At home even if there is no requirement to submit a CPM schedule within the contract, submitting the client an incomplete schedule in most cases would be seen as fraudulent intent.

Fraudulent Intent Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc. A person is said to act with fraudulent intent when s/he either with a view to benefit himself/herself or with a view to mislead other makes any statement or representation which s/he knows to be false.

On the other hand the contractual relationship with sub-contractors is different; the Subcontractor is bound to cooperate with the project schedule but usually is not entitled to receive the full schedule. Ownership of Float between General Contractor and Subcontractor can be different to that between Client and General Contractor.

Who Owns The Float - Business Litigation, Trial Lawyers, Counsellors at Law

Conclusion; Given that there is not a significant amount of case law on the three arguments discussed above, and respective jurisdictions may treat the issue differently, the best way to address ownership of float is through specific language in the contract between the Contractor and Owner.

The same applies to Subcontract agreements.

The Theory of Criticality in Concurrent Delays

Do not forget to define Criticality.

Hi Zoltan,

Just curious, what’s the point of asking a XER native file if the client cannot review the schedule dependencies, health, quality and analyse? On all the projects that I have manage, it is always clearly stated in the contract that the subcontractor must submit the native file of a Project schedule including the BOS and narrative on how the schedule was built together with pdf copy for reference. I also always task to review the schedule health, quality and analyse if the schedule is compliance with the contract and reporting requirement, realistic and feasible to attain the contract completion.

On your suggestion, DO NOT RESCHEDULE the submitted native file therefore it is already non-compliant.

Dissolving an Activity in Primavera P6

• It is an option to consider though not a great one; deleted by dissolving might delete activities that have resource assignments and therefore re-scheduling might differ.
• We consider this a poor workaround.  We have no need for such workaround as our software provides for hiding individual activities to some users and for transfer of the restriction within shared files.
• We hide to Cilent only our internal cost data, we hide other information to our subcontractors; we do not share schedule information with anyone else.  We also hide total float to subcontractors, at times even free float is hidden.
• Deleting activities makes it difficult to accurately verify logic and monitor progress therefore the schedule could be demed worthless should a delay claim arise.  By deleting activities and their logic a contractor may submit falsified records to support a claim (e.g. false programmes).