep the relations good with the CLIENT and to hide the late mobilizations (which will occur 90%). As a CONTRACTOR you can use the late dates as the indicators of critical areas.

Mainly CLIENT wants mitigations from you for being late from dates and progresses. You can use the early S-Curve as a B item indicator for mitigations and late S-Curve as A item indicator which are critical and probably will effect end dates badly (Trends could give ideas).



When your CLIENT asks you why an equipment erection did not completed as in schedule & the inspectors from another country is coming, it is not wise to say that I have a float in my schedule that you approved.



Best Regards,



Safak

Hi Everyone



As usual I have joined in at the tail end of the debate.



Firstly with regard to mitigation if a client delay occurs then in most circumstances the Contractor is obliged to mitigate the effect of the delay PROVIDED it doesn’t cost any money to do so.

This is usually set down in such contractual phrases as "reasonable measures" or "reasonable endeavours". Beware the phrase "best endeavours" as this may mean spending money.



Secondly regarding Who Owns the Float. The SCL protocolskips around this wuestion but indicates that the float may belong to the party that claims it first. This 1st Come 1st Served basis is a useful starting point.



The protocol also indicates that it is good planning practice to put in a "Contractors Time Risk Contingency" bar thus taking up the float at the very outset.



Best regards



Mike Testro

I think we’ve gone off the purpose of this thread a bit but float, mitigation and acceleration are pretty intertwined.



But it is true, where the contractor then goes faster, (or appears to catch up time), of his own accord, it gets an even more interesting debate.



There is a very very commonly held but mistaken view that the contractor has some ongoing obligation to mitgate employer delays throughout the contract - not true, although the contractor does has an ongoing obligation to mitgate his own delays. If the contractor is entitled to an eot then it is the event itself and not the ongoing delay effect of the event that the contractor is obliged to mitigate, (normally).

A lot of people think the reference to mitigate the delay in a contract is to the project delay but it normally isn’t.



Very simple case - take a 100 day project – obviously the contractor has 100 days to do the original scope of work. On day 20 there is a 10 day employer critical delay. Assuming the contractor has an entitlement to an eot, the new project duration should now become 110 days – which still gives the contractor 100 clear days to do the original scope of work, ie the original contract period is preserved with regard the original scope of work and therefore there is no reason why the contractor should have to do anything faster than originally planned.



But if the Employer doesn’t grant the eot or wants the contractor to still finish earlier than 110 days, then the contract period for the originally planned work is now only 90 days – shorter than the original period and hence the contractor has to accelerate.



The contractor’s obligation is to mitigate the actual delay event, ie in the above example, try and make the actual 10 day delay as short as possible if it is within the contractor’s power to do so. The contractor is contractually entitled to 110 days to complete the project, he has no obligation to do it in any shorter period of time. With the eot he still has the original 100 days to do the original 100 days of work in.



Once the 10 day delay is over and assuming the contractor is entitled to an eot for the delay, (and the full 10 days), then the contractor has no further obligation to mitigate. Asking him too go faster after the event and reduce the 10 day over run from the original completion date amounts to acceleration.

Well I guess this is where the difference is. Interestingly, contracts that I have encountered specifically stated the obligation of the contractor to mitigate not only the delay event but the project delay. Which contract are you referring to? I would certainly not recommend it if I’m working for the client/owner.



Again as I said earlier, it boils down to what the contract document is saying.

Mark,



Acceleration is usually a good source of debate and legal fun.



Actually, the costs of accelerating are often less than the costs of granting an eot so it is an option an employer should bear in mind.



The fun really begins when the Employer opts to agree and pay for acceleration and the contractor doesn’t perform.

Seems clear enough to me what you meant:



"If I’m working for the client, I would insist that the contractor has the obligation to mitigate delay which is finishing the 60 day task to only 30 days. Take note I used the word mitigate not accelerate.”





The contractor has no obligation to mitgate activites following the delay, his obligation is to mitgate the delay event, not its subsequent effect. His entitlement to an eot has arisen and should be honoured.

With all due respect, there’s nothing mentioned in my posts about instructing the contractor to accelerate. What I underscored is the obligation of the contractor to mitigate delay. If you go back to post #8 item #3 of armando moriles, he clearly stated that their actual duration for activity B is 30 days not 60 days without them being told by the client to accelerate. This seems to me a mitigation measure by the contractor or the duration is too long.



I would certainly appreciate it if we post our comment not only on the context of the replies to the query but to the query itself.

Oh what a topical subject, I think Ronald has summed it up. One point that I did notice was from Se de Leon:



“If I’m working for the client, I would insist that the contractor has the obligation to mitigate delay which is finishing the 60 day task to only 30 days. Take note I used the word mitigate not accelerate.”



The contractor’s obligation is normally to mitigate the actual delay event which does not mean that he has to accelerate subsequent activities to overcome the effect of a previous delay, (unless of course the delay is the contractor’s liability). Instructing a contractor to shorten the duration of a subsequent activity is asking him to accelerate whatever term you wish to use.



In the example below, it would normally be the contractor’s obligation to try and mitigate the Employer caused 30 day delay. Assuming he has done this, (if it within his power to do so), then the contractor gets a 30 day eot.



With the eot the contractor still has 60 days available to complete task B – hence asking the contractor “to mitigate delay which is finishing the 60 day task to only 30 days” is acceleration, not mitigation, as you are effectively reducing the contractor’s contract period by 30 days - I assume by not properly giving the contractor the eot he is entitled too. Constructive acceleration in the USA.

Ronald,



You may have missed last part of my comment #9.



Regards,

Sigfredo

I cannot believe that I have read 2 pages of response on this matter and not one of the contributors included a reference to the contract documents. First and foremost, what does the contract documents say about float and float ownership?



If the documents say, “the Owner” then the Owner owns the float. If the documents say, “the Contractor” then the Contractor owns it. If it calls for the project to own it, then whoever uses it reasonably first gets it. If the document is silent on this issue but mentions, “project float”, then the project most likely owns it.



If the contract is totally silent on this issue, then you are betting a lot of money on opinions. I am not sure of your legal environment where you live, but in the USA if you run around loudly insisting on redefining the contract your way without consideration of the other party’s viewpoint, then you are a trial layer’s best friend and you will probably be responsible for helping him buy a brand new luxury car, pay for his kids’ braces, and a tummy-tuck for his wife. Good luck!

Hi Andrew



There is another thread that may interest you:



SAMPLE FORMAT- EXTENSION OF TIME CLAIMS



This is a situation where the contract apparently requires unlimited resource deployment.



I have tried to work it out and I would welcome your input.



Best regards



Mike Testro

Why would you be charged with LD?



I know where you’re coming from now. That’s the very essence of float is owned by the project. Any party can use it but not abuse it. If the client were able to use it first, bad for you. If what happened was, you were the first one to use it, good for you. Unfortunately, you are on the receiving end in this case.



If you think all float has been exhausted at this point, then the only remedy is to manage your project well, document any delay event. Never give the client any reason, even small ones, to claim delay against you. In other words, cover your ass always.



Se

Se,



Thanks for your comments and yes I do agree that the float belongs to the project as a shared commodity and not to the owner. However, just for argument purposes, in our case the critical path responsibility matrix clearly identifies the owner’s responsibility. Being the EPC contractor directly dealing with the owner, we accepted owner’s claim of the positive float we generated to cover up their delay in terms of flexibility and proactivity. But then, we specified that in accordance with the provisions of the contract we reserve our right of ownership of the float we generated. Because what will happen now is that although we were advance on our first activity of the critical path by 30 days, we will still be charged with LD should we fail to attain contract finish date.





Regards,



Arman

... unless what is written in the contract documents is nonsense.

Hi Armando,



This is where float becomes a huge issue in projects. If I’m working for the client, I would insist that the contractor has the obligation to mitigate delay which is finishing the 60 day task to only 30 days. Take note I used the word mitigate not accelerate. If I’m working for the contractor, what I would do is to demonstrate to the client the "real cost" you incurred because of the delay attributed to the client not as a global delay event. From the opinion of many in this thread even myself, float is owned by the project, I don’t think the contractor can reserve the right to owning positive float. This is just my opinion, the best basis still is what’s written in your contract documents.



Se

Guys,



In one of our current projects, activities in critical path are as follows:



Activity A (By client) = 90 days

Activity B (By contractor) = 60 days (predecessor A fs)

Activity C (By contractor) = 60 days (predecessor B fs)

Activity D (By contractor) = 240 days (predecessor C fs)



Total = 450 days



1. Completion of activity A (By client) was delayed by 30 days;

2. Contractor submits EOT for the 30 days;

3. Contractor actual duration for activity B was on only 30 days against 60 days in the programme;

4. Client rejected EOT claim in lieu of activity B;

5. Contractor notified the client for the record that although the claim was rejected in lieu of activity B, contractor reserved right of ownership of its positive float generated as major activities are still about to start.



note: Contractor already started activities in parallel with activities A & B but were not part of the contract critical path.





Any comment(s) or suggestion(s) regarding float ownership regarding our case would be highly apprecaited.



Regards,



Arman

I refer you all to an article written by Anthony Morgan Director & Expert in Construction Disputes in Forensic Services for Price Waterhouse Cooper "Who owns the float?".

A common occurrence is for an owner to force the completion of construction/pre-commissioning to a contractual date that gives him ’float’ on his operational commissioning/ramp-up phase duration but still retains a product revenue time-line which satisfies investors/banks and other bean-counters. This usually results in multiple critical paths for the EPC/EPCM manager and a nightmare for the project planner(s). Thus it can be said that, in these instances (quite common in my experience), the owner ’owns’ the project float.

The float belongs to the Project

Why don’t you ask the client what he means by this, with an example?



Just because he keeps repeating "float belongs to owner" doesn’t mean he knows what he is talking about, or can explain what he means, or that it means anything.



The float belongs to the Tasks, and whoever is doing the construction management owns the Tasks.

Is you client volunteering to take over the construction management?

Hi Mohd.,



Just look for FLOAT OWNERSHIP in search



Same has been discussed many times on this forum. But, for me it is First Come - First Serve Basis.



If your program is approved, then whatever the float is available, is all available for project team. This is all verbal fight, whose float is or who owns it?



As far as program is concerned, it is very difficult for a particular person to claim for FLOAT. Untill and unless, the end dates are not moving forward, it reall doesn’t matter. Let the client scream and make him feel happy, that he owns the float.



U can refer the following link to download some good stuff for EOT. It may help u bit more.



http://www.eotprotocol.com/



As far as verbal fight is concerned, CLIENT will always keep his hand up and for Claims and reports, the Contractor will.



Cheers,



Ravi

Nestor,



Then which one caused a delay to the completion date, ie caused critical delay? If the employer did then the contractor will most likely be entitled to an EoT.

Hi Andrew/Mike,



There will be no argument if the contractor has no delay. The contractor and the client both caused 10 days delay each.



Cheers..

Thanks Mike,



Nestor,



What Mike said is correct, but usually if the delay was the client liability and it caused delay to completion, the contractor would be due an EoT irrespective of who owned the float.



Most contracts define an entitlement to an EoT as arising when an employer or neutral delay causing delay to completion occurs. Therefore if this occurs, the contractor has a right to an EoT as the condition has been satisfied.



Francis,



I agree, but how do we define float? Ironically we all know what it is, we all use it, we all can tell at a given point in a project how long a period we think it is, etc, but if we try and expressly define it, are we just solving one argument and raising the possibility of two more with equally intangible answers?

Hi Andrew,



It is important to resolve the issue regarding the owner of the floats, even if it is theoretical in nature... Many claims in construction industry is based on actual events but performed in theoretical presentation in which if you do re-programming will give different results.



Im concern because the accumulation of floats consumption will lead to rise in resource requirements in the look ahead schedule... I know, float is not realistic... Maybe 10 days is 50 days, but the science community dedicated their time to explain to us because it is important...It is a good practice to really understand, define, and use properly the tools in management from practical to theoretical....



If we define floats properly,, we will not loose anything, right?...But we will gain knowledge that maybe useful in our claim for extention of time.......



Like e = m2 and relativity sounds funny if you think... But advance science use it in a higher level project and dumping newtons law of motion as a primitive stone age theory... Now, Unified Field Theories are not being develop as of this time... Again, if somebody proves it, it will change the way we think....



Thnx and more power,

Francis

Hi Nestor



The delay event would have caused 20 days delay to use up the 10 days float and then cause 10 days delay.



Best regards



Mike Testro



pd Sorry Andrew - you have had a busy day so I thought I would save you the bother of answering this one.

Hi Andrew,



Say the project is completed 10 days delay. The contractor is claiming 10 days due to fault of the client however the client reject the claim because the activity that was delayed has 10 days float.



The contractor is then exposed to LD for 10 days or get paid prolongation cost for 10 days.



Cheers..

Francis,



We all know what float is and what the effect of using it up is - but what are you using up, how do you actually quantify it?



It’s a period of time, but a completely imaginary and hypothetical period of time whilst the project is ongoing. It’s an estimated period of time from the programme, it’s an informed guess. When the project is complete you may be able to demonstrate that it never actually existed at all. It is a time period on a piece of paper called the programme, but what about if the programme is wrong or changes as it inevitably does.



I believe the project owns the float, but what is it the project owns - a hypothetical period of time that allows events to occur without causing delay, either to subsequent activities or to the completion date, depending what float we are talking about. So is it of use to either side to own it, does it matter who owns it?



The concept of float is of great use in managing a project, especially resources, but if a delay can be demonstrated then the party suffering the delay can usually claim something. If the contractor owns the end float he claims for an EoT, if he doesn’t he claims for prolongation. If non critical events are delayed there may be the basis of a claim for disruption and or loss and expense. Ownership of float neither enhances or prevents the chances of these claims being made in most contracts.



If the baseline programme showed 10 weeks float but later in the project an updated programme shows 5 weeks due to no ones fault, (eg weather), has the owner of the float still got 10 weeks or 5 weeks now?



Except for perhaps helping the argument that if one party uses float up and then later the other party causes delay and says but for the other party’s earlier use of float we wouldn’t have caused delay, which is not often run as it is generally the case that the effect of an event is assessed when it occurred irrespective of previous events, (and not applicable to neutral events like the one above), can someone tell me why owning the float is seen to be so advantageous?

Hi Nestor,



As I have said in my previous notes, the float is own by the project... Whoever consumes it first will enjoy its privilege but goes beyond it suffers the consequence...



Pls. read my previous explanation regarding this.



Thnx and more power,

Francis