Ownership of Float
Tue, 2012-02-21 13:27
Greetings of the day,
Ownership of float, whether it belongs to employer or contractor. Is it necessary to mention in the contract, if it is not mentioned in the contract to whom it will belong.
For example an employer delayed a non critical activity for 90 days and the float for that activity was 50 days. bcoz of this the project got delayed. Is contractor eligible for an EOT 90 days or just only 40 days.
Thanks n Best Regards
Mudasir Mohammad
Printer-friendly version- Login or register to post comments
Send to friend
Wed, 2012-02-22 23:59
#1
Forensic Schedule Analysis April 25, 2011 121 of 134
E. Ownership of Float
In the absence of contrary contractual language, network float is a shared commodity between the owner and the contractor. Conventional interpretation of the principle of shared float allows the use of float on a first-come-first-serve basis, thereby allowing the owner to delay activities on that path up to the point where float is consumed. Therefore, as a corollary, if pacing is defined as the consumption of float, it follows that both owners and contractors are allowed to pace non-critical work.
Project float is the time between the last schedule activity on the baseline schedule and the contractual completion date where the contractual completion date is later than the scheduled completion date. In this case, in the absence of contrary contractual language, project float is owned solely by the contractor.
Seems like there was a fix on last revision I happen to agree.
To me makes a lot of sense as consumption of project float can put the contractor at risk while there is still some float that will have no delaying effect on the execution. As a matter of fact some Monte Carlo algorithms use this knowledge to rule out activities that will never be part of the critical path in their runs, saving a lot of computer time. It only works when not performing resource leveling.
Maybe AACEI and SCL are getting closer.
Wed, 2012-02-22 16:15
#2
Hi folks
I'm not sure where Musadir is but the attitude to float is quite different depending on location and contract.
Certainly the Society of Construction Law's Protocol (and the convention in the UK generally) is that float belongs to the project and can therefore be used by the party that needs it first.
However, the Association for the Advancement of cost Engineering International (AACEI) has its own guide document - the "Recommended Practice for forensic Schedule". On the subject of float, it recommends that Project Float is owned solely by the contractor.
The AACEI position in fact more accurately reflects that of the NEC2 and NEC3, even though this is in regular use in the UK. These contracts note a distinction between the "Completion Date" and the "contractor's planned completion date". The contractor's programme, which must be accepted by the Project Manager must identify float.
Clause 63.3 of the NEC2 states - " A delay to the Completion Date is assessed as the length of time that, due to the compensation event, planned Completion is later than planned Completion as shown on the Accepted Programme"
That seems pretty clear. The planned completion may be before the contractual Completion Date. Therefore the contractor owns the float.
Like you say, if delay analysis was easy, everyone would be doing it!
Tue, 2012-02-21 19:31
#3
Mike,
EOTs following Ron Winter procedure is easy, any scheduler shall be able to perform, other methodologies, especially forensic methodologies are another story.
Not every job ends in court, usually simple procedures and common sense gives the right answer to most jobs. I hope some day Ron and his AACEI friends find time to issue a similar recommendation to solve the issues of compensation on the Ron.
Best regards,
Rafael
Tue, 2012-02-21 18:15
#4
Hi Rafael
If delay analysis was easy anyone could do it.
Float - or lack of it in all its forms - is only one variable to contend with.
To answer Mudasir's question in paractical terms float belongs to whoever grabs it first.
The prudent planner will ensure that enough of it is hidden in his programme to start with.
Best regards
Mike Testro
Tue, 2012-02-21 16:18
#5
http://ronwinterconsulting.com/Time_Impact_Analysis.pdf
Suggest using a TIA as described above, one of the many different TIA prescriptions.
Mere use of float values can be misleading as some software are notorious for yielding wrong float values, some even say there are activities that have free float greater than their own total float.
Another reason is that other relevant effects can be missed. Perhaps the most easy is the effect of calendar on the finish duration of a job. Say you can finish in a week but a week delay gets your activities a week latter, into rainy season, or a X-mass recess.
This is one of the issues I have with most delay analysis practices as they pay too much emphasis on float values or longest path that many software cannot handle well, some because of poor handling of calendars, other because some of these calculation do not work under resource leveling.
It is about cause and effect, show it with your model, Ron Winter prescription is easy to apply.
Replies