What is the Float and Who Owns It?

What is the Float and Who Owns It?

Most people will associate float with the CPM (critical path method) of scheduling, and while that's correct, there is a little more to it.

The critical path is determined by the sequence of activities within a program that dictates the overall program duration.

The 'critical path' has zero total floats.

However, there are several other applicable definitions of float, namely:

  • Free float: the amount of time an activity can be delayed without impacting the start time of its immediate successive activities.
  • Interfering float: the difference between the total float and free float.
  • Internal float: built-in float between the planned start and completion dates within the program (time contingency).
  • External float: float between the Date for Completion and the Date of Completion.

The consideration of 'external float' raises the question of 'who owns the float'.

The Contractor?

The Contractor may argue that it 'owns' the float because it plans how the work should be carried out and in what sequence. They may also allow a 'buffer' or contingency between the likely Date of Completion and the actual Date for Completion.

Suppose, therefore, there is a delay to the Contractor's progress for which the Contractor is not responsible (and three-part chain of causation is satisfied) and the time contingency has not been fully exhausted.

In this case, the Contractor may contend that it is entitled to an extension of time, even if the delay to progress did not result in the Date for Completion being impacted. Instead, the delay merely 'eroded' its planned time contingency.

In this scenario, the Contractor is asserting ownership of the float.


The Employer?

On the other hand, the Employer may consider the Contractor has no contractual relief for being prevented from completing the works before the contractual Date for Completion.

This means the Contractor is not entitled to an extension of time unless the excusable delay results in the Date for Completion date being impacted.

In this scenario, the project [i.e. the Employer] is claiming ownership of the float.


Where the wording of the extension of time clause is such that an extension of time is only to be granted if the Employer delays completion beyond the Date for Completion, then the likely effect of that wording is that all external float must be 'consumed' before an extension of time will be due.

The expression 'float' is rarely, if ever, defined in the conditions of the contract.

Suppose the wording of the extension of time clause is such that an extension of time will be due whenever the Employer delay event adversely impacts the Date for Completion date.

In that case, the external float will not be available for the benefit of the Employer in the event of an Employer related delay.


If you enjoyed this LinkedIn Managing Construction Claims newsletter, I would love it if you subscribed for more, let me know your thoughts, or shared with your network.

To learn more about managing claims or how Accura Consulting can help you, head to our website or get in touch.

--

Paul



Peter Holroyd

Nearly Retired at BROOKSON (5409) LIMITED

1 年

A bar chart never had this problem!

回复

I’m of the view that although the contractor has made the programme and is entitled to use the “float” within its allocated time, however what if a subsequent excusable delay event occurred that all that float was subsequently consumed by Employer? Therefore, the “float” is the parties' opportunity on the basis that whoever can claim first, not necessarily exclusive for contractor.?

Amr Nadim

JASARA PROGRAM MANAGEMENT COMPANY | Riyadh, Saudi Arabia April 2024 - Present

1 年

Hi, I didn’t understand the external float. Can someone please elaborate with an example.

要查看或添加评论,请登录

Paul McArd的更多文章

社区洞察