Delay Calculation

Roger / Amr,



Under most standard forms of contract the programme is only an indication of how the contractor intends to build the works and not a contract document. (although dates contained in it may be contractually binding) Niether contractor nor client can therefore claim contractually to own the float of any activity except for that which will delay the completion of the whole of the works, (or sectional completion if applicable) This ’end’ float is exclusively the contractors.



If the programme was strictly a contract document then the contractor could possibly claim damages for any Employer delay to any activity, not just those which extend the completion date. Hence contracts seek to avoid this. Therefore it follows that if an Employer delays an activity that does not extend the completion date, the contractor is unable to claim an EOT although other damages may be due eg disruption) The Employer may therefore possibly use non critical float without penalty. This same principle would follow with other contracting parties such as main contractor and sub contractor.



No one therefore ’owns’ non critical float and anyone may use it. The result of any party using it may incur damages of some kind to be paid or non at all depending on the circumstances.



This could actually be said of critical float, except it’s use will be a known effect (ie delay to the contract) that the contractor can obviously claim for.

Hi Roger,



thanks for your clarification that i agree 100%.



Regards,



Amr El-Serafy

Amr,



Whoever created the programme owns the float.



If the ’lead contractor’ has created the overall programme, then he owns that programme’s float. If other contractor’s have work activities on that programme that show float, then the ’lead contractor’ owns that float, unless it has been agreed with the other contractors that they can use the float on their own activities.



Roger

Hi Roger,



i agree with you on "The contractor owns the float" in the case that he is a sole contractor.



But i needed to be more specific that in case of several contractors but one of them is "the leading contractor" this may a little bit different and in this case "the project owns the float and whoever needs it first can use it".



What do you think?



Amr El-Serafy

Amr,



Why does the project own the float and whoever needs it first can use it.



The contract between the Employer & Contractor normally just has a completion date for the project, or sometimes intermediate sectional completion dates.



The contractor prepares a programme showing how he is going to achieve the Contract completion date. As well as showing a critical path(s), some activity paths on his programme show float. A contractor will or should be allowed to use that float (that he has created) to balance his resources, or take account of his own delays. He created it - and he should be allowed to use it.



Unless specified in the Contract, the float should belong to the contractor.





Roger Gibson

Hi All,



i think that the issue of delay will differ according to your position, (i.e. contractor, consultant or employer.

Everyone will defend his benefits.



I truely agree that "the project owns the float and the one who use it is the first who needs it" but, i believe this is difficult to achieve these days.



If you are the main contractor and you are dealing with other main contractors. In this case you should be treated on equal footing but, the Project Manager will take the party of the employer since you did not affect the milestones of the project.



There is always a big difference between what you "Could do" and, what you "Should do"



Amr

Hi Andrew,



Remember the Anglo-Boer War, also, Jaco is a boer, ie SA, although he hahgs around in diffferent pastures. I will give you my opinion, It is difficult, Who is going to be the next Pope? Everything in the world affects us, rhe price of oil, the next Pope, the number of projects in play, etc, etc, etc.

Philip,



South Africa obviously has a better system than in the UK - at the last tender settlement meeting I went to (last week) the directors arbitarilly decided to knock 10% off the programme time and a sizeable chunk off the price. Programme float in real terms is probably now negative, buts that competitive tendering in the UK for you and it’s not at all uncommon.

The best way to monitor progress is based on the early dates. With other words in p3 early finish variance.



But you must remember not to get to concerned if all does not happen as (early) planned (you have about a 10 % chance)you need to be more concerned on the contract milestone dates. WOW you must ensure that the contract is set up with all the required milestones and that the schedule is logic correct. I would also suggest a trend line (S-Curve). This will also give you an good indication if all is proceeding on the right track.



The other way as a double check is to use the float column.

Hi Andrew,



The point is that virtually every schedule has float built in. Ask anybody for a duration, for a task they have to perform, and in 90% of the cases, the duration they will be longer than required, further the planner will normally bulit in a bit of float in for other contingincies. The object is to remove all extra time and rather use it as a buffer. Further most clients have their own buffers bulit into their required completion dates.



There is a thing called the student syndrome, that is, student who have 10 months to study for a exam, will normally wait till the last few days before the exam, before studying. The same thing happens in projects, where lets say the party who has to perform the activity, knows the activity will take 6 days to perform, and the time allowed in the schedule is 10 days, they wiil wait till 6 days before the end date of the activity before they start. This is human nature, and although it is not always the case, it is true most of the time. The problem is the should anything go wrong with the execution of the activity, the project will run late, whereas the 4 spare days was kept as a buffer, and the end date was 4 days earlier, the problem could have been managed.

I agree with you that the float belongs to the project, but what I am saying, is that it should not be hidden and it must be managed.



Regards



Philip

Have to go with the "project owns the float and who needs it first uses it" although as David stated, this is a matter of debate in the UK unless it is expressly written in the contract.



It would be nice if Philips approach could be adopted but I haven’t come acroos a competitive tender where you can build in and price a buffer, either for the contractor or client. With negotiated work you may stand a chance although I’m not exactly sure how you would distinguish between contractors or clients float!

Hi david,



Basically I agree with you, but I think you are talking about early warnings, in terms of the Nec. The best way to sort out the problem is that the contractor and client come to an agreement beforehand, on the amount of float available, if any, however, it is always good for the project to ensure there is float available, then you allow for two buffer activities, ie the contractors float, and the client’s float. If good sense prevails, the contractor will strive not to eat into his own float, and therefore also the clients float. If the client sees this is rhe case, and some or other activity overruns, he will be more lenient, and so claims and the rest of the bull will be obviated. It is a case of commitment to the project, and if this is seen to be the case, everybody, that is the client and contractor and all other parties involved get stuck in to avoid delays, however, when they are unavoidable, they can be accomodated due to the buffers.



The practical issues are quite simple, commitments must be gotten from the people involved in effecting the project. The knowledge of rhe buffers must be restricted, to senior management. In other words, the people doing the work will always try and meet the earliy dates, and should a problem occur outside their control, they do not get beaten with a stick, but encouraged to try and finish.



Regards

Philip

It may be possible that neither is correct. In the USA the Courts rule that the project owns the float. In the UK it is suggested that the project owns the float, but that is up for debate.



It also depends on the form of contract, the NEC states that the contractor is entitled to keep the float for the project, but float on individual activities should be used to mitigate delays.



Part of the answer is to analyse the position at the start of the delay, in order to get the true effect of the delay.