Dennis,

We all know as planners that there are so many factors involve in construction that will likely affect or delay the project completion and will necessitate a request for EOT.

You are right Dennis, if it takes 5 days to fabricate the counter top and the kitchen is in the critical path then it will affect the end date and will certainly require an EOT. However, I think we are deviating from the topic debate "ownership of float"

The common and accepted practice nowadays is that any change not affecting the critical path and/or completion date will not require an EOT, which means that the project itself owns the float, however, taking it from a Contractor’s perspective and from a resources point of view, any additional work from the original scope would mean additional time and money, the contractor in order to make money has to plan and utilise their resources to the optimum, they never planned for their resources to float around when there is a slack, they will utilise their resources to the maximum or they are off the job site. So I would argue that from the contractor’s perspective they should own the float. When a contractor plans for a job in terms of resources there is no such thing as float.

Something to ponder.

Cheers,
Daniel

Dennis,

Change orders needs to be carefully studied and see whether they are labour related or relating to change of materials only. Change of materials may increase or decrease cost but seldoms impact the labour hours to do the work, however, it may change depending on the difficulty of installing the new material.

Your example above pertains to change of materials only and therefore does not affect the labour hours to complete the work and therefore does not require an EOT.

Remember on a real job site, if you have floats on some activities, your resources does not go on standby they perform other tasks or new activities.

Cheers,
Daniel

Dennis,

For the sake of a healthy debate I will take side on the contractor and I say that they should own the float. You know why?

Think of it this way, for example, You were contracted to do a job for say a house for 2 months and you estimated that you need 100,000 manhours to complete the job. During construction the client wanted some additional features say an extension of his kitchen and after a careful assessment of the changes, you estimated that you need addional 10,000 manhours to do the additional work. If you think of it in terms of resources you do not have a float because the job is worth 100,000 labour hours and any additional work will mean additional manhours and therefore it is either you increase your resources or ask for an EOT. Got it!

Cheers mate,
Daniel

Honesty and transparency is always the best policy. I believe and I think that this is true in any undertaking.

Going back to "Ownership of Float", If the contractor owns the float then all activities becomes critical and any additional work would automatically translates to EOT.

A properly plan and logically link project will naturally have floats that is not induced by any illogical means. Therefore the project owns the float and whoever uses it first is logically the owner. It is on a first come first serve basis.

Cheers,
Daniel

Nieman

Too bad time zones prohibit an online discussion of this topic.

Just as the estimate is a best guess as to the cost of the project - has a P of .5, the schedule is a best guess as to the time and sequencing it will take. With the estimate, it may or may not have any contingency depending on whether or not the owner or contractor requires a ’comfort factor’ eg. cost plus or lump sum.

Schedule durations may or may not have any cushion depending upon the contract completion date and associated damages. Usually this end date is given and the schedule and any associated acceleration costs (crew sizing, expediting, extra shifts, etc.) required to meet the date are added to the estimate. Any schedule contingency will be addressed by a early finish date. Productivity demands that realistic durations be applied throughout the schedule.

The schedule may reflect uncertainty (risk management), but this is not contingency. Float is a scheduling concept. The contractor will apply whatever resources he has to the project as efficiently and expeditiously as possible (theoretically).

Again, this could have made for an interesting real time discussion.

These are new terms for me - contigency float, hidden float, and clear float. Are these accepted terms? I wonder.

First contingency, in a cost setting, is for unknown unknowns. It generally comes out of the blue, which is why it disappears over time, or should.

Known unknowns are usually referred to as ’allowances’. You know you have exposure, but unable to quantify at this point.

IMHO "hidden float" belongs to the owner of the schedule (usually the contractor), it is his assessment of how long the activity may take. His lack of certitude does not transfer ownership. He and the other contracting party (ies) have accepted his assessment. "Clear float" is usually dealt with in the contract, if not, then it belongs to the owner of the schedule. Unclear as to what "Contingency float" is, so no opinion.

To summarise,

Contingency on an activty is for - For KNOWN UNKNOWN RISKS

Clear float on an activity is for - FOR KNOWN KNOWNS

Hidden Float on activities is for - UNKNOWN UNKNOWN RISK

Contingency reserves can be allocated for contingency on an activity (Can be used by PM), whereas Management reserves can be allocated for hidden float and only management is authorised to consume this float.

:-)

Rav

Neiman, so we can say that there are 3 types of "float"

Contingency on an activty - claimed at the planning stage by one patry or another and clearly stated in the plan. Belongs to the claimant
Hidden Float on activities - Overstatement of activity duration which is similar to a contingency but not clearly stated, and thus arguably unclaimed. could be argued to belong to the activity and thus to the executor of that activity, although I would imagine an event delaying the activity start by less than the float in the activity duration would be argued over. Most float is here.
Clear float between activities - Up for grabs

Thus actual extra work issued should only eat Clear Float, although I know from experience that clients consider float on activities to be up for grabs aswell. Lesson is to clearly state your contingencies I suppose, although this can then become a pretender barganing chip.

Most programme float that I have seen would fall into the second catagory...

Hi Nieman,

I would say that the contractor in its preparation of its baseline programme may technically suppress its preferred critical path by arranging it through activities that are susceptible to client caused delays such as owner supplied items which James asked about. The client however have the right to question such arrangement and may prohibit it during the process of accepting the programme.


Regards,

Someone

Armando

we all know that the contractor owns all the negative float, no matter how caused. Sometimes the client can have some +’ve float and still the contractor can retain ownership of -’ve float. Often on the same activity ;)

Neiman,

I found your explanation very enlightening except for the following;

you said, "I do not think that the client can increase the amount of work on an activity and call it use of float."

then, "If it can be proved that this (exta) work can be executed within the time allotted for the contract then no EoT is due."

Surely these are contradictory? If the client issues additional work on an activity and has float on it then he either issues EOT (retaining the float on the activity) or not (claiming the float for himself). I do like the idea that the float cannot be used by the client to fill with extra work though, it seems fair. I also like the idea that each party should nominate theri required contingency on their activities, as they are both buying the risk involved with delivering those activities late enough to delay the project.

Also, surely one party or the other must own the -’ve float. It requires accelleration to ameliorate or causes costs consequential to late finish. The project itself cannot pay these consequences, one of teh contracting parties must. Of course philisophically you could turn this around and say that, should positive float turn into early completion and thus additional income (due to earlier renting of space etc) this should be allocated also (like we ever finish early :P )

Another Q; say a contractor schedules an activity (for example, lifting a client provided signpost into place) but the client provides the sign later than stated on the agreed plan but within the overall float of the programme (so completion still happens on time) Who pays for the standing time of the crane, assuming no notice has been given to the contractor that the sign will be supplied later than agreed?

This stuff is fascinating :D

Nieman,

I would like to ask this question. If after updating the programme evedintly generates a negative float. Who own’s the negative float? Is it still the project?



Many thanks,

Arman

Please take care about Float. Its a two way sword as it can kill you as well as save you.
For example float gives you the chance to suspend activity for some time if you want to shift resources to a critical activity that has been delayed.
At the same time, float is owned by Client that means that the work on that activity can be increased by Client in order to use the float available using the same resources.
Its all matter of experience and understanding the mind set of Client and Consultant.
Take Care
Muhammad Jawad

Have aread of this it may help

www.eotprotocol.com

Hi All,

I agree with Paul that floats have to be minimised by the
contractor and buffers have to be built in to durations.
And after all, the estimates of durations are the babies
of the Contractor only. As long as the Contractor has
provided a schedule to complete the project in the stated
Contractual Project Period and also has reasonably suitable
logic to the overall geographical/technical sequencing, the
Client/Consultant should have no problem in accepting the
schedule. Minor petty details cant be visualised at the
beginning anyway for massive projects.

I also agree with Raviraj that all major duration estimates
have to be internally agreed with the Project’s CMs & PM.
In fact, the agreement should be extended to include the
individual discipline managers, main area/section managers,
etc. It is best for a Planner to go by the methodologies &
thoughts of the personnel who will be directly executing the
jobs rather than putting some estimates out of his or her
mind so that there will be no conflict at later stages.
And with such an approach, what I have experienced is that
such personnel would always give duration & contingency
estimates much higher than what a Planner may estimate based
on quantities and other stated facts and figures. This shows
that reserves for a lot of unseen or unstated events have
to be built in, especially for massive projects. This
eventually results in floats not being available to the
extent that a Planner may normally arrive at, at the beginning.

Happy Planning folks....

Ramesh

Gary;

It’s difficult to justify an extension of time or additional GC’s on an item that has float - at least that’s what the owner will tell you. theoretically, the job can’t be impacted by a float item. Float is owned by whoever uses it first.