Recovery of culpable delay is the mitigation measures adopted by a contractor to redress a delay for which they were responsible. For example if a contractor fails to put in place the proper safety procedures and the site safety officer suspends their works for a day it is the contractors liability. If the contractor then works the first ’non work day’ to recover the situation it would be regarded as recovering culpable delay. The protocol as far as I can recall addresses culpability but sets no guidance on recovery of culpability. My personal view is that any mitigating measures undertaken by the contractor will address their own delay culpability and then delays for which the client is culpable.

The programme submitted by you is your notification of intent. In my opinion from the programme you submit, the float determined should only be available at the dates dictated by the programme. In other words, if the float is used by the client before it occurs in the presented programme it will move your activities and as such is a change to your intent and any costs associated with changing your intent will be the clients responsibility. I have encountered similar situations. The advice is to set the alternatives before the client and allow them to make the decision. When the decision is made ensure that it is provided to you as a formal instruction. You should also advise that errosion of float increases the risk of late delivery and his actions will be considered should the programme overrun. Unfortunately I cannot provide the SCL protocol as it is copyright protected.

The ownership of float is one of the most contentious areas of planning and scheduling. The Society of construction Law in the UK has a protocol paper which has provided guidance in the matter. You should in the first instance consult the contract particulars as there may be reference to float ownership. However the problem you face is not the errosion of float but periods of downtime for your workforce resulting from delay in approval of documentation. Should you encounter this I suggest you immediately formally inform your client that, as a direct result of the delay to document approval, it will be necessary demobilise the idle workforce. Advise the client that such actions will result in additional remobilisation costs and there is no guarantee the same workforce will be available resulting in additional site induction courses complete with the productivity losses experienced during the period of familiarisation with the works. Offer to retain the present workforce at the clients expense.