Whose Baby is total float ???????//

Dear Friends,

I my understanding time schedule is Contractor’s means and wise. Therefore floats are allocated to the project and particulrly to the Contractor in order to adjust duties and standard methods statment of his own works.

Engineer is to approve the logic of execution as presented by the Contractor.

Contractor’s liability can be called if he didnot make a good use of his own methods.

Engineer and Employer cannot use such float against the Contractor and couldn’t take advantage from existance of floats.



Ernest J.

What about the consideration that total float only exists in Time. Once a project has been resourced (by application of prelims, supervision, plant etc) float disappears. After that point in time any change to the programme can have an effect on cost if not completion date.



Anyway you got no real work to do Richard?

What about this… These sentiments are not originally mine but I think I will adopt them:



Float is unallocated time

Contingency is allocated time to be used for unforeseen risks

Therefore Float Time is not the same as Contingency Time



So, if you want to keep hold of terminal float allocate it as contingency time.



Think of it like money. If on a site there is a pile of money that belongs to nobody (okay that’s a bit of a stretch of the imagination) it can be used by anyone if they get into financial difficulty. The piles of money that the Employer and Contractor have in their bank account that they call ‘contingency sums’ can only be used by themselves. The same is true of that bit of time the Employer has tucked away between the Contract Date and the drop-dead date when the facility is needed.



Hey, am I rambling or does any of this make sense?

Float in project management is the amount of time that a terminal element in a project network can be delayed by, without causing a delay to:



subsequent terminal elements (free float)

project completion date (total float).

An activity that has a total float equal to zero is said to be a ’critical activity’, this means that any delay in the finish time of this activity will cause the entire project to be delayed. A critical activity has a free float equal to zero, but the opposite is not always correct.



Regards.

Richard has basically got it right.



A contract is primarily about the apportionment of risk.



Some risks you win, some you lose and that goes for Client and Contractor - you can’t have your cake and eat it although many try.



Generally, if the risk of time is with the Contractor (as it usually is), he makes a promise to do X amount of work in Z time - if he betters it he wins, if he doesn’t he loses.



He doesn’t promise (normally) to do X + Y amount of work in Z time - and can he if at the time of contract he doesn’t know what the Y amount of work is.



But if, as is often the case, he ends up doing X + Y amount of work and if the Y amount of work can be accomodated within the time Z, he doesn’t get any extra time related costs. ie the Employer gets the benefit of any float. Only if this extra work causes a delay to the completion date, (ie affects critical activities) does the Contractor get any more time related money and an EoT. (He may get disruption costs but that’s a completely different subject)



In the case where the Contractor decides he can finish a 40wk job in 36wks but does not make this known to the Employer and the contract period remains at 40wks, then if he takes 40wks due to additional work - tough, he doesn’t get an EoT but he may get prolongation costs for being on site longer. These would be very difficult to prove however if he’d kept his intention to finish early from the Employer and showed his original construction period as the 40wk contract period. Again, it comes down to commercial risk and how the parties play it.



If the Contractor makes it known to the Employer and the Employer signs up to the shorter period then the Contractor will get an EoT or prolongation costs depending on the circumstances.



Under the NEC contract as long as the Contractor showed the shorter time on the Accepted programme as terminal float the contract expressly protects this. Most other forms unfortunately don’t say anything and so, as usual, it comes down to the wording and intention of the parties at the time of executing the contract. (I wish I got a £1 for every time I write that last sentence as I’d be retired by now!!!)

If the programme showed terminal float and the contractor was able to demonstrate that he had priced for early completion, that is prelims for the reduced contract period, then it is likely that in this case he would own the float andd be entitled to compensation for any owner caused delay to his planned early completion date.



If he had priced the prelims for the full contract period and was unable to demonstrate that he could have achieved early completion but for the owners delaying event then he would not be entitled to compensation for the delay to his early completion date.



The prolongation costs claimed by the contractor should be the actual loss suffered. If he has priced his prelims for the full contract period and achieves completion within this time, regardless of his planned early completion, then he will not be entitled to additional prelims for the period between his planned early completion and the contractual completion date.

Hi Richard,



I hope my queries had provoted further questions & imagination. As stated, this is healthy.



If nothing else, it had already started you down the path in answering/arguing your point interesting...ly.



"If you get a quotation...", If I asked for a quotation, then it is for a specific scope of work but lucky, I did not ask for a quote & justed stated that I engaged a guy to paint my fence at £100/day. Wow!! that was close..



In view of this thread, which is on "FLOAT" I guess it is a contracting issue.



Yes, it is correct that when I paid on a daywork basis & my budget is £500, then as long as I used up MY BUDGET, then it is okay. If I did not specify what hours he had to work and generally agreed that I will open the side gate at 9:00am and lock the gate at 5:00pm and the agreed period is 5 days at £100/day, then I could ask that after he finish the fence , he start on the shed.

If he turn up at 7:00am and continue until 9:00pm after the gate is locked at 5:00pm, then is is his choice to work longer at his own cost. As far as I am concern, I paid £100/day for 5 days within the 8hours day. He could complete the fence & paint hald the shed & disappear on after the 5th days.



CLIENT & FLOAT

In a Contracting senarior, the price & programme are agreed on a specified scope of work.



If the scope of work varied, not totally change and it is obvious that the original programme have sufficient float built in, should the client pay again for the time in this float that he had already paid for(Preliminary items eg the site manager or the foreman)?



The client is going to pay for the varied work as per valuation. What I am confuse or difficult to grass is why the preliminary cost within the period of "Float" which he had already paid does not belong to him.



Hope my argument make sense!!!

Hi Richard,



Thank you for your explanation. I highlighted that I am not a programmer so should there be any explanation as to the way float is generated or float is linked in a programme, I can’t comment.



From the answer you gave, you probably had been an experienced programmer & know the in & out of how the programmer produce the programme to submit to the client during tender.



In your senarior, may I ask, if the contractor decide to comply with the tender 36weeks but spread his prelim to 40weeks, as you mentioned "but will be his risk" therefore, the client will only claim the 36weeks & expect the work to complete in 36weeks.



In certain Fidic contract, some prelim are priced as Time related, so if the prelim is 36weeks and the contractor programmed to complete the work in 34weeks, the 2 weeks float belongs to who?



I am just saying that if the 2 weeks of the 36weeks had been paid, then the client can claim that he own that 2weeks. Is my layman ananlysis wrong?



I pay a worker to work in my garden to build a fence for me 5 days week at £100/day= £500, if he finish the fence in 3 days, the remaining 2 days, which I already paid, I can ask him to carry out repairing my shed!! I am entitled to the 2 days???



This is a healthy and interesting discussion, thanks for the thoughtful contribution. I hope others can join in too.

Hi,



I am no programmer but I was comtemplating regarding this issue.



In a progract, say 40weeks duration.

In the preliminaries section of the BoQ, the contractor priced all the preliminaries on the project based the the 40 weeks duration, say the team of staffs also at 40weeks and it is £xxxx per week.



If the client already paid for the whole duration of the project, shouldn’t the client own the float too?



Why 1st come 1st serve?



From a payment point of view, the client agreed to pay for the whole duration so he owns the float??



Thanks

See!

The total folat in approved program is for the project, both engineer & contractor can make use of it.



In a properly linked program, if any activity realease / approval by engr with float, he can delay the eaqual to the float, no contractor can claim for extension or what so ever in this case it is for engineer and in the total float in construction activity will goes to contractor.

As far as i know, There are two concepts regarding the float ownership:



1. First come - First serve

2. Distributed Float



1. First Come - First Serve:

Whoever uses the float first he owns it.



2. Distributed Float:

The total float of a path is distributed over the different parties, using the formula

Total activity duration / Total Path Duration * Total Float of that path.



It depends on your contract, which concept you will be using to allocate the float ownership.



Moe

Andrew, i agree with your personnel thoughts.

I think that after the approval of the program (which combines both of contractor & engineer activities), the activities which are related to the contractor shall be maintained by the contractor and the activities related to the engineer shall be maintained by the engineer (in terms of float).

A tricky question much discussed on here. There’s very few standard form contracts that deal directly with the issue. The NEC says the Contractor owns any terminal float.



My personal thoughts are that the project generally owns the float and who ever needs it uses it - but, if in using it the party causes the other party loss and expense then the party suffering the loss should be compensated.

Hi



I agree with Karim that Consultant or Contractor both can use the float till float will be zero.



Rizwan

Since that you’ve prepared the schedule and that the consultant reviewed/approved this schedule, then it’s your responsibility.



Regards.