Float belong to the owner

Wed, 2011-02-09 11:23

#1

Sitansh Desai

Offline

Joined: 12 May 2003

Posts: 10

Groups: GPC Qatar

Ownership of float is always a question of debate. Everyone wants to ownthe float. Float ownership depends purely on contract specification and if the specs are silent, float should be either used by the one who use it first (first come first serve) or 50-50.

For new contracts, prior to signing the contract agreement, the ownership of the float should be identified in contract specs.

Wed, 2011-02-09 07:01

#2

Eddy San Gabriel

Offline

Joined: 9 Feb 2011

Posts: 20

Groups: Pinoy Planning Planet Community

Hi Guys,

I am new in this site. I never thought a site like this actually exist. and it feels good.. because most of the time projects here in the Philippines only have one planner in a project. And i have no one to talk on matters in planning and scheduling. Specially if your counter part in the contractor side don't know how to speak English(pure chinese who needs interpreter).

Anyway, I am a Planner by accident, because our planner suddenly took another job. And I filled the shoes. Nevertheless, I had always been in Project Management, Project Coordination and Control. Also taking up Master's degree in Management.

Eventhough Primavera is just a tool, its was hard to start . Started from scratch a year ago (with no formal training), and as of now i feel im doing progress. But I have no one to compare with.

That's why I hope i can learn much from here.

First: On the issue of Floats;

As i could remeber there are two floats: Total float and Free Float, we all know the meaning of each float.

So, Who owns the float?

For me being part of the agreement between two contracting parties, each parties are entitled to the float. that is why we have a claims analysis to determine who cause the delay in the first place (which also translate to the usage of float).

For some, they will just divide the float by two, for the owner and the contarctor, lets face it both parties affects the delay in a project one way or another.

It is previously metioned that we should look on the work plan, well i would also prefer it that way (crushing the activity if possible) but because of financial contraints contarctors would mostlikely use the floats without acquirng delays (idealistically).

But Floats are not very useful specially when the critical path changes from time to time. this is why using floats should be controlled.

I hope that my answers would help.

Also I hope you guys would be helpful for issues i might raise.. more power to all.

Wed, 2011-02-09 07:01

#3

Eddy San Gabriel

Offline

Joined: 9 Feb 2011

Posts: 20

Groups: Pinoy Planning Planet Community

Hi Guys,

I am new in this site. I never thought a site like this actually exist. and it feels good.. because most of the time projects here in the Philippines only have one planner in a project. And i have no one to talk on matters in planning and scheduling. Specially if your counter part in the contractor side don't know how to speak English(pure chinese who needs interpreter).

Anyway, I am a Planner by accident, because our planner suddenly took another job. And I filled the shoes. Nevertheless, I had always been in Project Management, Project Coordination and Control. Also taking up Master's degree in Management.

Eventhough Primavera is just a tool, its was hard to start . Started from scratch a year ago (with no formal training), and as of now i feel im doing progress. But I have no one to compare with.

That's why I hope i can learn much from here.

First: On the issue of Floats;

As i could remeber there are two floats: Total float and Free Float, we all know the meaning of each float.

So, Who owns the float?

For me being part of the agreement between two contracting parties, each parties are entitled to the float. that is why we have a claims analysis to determine who cause the delay in the first place (which also translate to the usage of float).

For some, they will just divide the float by two, for the owner and the contarctor, lets face it both parties affects the delay in a project one way or another.

It is previously metioned that we should look on the work plan, well i would also prefer it that way (crushing the activity if possible) but because of financial contraints contarctors would mostlikely use the floats without acquirng delays (idealistically).

But Floats are not very useful specially when the critical path changes from time to time. this is why using floats should be controlled.

I hope that my answers would help.

Also I hope you guys would be helpful for issues i might raise.. more power to all.

Wed, 2011-01-05 09:13

#4

Mike Testro

Offline

Joined: 14 Dec 2005

Posts: 4418

Groups: Building Information Modelling, Content Moderators, GPCCAR Editors

Hi Danya

Thank you for a blast of fresh air into an old and rather stale debate.

There are of course many methods of hiding float and in my careerr as a delay analyst I have invented some and discovered a lot of others.

Purely in the interests of research what is your preferred method of hiding float so no one can find it?

Best regards

Mike Testro

Mon, 2011-01-03 16:34

#5

Danya Pearce

Offline

Joined: 15 Jul 2004

Posts: 70

Groups: Building Information Modelling, Women in Planning & Scheduling (WiPS)

IMO (and I have read all your politically correct statements which unfortunately dont always work with scheming contractors or bullying Clients):

Float belongs to the person who hides it best

:)

Mohammed, I have worked on both sides of the fence and i have to say, unless you can prove that the contractor will miss the contract milestone, you shouldnt penalise him but rather order him / her (as i am a woman :)) to accelerate or mitigate the lost time (throw more resources at the job or bring on a seperate subbie to do that work etc). You may have to pay for it, but that is something you have to negotiate (who's at fault etc). I would look at your contract which will discuss EOT and costs.

Mon, 2011-01-03 11:08

#6

Patrick Weaver

Offline

Joined: 18 Jan 2001

Posts: 373

Groups: None

Float is not real – it did not exist in any contract before 1957 and has limited use.

If you want to understand ‘float’ see: Calculating and Using Float @ http://www.mosaicprojects.com.au/PDF/Schedule_Float.pdf and more importantly:

Float - Is It Real? @ http://www.mosaicprojects.com.au/Resources_Papers_043.html

As my colleague Earl Glenwright, PE, PSP often reminds me, there is an Eastern Pennsylvania (Pennsylvania Dutch) saying that is very applicable to the misunderstanding and use of ‘float’

   "As you travel on thru life brother
           Whatever be your goal,
               Keep your eye upon the donut
                       And not upon the hole"

And so it is with ‘float’. Practical schedulers keep their focus on working the plan, not the ‘float’.

Fri, 2010-12-24 11:46

#7

Ahmed Elassal

Offline

Joined: 26 Apr 2008

Posts: 14

Groups: Petro-Chem / Oil & Gas

I agree with the openion saying that the project own the float who ever consume it has it . the counter side has not any right to claim any thing towrd him . - Any schedule approved become part of the contract and taken in account during any claim/ disput raised between the project participator .

Thu, 2010-12-23 11:43

#8

Mohamed Adelslam

Offline

Joined: 27 Nov 2010

Posts: 3

Groups: None

is it is client right to have damages if the contractor consume some float with out affecting the contract milestones??????????

Thu, 2009-03-19 06:09

#9

Safak Vural

Offline

Joined: 12 May 2008

Posts: 117

Groups: Petro-Chem / Oil & Gas

Dear Mike,

Your suggestions is completely correct. It is needed to be detailed and pointed at the schedule if we are aware of what is going to be happen. The Critical point about that subject is (Maybe I cannot explain clearer) that majority of the times planning of testing, comm. or inspections will be prepared nearly 50% of the system completions so the CLIENT always will use the early dates as their own subc.&procurement schedule, so as a CONTRACTOR we should not depend on floats and plan our works according to that.

Apart from all, I am a fresh collegue of yours, I will try to learn and share from/with all of you here.

Best Regards,

Safak

Thu, 2009-03-19 05:54

#10

Mike Testro

Offline

Joined: 14 Dec 2005

Posts: 4418

Groups: Building Information Modelling, Content Moderators, GPCCAR Editors

Hi Safak

You say that you have been a planner for 2 - 7 years.

Before that you must have gained a lot of experience in your field by actually building things.

You say that if you "can’t climb everest don’t plan to" which is the same philosphy that I have been trying to promote since I started with PP.

I agree with all your points except one.

If you know that there is going to be a test period carried out by another sub contractor - but you do not know how long - then fill the gap between "ready for valve lagging" and the latest date for "start valve lagging" with an activity called "valve testing by others".

This will put the clients work firmly in the middle of the critical path and it will sharpen his attention.

When the testing is done put the actual duration in place.

This will either give you more float or demonstrate delay.

Please let us have more input on other threads.

Best regards

Mike Testro

Thu, 2009-03-19 03:41

#11

Safak Vural

Offline

Joined: 12 May 2008

Posts: 117

Groups: Petro-Chem / Oil & Gas

Dear Planners,

In first glance, consuming from float should never cause a time extension Claim because it will not effect the end dates (I assume). But the float is a tool which CONTRACTORS are using with some other indicators to cover their asses (I worked on CONTRACTOR side on my projects) unfortunately.

In a good construction schedule it is impossible to have 0 floats in every activity due to mathematical nature of CPM. But a good resource loaded, detailed and forecasted schedule should have smaller floats. A work should not plan to be completed at some 5 days in next 2 months. There will be a time to be planned due to procurement, crewing, QA inspections or others.

Who owns the float? I don’t know who owns the float but CLIENT will (should) emphasize and force the CONTRACTOR to have short floats and usage of early dates and resource histograms as a project progress monitoring tools at the planning & control procedures, construction schedule approval period. These items can be included in CONTRACT with the Lvl1 CCMS.

The reason to force the early dates as a target is that apart from the critical path system, item or works in locations should have an agreed completion dates apart from any contractual, cost associated and total project completion dates. There can be many commissioning activities could be done by CLIENT ‘s other subcontractors or there can be other paper work that lead a further effect on your scope that are impossible to identify at the preparation of CONTRACTORS Construction schedule. For example, the leak tests that are going to be performed by other subcontractor of your CLIENT will affect your scope as you cannot insulate the valves and fittings. Some activity you think that have floats, can be critical in reality. You cannot know until that kind of items become visible.

Somebody will show up and talk about the Everest like S-Curves because of using early data in all sort of progress monitoring. But the best schedule is which you are going to do really. If you cannot climb Everest do not plan it. The front-loaded work schedules are highly popular due to budget and early high-profit margins for some Project Managers (Management Teams). Some Project Managers (Management Teams) tends to have back-loaded programs that requires less value to earn in the start of the project to keep the relations good with the CLIENT and to hide the late mobilizations (which will occur 90%). As a CONTRACTOR you can use the late dates as the indicators of critical areas.
Mainly CLIENT wants mitigations from you for being late from dates and progresses. You can use the early S-Curve as a B item indicator for mitigations and late S-Curve as A item indicator which are critical and probably will effect end dates badly (Trends could give ideas).

When your CLIENT asks you why an equipment erection did not completed as in schedule & the inspectors from another country is coming, it is not wise to say that I have a float in my schedule that you approved.

Best Regards,

Safak

Sun, 2009-03-15 14:11

#12

Mike Testro

Offline

Joined: 14 Dec 2005

Posts: 4418

Groups: Building Information Modelling, Content Moderators, GPCCAR Editors

Hi Andrew

There is another thread that may interest you:

SAMPLE FORMAT- EXTENSION OF TIME CLAIMS

This is a situation where the contract apparently requires unlimited resource deployment.

I have tried to work it out and I would welcome your input.

Best regards

Mike Testro

Sun, 2009-03-15 13:01

#13

Andrew Flowerdew

Offline

Joined: 14 Dec 2004

Posts: 960

Groups: None

Nestor,

Then which one caused a delay to the completion date, ie caused critical delay? If the employer did then the contractor will most likely be entitled to an EoT.

Sun, 2009-03-15 06:28

#14

Nestor Principe

Offline

Joined: 23 Oct 2008

Posts: 151

Groups: Civil Engineering

Hi Andrew/Mike,

There will be no argument if the contractor has no delay. The contractor and the client both caused 10 days delay each.

Cheers..

Fri, 2009-03-13 14:11

#15

Andrew Flowerdew

Offline

Joined: 14 Dec 2004

Posts: 960

Groups: None

Thanks Mike,

Nestor,

What Mike said is correct, but usually if the delay was the client liability and it caused delay to completion, the contractor would be due an EoT irrespective of who owned the float.

Most contracts define an entitlement to an EoT as arising when an employer or neutral delay causing delay to completion occurs. Therefore if this occurs, the contractor has a right to an EoT as the condition has been satisfied.

Francis,

I agree, but how do we define float? Ironically we all know what it is, we all use it, we all can tell at a given point in a project how long a period we think it is, etc, but if we try and expressly define it, are we just solving one argument and raising the possibility of two more with equally intangible answers?

Fri, 2009-03-13 11:32

#16

Francis Aborot

Offline

Joined: 13 Feb 2009

Posts: 67

Groups: Civil Engineering

Hi Andrew,

It is important to resolve the issue regarding the owner of the floats, even if it is theoretical in nature... Many claims in construction industry is based on actual events but performed in theoretical presentation in which if you do re-programming will give different results.

Im concern because the accumulation of floats consumption will lead to rise in resource requirements in the look ahead schedule... I know, float is not realistic... Maybe 10 days is 50 days, but the science community dedicated their time to explain to us because it is important...It is a good practice to really understand, define, and use properly the tools in management from practical to theoretical....

If we define floats properly,, we will not loose anything, right?...But we will gain knowledge that maybe useful in our claim for extention of time.......

Like e = m2 and relativity sounds funny if you think... But advance science use it in a higher level project and dumping newtons law of motion as a primitive stone age theory... Now, Unified Field Theories are not being develop as of this time... Again, if somebody proves it, it will change the way we think....

Thnx and more power,
Francis

Fri, 2009-03-13 11:29

#17

Mike Testro

Offline

Joined: 14 Dec 2005

Posts: 4418

Groups: Building Information Modelling, Content Moderators, GPCCAR Editors

Hi Nestor

The delay event would have caused 20 days delay to use up the 10 days float and then cause 10 days delay.

Best regards

Mike Testro

pd Sorry Andrew - you have had a busy day so I thought I would save you the bother of answering this one.

Fri, 2009-03-13 11:18

#18

Nestor Principe

Offline

Joined: 23 Oct 2008

Posts: 151

Groups: Civil Engineering

Hi Andrew,

Say the project is completed 10 days delay. The contractor is claiming 10 days due to fault of the client however the client reject the claim because the activity that was delayed has 10 days float.

The contractor is then exposed to LD for 10 days or get paid prolongation cost for 10 days.

Cheers..

Fri, 2009-03-13 11:03

#19

Andrew Flowerdew

Offline

Joined: 14 Dec 2004

Posts: 960

Groups: None

Francis,

We all know what float is and what the effect of using it up is - but what are you using up, how do you actually quantify it?

It’s a period of time, but a completely imaginary and hypothetical period of time whilst the project is ongoing. It’s an estimated period of time from the programme, it’s an informed guess. When the project is complete you may be able to demonstrate that it never actually existed at all. It is a time period on a piece of paper called the programme, but what about if the programme is wrong or changes as it inevitably does.

I believe the project owns the float, but what is it the project owns - a hypothetical period of time that allows events to occur without causing delay, either to subsequent activities or to the completion date, depending what float we are talking about. So is it of use to either side to own it, does it matter who owns it?

The concept of float is of great use in managing a project, especially resources, but if a delay can be demonstrated then the party suffering the delay can usually claim something. If the contractor owns the end float he claims for an EoT, if he doesn’t he claims for prolongation. If non critical events are delayed there may be the basis of a claim for disruption and or loss and expense. Ownership of float neither enhances or prevents the chances of these claims being made in most contracts.

If the baseline programme showed 10 weeks float but later in the project an updated programme shows 5 weeks due to no ones fault, (eg weather), has the owner of the float still got 10 weeks or 5 weeks now?

Except for perhaps helping the argument that if one party uses float up and then later the other party causes delay and says but for the other party’s earlier use of float we wouldn’t have caused delay, which is not often run as it is generally the case that the effect of an event is assessed when it occurred irrespective of previous events, (and not applicable to neutral events like the one above), can someone tell me why owning the float is seen to be so advantageous?

Fri, 2009-03-13 09:38

#20

Francis Aborot

Offline

Joined: 13 Feb 2009

Posts: 67

Groups: Civil Engineering

Hi Nestor,

As I have said in my previous notes, the float is own by the project... Whoever consumes it first will enjoy its privilege but goes beyond it suffers the consequence...

Pls. read my previous explanation regarding this.

Thnx and more power,
Francis

Fri, 2009-03-13 09:32

#21

Nestor Principe

Offline

Joined: 23 Oct 2008

Posts: 151

Groups: Civil Engineering

Hi Francis,

When the float is taken by the Client, does it mean the cost implication is also taken? Assuming the delay is caused by the Client.

Cheers..

Fri, 2009-03-13 08:27

#22

Francis Aborot

Offline

Joined: 13 Feb 2009

Posts: 67

Groups: Civil Engineering

Hi Andrew,

My purpose of opening the float ownership is so simple... Consuming the float increases the risk of completing the project on time. Meaning the delay becomes inevitable... Whether you readjust the activity relations(In this case the float changes and fictitiously correct) or whatsoever, THE RESOURCE HISTOGRAM INCREASES FOR THE LOOK AHEAD SCHEDULE caused by float consumption (It is true because the remaining duration to complete the project decreases over time). When the bottleneck appears in the schedule of resource that will alarm you for much higher manpower requirement is needed to complete the project, who will bear the responsibilities that will result in productivity loss, the one who is innocent of the crime or the victim of someones evilness to purposely delay the project...

Thnx and more power,
Francis

Fri, 2009-03-13 08:24

#23

Andrew Flowerdew

Offline

Joined: 14 Dec 2004

Posts: 960

Groups: None

Mike,

I totally agree with you, just throwing something into the arena to see what the reaction is.

Fri, 2009-03-13 08:22

#24

Andrew Flowerdew

Offline

Joined: 14 Dec 2004

Posts: 960

Groups: None

Samer,

Yes, agree with all that, so what’s your point?

The existence of float is a purely hypothetical scenario during the currency of a project whose actual existence, (or not), can not be ascertained until the completion of the project.

The programme and everyones thoughts on day 1 may be that there is 10 weeks float on a project but that dosesn’t mean there actually is.

Fri, 2009-03-13 08:21

#25

Mike Testro

Offline

Joined: 14 Dec 2005

Posts: 4418

Groups: Building Information Modelling, Content Moderators, GPCCAR Editors

Hi Andrew

Welcome back.

We all realise that a construction programme is entirely theoretical but even so it is the only method we have of trying to predict the future.

I agree entirely that - unless the programme is a contract document - the contractor is at liberty to do whatever he wants between start date and end date.

There was that case some time back when the contractor was awarded a 3 months EOT in November - went away for three months - came back in the spring and finished on time.

I have noticed a recent development that adjudicators are reluctant to accept a developed baseline programme even when the original contract programme is entirely unsuitable for proper delay analysis. They seem to be insisting that the first programme must be sacrosanct.

Anyway back to the topic of float - of course we don’t know if it exists or not in real time - It is impossible to express exactly even in an As Built Programme.

Its a bit like how mathmeticians come to terms with the square root of a minus number - they know that it doesn’t exist but they have a symbol to represent it in their formulas other wise the theorem would not be able to be demonstrated.

Best regards

Mike Testro

Fri, 2009-03-13 08:11

#26

Samer Zawaydeh

Offline

Joined: 3 Aug 2008

Posts: 1664

Groups: Civil Engineering, Regional Representatives

Dear Andrew,

When the Contractor submits his Program of Works, it should be Engineered based on his experience with similar projects in the past. The float used and presented in the development of the Prject is based on his capabilities in managing his resources to complete the project within its constraint.

When the Engineer reviews and approved the schedule, based on his experience with previous similar projects, they approve the developed and submitted Program of Works.

The approval of the float at the initial stages of the project depends on the Contractor’s capabilities and the Engineers review and approval. After monitoring the progress of works, the Engineer determines if the Program of work correlate with the actual progress on a monthly basis and subsequently approves the continual use of the program of request for revision based on the actual progress.

Best Regards,

Samer

Fri, 2009-03-13 07:59

#27

Andrew Flowerdew

Offline

Joined: 14 Dec 2004

Posts: 960

Groups: None

All,

Most programmes are not contract documents, (they may be), but the client requires the contractor to produce one and puts a clause in the contract to that effect.

If the programme is not a contract document it represents only a statement of the contractors intent. It is not fixed, the contractor can change it at any time. Normally the only time obligation on the contractor is to complete the project by the completion date and or complete parts of the project by any sectional completion dates. How he goes about that is usually entirely up to him.

Yes the client can change the above scenario via the contract but the above is the normal situation.

So, on day 1 the contractor produces a programme which shows the associated float.

Later the contractor decides to do the project in a different manner, (for his own benefit), and produces a programme for the remainder of the project showing unsurprisingly, different float.

The contractor finishes on the completion date. There are no client delays.

The as-built programme, (as usual), is different from either of the above programmes. Some activities took longer, some were shorter, some deviations in sequence occurred.

So:

Did the float in the first programme ever really exist or was it merely a figment of the contractors intention at the time?

Did the float in the second programme ever exist, the contractor didn’t finish until the completion date, was the programme too optimistic and actually there was never any float?

We all know what float is but when do you know if it actually exists? Can either party use something that in reality might not exist?

Can either party lay claim to something that the future may show never existed?

Just playing devil’s advocate, ownership of float and how it should be treated always seems to provoke a lively discussion.

Whoever owns it, if anyone at all, surely the real questions should always be, did the event in question actually cause delay or not, (or under some contracts is it likely too), and did the party suffering the delay incur additional costs as a result. If so that party should be compensated with time and or money.

Fri, 2009-03-13 06:21

#28

Mike Testro

Offline

Joined: 14 Dec 2005

Posts: 4418

Groups: Building Information Modelling, Content Moderators, GPCCAR Editors

Hi Francis

There has been a long debate already on this subject - search the forum for Float and you will pick it up.

Best regards

Mike Testro

Fri, 2009-03-13 06:10

#29

Francis Aborot

Offline

Joined: 13 Feb 2009

Posts: 67

Groups: Civil Engineering

Hi Mike,

Thanx for the info..Sure I will search that...

Is there any other planner who can contribute to the issue?

Thnx and more power,
Francis

Fri, 2009-03-13 06:02

#30

Mike Testro

Offline

Joined: 14 Dec 2005

Posts: 4418

Groups: Building Information Modelling, Content Moderators, GPCCAR Editors

Hi Francis

There is no case law that I know of that turns on the issue of ownership of the float.

Two relevant documents agree with you that float belongs to the project on a first come first served basis - AACEI guide to delay nalysis and the SCL Protocol 2002.

The SCL document goes on to say that it is good planning practice for a contractor to add float to cover his own time risk contingeny and then he gets all of it that is stated as such in the programme.

The NEC form is the only one I know that addresses the subject in any sensible way which requires that:

If a contractor wants some contingency float it must be set into the programme as an interim buffer.

The employers float must be set down as a final buffer.

All parties have electronic access to the agreed contract programme.

This does not prevent the contractor having his own - shorter - target programme to work to and report progress. on the longer contract programme.

Best regards

Mike Testro

Fri, 2009-03-13 05:22

#31

Francis Aborot

Offline

Joined: 13 Feb 2009

Posts: 67

Groups: Civil Engineering

Hi Trevor,

Dont get me wrong please...Im a Junior Planner but I know everybody has an equal right, specially in the contract premise. Even the baseline program is not owned by the contractor, it is owned by the project thats why everybody should follow. NOBODY OWNS THE FLOAT like nobody breaks the queue in the fast food...Its first come first serve basis...

Please, somebody give a reasonable argument regarding this issue. Present points on Who?, Why?, and How?.

Thank you and more power,
Francis

Fri, 2009-03-13 04:36

#32

Mike Testro

Offline

Joined: 14 Dec 2005

Posts: 4418

Groups: Building Information Modelling, Content Moderators, GPCCAR Editors

Hi Trevor

Delay Analysts only get work when a contractor has screwed up - usually because of a completely unsuitable construction programme.

I think I speak for most professional delay analysts (there are a few notable exceptions) when I say that if a potential client has a hopeless case I will tell him immediately. It is amazing how often they don’t believe me.

Delay analysts don’t cause the wreck - we are the scavengers that fly in to clear up mess.

Best regards

Mike Testro

Fri, 2009-03-13 04:05

#33

Trevor Rabey

Offline

Joined: 29 Nov 2005

Posts: 530

Groups: None

And after it is all over, and everyone is wrecked by the stress and the cost, and everyone believes he has been shafted regardless of the outcome, who wins?
The lawyers and the delay analysts and the experts with the opinions, who are paid to un-scamble the egg. Of course they can’t unscramble the egg, but each one allows their client to believe they can un-scramble the egg in a way which favours the party who is paying for the "services". It is the epitome of dysfunctional. And this is how humans run a planet.
Apologies to the delay analysts in PP, but that’s how it looks.

Fri, 2009-03-13 03:01

#34

Francis Aborot

Offline

Joined: 13 Feb 2009

Posts: 67

Groups: Civil Engineering

Charles,

Don’t be so biased and greedy even though we are working in the contractor side. Our attitude and response to the owner of course is always overwhelming subjective to defend our company...

But in our discussion here, we should consider what is proper...For our information, take a look at the following argument.

What the employer thinks?

Employer is the owner or the client. They always think about the project they have the ownership of everything in the project since they are paying for it. Based on the assumptions of the ownership of the whole project, the employer always debate that they are the owners of the project’s total float.

What do engineers thinks?

The engineers or consultants and in some projects the project manager, they debate that the ownership of the total float shall be granted to them. Their debate is based on their arguments about the design complexity and amount of changes requested by the owners. Moreover, they planned their works according to the program and they anticipated areas for delays and they enforced high total float in order to allow them to take actions on time.

Contractors Debate

The Contractors argue that the total float is part of their construction baseline program and they created the float in order to enable them recover any delays caused by any unknown unknowns. Furthermore, the contractors believe that any incomplete design or variation order has to be compensated with both time and money.

Defensive actions

All stakeholders always tries to take defensive actions to prevent any negative impact on their own benefits. The owners for example will always comment on the program trying to postpone any actions or decisions taken by them as far as they can. Meanwhile, the contractors common practice is creating two program they call them baseline program and target program. The baseline is the program which they submit to the client and the engineer where they minimize the total float in the program as much as possible. The target program is used for the internal use to set targets for achievement. The engineer understands the contractors defensive actions and they try to force some criteria to be added and/or removed from the program. The process of negotiating the program with the engineer is always based on the total float allowed in the project.

Summary

The total float is owned by the project and it is not exclusively owned by single party. The stakeholders always tries to take defensive action since, each party argues that he should be the owner of the float. THINK LIKE THIS, WE ARE PLAYING GAMES (OWNER-ENGINEER-CONTRACTOR) AND BOTH SHOULD HAVE EQUAL RIGHTS...

Thanx and more power,
FRANCIS

Thu, 2009-03-12 21:27

#35

Charleston-Joseph...

Offline

Joined: 10 Jul 2005

Posts: 1347

Groups: None

Case Study Part 2 (Case Study Part 1 was the case study from Mr. Andrew)

The project I’m involved includes construction of underground tunnel for vehicular passage. The work involved the construction of diaphragm walls. Precedent to the construction of diaphragm wall is utility diversion. The utility diversion is not in our scope of work.

In our approved baseline programme, the particular utility diversion should finish by X date, however, the utility diversion actual finish date was at a later Y date. The difference between the dates is – 150 calendar days, meaning, the utility diversion was finish late than what was actually plan.

Another reality was that there were other portions of the tunnel work that we already done diaphragm wall, however, because of the delay in utility diversion, our excavator went on standby and cost us a lot of money, more than the amount I will be receiving at the end of my contract, because our specialized sub-contractor claim standby cost.

Question: Are we entitled to Extension of Time of 150 calendar days and associated cost?

Cheers,
Happy Planning and Scheduling

Thu, 2009-03-12 21:22

#36

Charleston-Joseph...

Offline

Joined: 10 Jul 2005

Posts: 1347

Groups: None

Francis Aborot,

You are a provoking another round of intense and emotional discussion, but actually,

Thanks to you Francis for resurrecting a dead thread

Who Owns the Float, the saga continued to unfold.

The color of my skin changed. Now I worked in the contractor side. In this time of financial crisis, it is best to be loyal to your employer.

And since most of us here worked in the contractor side, I have a big chance my idea will be acceptable to the majority of PP member.

The Contractor owned the float.

Cheers,
Happy Planning and Scheduling

Thu, 2009-03-12 14:38

#37

Francis Aborot

Offline

Joined: 13 Feb 2009

Posts: 67

Groups: Civil Engineering

Good Day To All,

Who owns the total float?...

The float is not own by either the client or the contractor....So, who owns it?.....

In the real-life the total float is owned by the project. This solution was mutually agreed after failure to reach to an agreement regarding the ownership of the float. What does it means the project owns the float? the answer to this question is that the first to use the float is the one who owns it. For example, if the concrete casting for a tower has a total float of 20 days. prior to casting of the slab, the engineer discovered discrepancies in the design and revised the design then issued instruction to the contractor to proceed according to the new design. In this scenario who should own the 20 days float? the answer is not so simple. In order to determine who is the float owner you have to refer to the actual situation when the instruction was issued. if the contractor was delayed say 20 days and consumed the float prior to issuance of the instruction then the contractor owns the float. Scenario 2 if the contractor was delayed for 10 days prior to issuance of the instruction then the contractors owns 10 days and the engineer owns 10 days if the impact of the changes is 10 days or more.

Thanx,
Francis

Mon, 2008-05-26 18:36

#38

Raphael M. Dua

Offline

Joined: 20 Jan 2001

Posts: 136

Groups: Accreditation Editors, Board of Advisors, Civil Engineering, GPCCAR Editors, Petro-Chem / Oil & Gas

Dear Everyone

I think that the horse was flogged to death many moons ago and it is time to move on.

Float, by which I believe we have meant Total Float is a result of the arithmetical computation carried out a logic driven Critical Path Network and as such must be part of the schedule / programme.

If a client and /or contractor decide to obfurscate it by saying who can use it by clauses in a contract, we as Planners and Schedulers have lost our control of the schedule for which we have worked hard to create and maintain.

So lets put this tired (the subject has been around for over forty years now) object to bed.

Ethical Project Planning and Scheduling is far more important.

Raf

Mon, 2008-05-26 07:03

#39

Mike Testro

Offline

Joined: 14 Dec 2005

Posts: 4418

Groups: Building Information Modelling, Content Moderators, GPCCAR Editors

Look out everyone - Particularly Andrew - Charleston has set up a new thread on "Float Belong to the Owner 2"

Fri, 2008-05-23 02:13

#40

Carmen Arape

Offline

Joined: 26 Jun 2004

Posts: 292

Groups: Petro-Chem / Oil & Gas

Gentlemen,

It is a pity that you finish interesting treads like this, specially when Charlie is involved. At least you start debating very well until the intellectual debate comes to this absurd end. Thanks to all brilliant minds for your ideas that help me to manage a discussion regarding the float of my schedule.

Sensei, I do really like to read your posts BUT I believe that ego and arrogance are your worst enemies and not PP members.

Cheers,

Thu, 2008-05-22 08:34

#41

Se de Leon

Offline

Joined: 15 May 2001

Posts: 321

Groups: None

No need to make part 2 of this thread. If you don’t have replies to the discussion, please don’t add on to the already piled-up BS stuff of yours.

I will let other planners give their comments about THIS BS that OWNER OWN THE FLOAT.

Wed, 2008-05-21 09:59

#42

Se de Leon

Offline

Joined: 15 May 2001

Posts: 321

Groups: None

Good Mr. Andrew is back. Though I disagree with him on some points in the past, at least it’s a "SENSIBLE" exchange of ideas.

Let us say Charlie is correct as he is the only one who believe he is. OWNER OWNS THE FLOAT.

What are some of the possible implications of OWNER OWNS THE FLOAT?

Owner can tell the contractor to add resources without the contractor being paid even if the cause of delay is by the owner. Owner can delay turn-around of shop drawing reviews without regard to what might cost the contractor. If there is a terminal float, and this terminal float is exhausted by owner delay, contractor will pay for all extended overhead costs, extended equipment rental and other associated costs which he did not planned when he bidded for the project.

so Mr. Know it All, Is this what you want to happen when you say OWNER OWNS THE FLOAT?

Wed, 2008-05-21 06:16

#43

Andrew Flowerdew

Offline

Joined: 14 Dec 2004

Posts: 960

Groups: None

Sadly haven’t been on vacation, been in East Africa working.

The example wasn’t the best but it was just trying to highlight that the arguments over ownership of float are not black and white - one or the other should own it, end of discussion. There’s a bit more to it than that and will often depend on the circumstances.

In the example I gave the employer had done nothing wrong, just circumstances had caused him to change his plans and he was making use of the fact that the contractor was on site building his project to change those plans. Wouldn’t we all?

My question was along the lines of, (some 3 pages ago), should the employer be open to pay damages to the contractor at a later date if he has acted upon and relied upon what the contractor has told him in an earlier programme? In this case I agree with Roger, I don’t think the contractor should be able to take advantage. Had the change been down to some mistake by the employer, eg he’d supplied the wrong information to the contractor and the time was spent putting that mistake right, then that’s a different situation.

Who owns the float, (if the contract is silent), isn’t just about the employer or contractor does, it also involves a consideration of the circumstances under which one or the other used the available float at the time it was used.

Charlie’s solution, put it in the contract in express terms, obviously answers the question beyond doubt who owns it.

If as most people on here appear to believe, (except Charlie), it is the contractor, fine, but does that automatically entitle the contractor to anything – no. If the contractor owns the float and the employer uses it, the contractor still has to prove his loss to get any damages or an extension of time.

If the employers use of the float didn’t cause any loss, the contractor gets nothing so his “ownership” hasn’t gained him anything. Similarly if the employer owns the float but the employers use of it causes the contractor loss, the contractor will normally still be able to claim that through loss and expense or similar. So who in reality gains from owning it?

Hence in my opinion it is the project that should own the float, either party can use it – but if in doing so it causes the other party loss or damage, then the party using it is liable to pay. Seems fair to me.

I think I’ll ignore Gwen’s comment.

Wed, 2008-05-21 05:51

#44

Roger Gibson

Offline

Joined: 1 Jun 2001

Posts: 71

Groups: Building Information Modelling

With regard to Andrew Flowerdrew’s post of 5 May, in my opinion the Contractor should not get an eot.

The reason being, that when the Employer instructed the additional works, there was no delay or likely delay to completion of the project.

Later on in the project, when the contractor fell behind programme and caused a critical delay to completion, he was the cause at that time.

The two ’events’ occured at completely different times in the project and the circumstances are unrelated. No eot to the contractor.

Roger Gibson

Wed, 2008-05-21 03:31

#45

Charleston-Joseph...

Offline

Joined: 10 Jul 2005

Posts: 1347

Groups: None

I seems to agree

Actually, Mr. Andrew said he will be going vacation.

Why it takes him too long?

Mr. Andrew, where are you?

Planning planet need you to finish off this thread.

Wed, 2008-05-21 03:23

#46

Gwen Blair

Offline

Joined: 2 Jul 2004

Posts: 182

Groups: Petro-Chem / Oil & Gas

Maybe Mr Andrew is busy with his agent working out his day rate to reply.

Heil!

Wed, 2008-05-21 02:45

#47

Charleston-Joseph...

Offline

Joined: 10 Jul 2005

Posts: 1347

Groups: None

No need to apologize...

I place the blame to Andrew because he is playing the devils advocate

provoking the brainy, not so brainy and the brainless into brainstorming, discussion and crazy hurling of crazy ideas.

This thread could have stop had it been Mr. Andrew responded to my answer to his question a simple correct or not correct from him is enough to silence everyone.

Since I’m the only one who answer Mr. Andrew hypothetical case, the others are just reacting to others opinion and not focus on the Mr. Andrew hypothetical case, AND since there was a silence from Mr. Andrew, therefor

MY ANSWER IS CORRECT

sorry to all of you folks, the losers will lick there wounds,

But of course this is still an open planet so so

Why not answer Mr. Andrew’s hypothetical case and let PP knows where you stand. This is the whole point.

Wed, 2008-05-21 01:17

#48

Raphael M. Dua

Offline

Joined: 20 Jan 2001

Posts: 136

Groups: Accreditation Editors, Board of Advisors, Civil Engineering, GPCCAR Editors, Petro-Chem / Oil & Gas

Charleston

Considering the amount of help over the years that has been "freely" given to you by many members of PP, I think you owe Se quite an apology.

You expect courtesy and help from the rest of your colleagues, but fly off the handle when asked to explain.

The sooner you get the chip off your shoulder, the nicer you might become.

Instead of the bore you have become.

Raf

Wed, 2008-05-21 01:05

#49

Charleston-Joseph...

Offline

Joined: 10 Jul 2005

Posts: 1347

Groups: None

Expalin what!!!!!

You ask me

by whose power you have the right to ask me. Are you going to pay for my time. Am i in an interview for possible job position. I place limit to my time here in PP otherwise I will loss my job.

you also want to know

you want tutorial

Hey men, dont be authoritarian. take it or leave it

we are only here in our free time

Beside, I’ve been in this world for too long to know people like you even how much time I will explain will never understand. you got a big wall to entertain any idea against your idea.

Believe me I know.

Tue, 2008-05-20 08:49

#50

Se de Leon

Offline

Joined: 15 May 2001

Posts: 321

Groups: None

I believe I ask you to explain it. Your answer is insufficient, not my english.

Tue, 2008-05-20 08:45

#51

Charleston-Joseph...

Offline

Joined: 10 Jul 2005

Posts: 1347

Groups: None

Se,

Your english is insufficient.

Read behind the line.

if you need brain is small ok

My answer "I’m acting in good faith and in fairness".

period

Hope this will make you happy and jumping with joy.

Tue, 2008-05-20 08:41

#52

Se de Leon

Offline

Joined: 15 May 2001

Posts: 321

Groups: None

Hi Charlie,

How can we come up with good project management practice that you are saying if you can not even answer direct questions about acting in good faith and fairness?

Se

Tue, 2008-05-20 06:25

#53

Mike Testro

Offline

Joined: 14 Dec 2005

Posts: 4418

Groups: Building Information Modelling, Content Moderators, GPCCAR Editors

Gentlemen

This debate has been going on since time disputes started many years ago and it has been a very lucrative topic for lawyers everywhere.

It has also been going on too long in this forum.

An attempt was made two years ago by Keith Pickavance and Fenwick Elliott to draft a contract rider to add to the JCT suite of contract forms. This was called "Time Risk Management" and dealt with all matters relating to how EOT and other related matters were to be dealt with contractually.

Although it was an excellent document I have no knowledge of it ever being used on a project.

I t does howver give a useful guide as to an ideal way forward.

Best regards

Mike Testro.

Tue, 2008-05-20 05:49

#54

A D

Offline

Joined: 20 May 2007

Posts: 1027

Groups: Accreditation Editors

So Charlie,

Which project u hav worked on wherein it states that FLOAT BELONGS TO THE OWNER or r u suggesting for any of ur new project to hav this clause.

If yes, then plz let me know on whihc project u r working or whats ur company name?

Theres something called, late start and late finish. As contractor is submitting the program, contractor has full rights to work as per late start and late finish dates and no contract person can deny this. If u agree to this statement, then definitely activity owner owns the float rather than client alone.

Cheers,

Rav

Tue, 2008-05-20 01:29

#55

Charleston-Joseph...

Offline

Joined: 10 Jul 2005

Posts: 1347

Groups: None

Se,

If only you have get involved at the infancy of this thread, you will know that my intention is for the good of project management and for the project in general by providing this cluase to eliminate nuisance from the contractor by throwing premature claims for extension of time knowing that the events happen during the existent of float.

IF you will make a small effort to re-trace how the development of this thread then you will appreciate my effort to be fair to all : "the owner owns the float".

A lot of you guys/gals out there must think of ways for your projects to move forward instead of being bog down arguing who owns the float.

Also to threaten that there will be no contractor to do the job because of this clause "the owner owns the float" only demonstrate the highest level of ignorance"

Sun, 2008-05-18 12:46

#56

Se de Leon

Offline

Joined: 15 May 2001

Posts: 321

Groups: None

Hi charlie,

Do you really think that you are acting in good faith by imposing such clause in the contract? If yes, please explain how such clause could be considered fair to both contractor & owner.

I don’t think scoring points against a contracting party(contractor) just for the sake of removing ambgiguity would result in a smooth administration of contract.

Cheers,
Se

Sun, 2008-05-18 05:05

#57

Charleston-Joseph...

Offline

Joined: 10 Jul 2005

Posts: 1347

Groups: None

Rap,

It is not yet time to move on....

Because it is still not clear in the contract "WHO OWN THE FLOAT"

AACE to a lesser extent to the point of nuisance SCL EOT protocal or your belove PMI PMBook are only guide. It does not replace what is in the contract.

And to remove ambiguity "THE OWNER OWN THE FLOAT" if ever place in the contact, otherwise, it will only create chaos in project implementation.

Sun, 2008-05-18 05:02

#58

Charleston-Joseph...

Offline

Joined: 10 Jul 2005

Posts: 1347

Groups: None

Mike,

If you said is true,

Then,

Convince the planning planet world.

This can be done by telling us your experience in a constructive way, or by example or by your post (convincing way).

Sun, 2008-05-18 04:49

#59

Anoon Iimos

Offline

Joined: 22 Sep 2006

Posts: 1422

Groups: Pinoy Planning Planet Community

i guess it can only become a shared commodity (network float) if it exists (if there is an Approved Program) and only during the execution of the project, what after the completion of the project? i (still) cannot believe on as-built float(s).

Sun, 2008-05-18 03:50

#60

Mike Testro

Offline

Joined: 14 Dec 2005

Posts: 4418

Groups: Building Information Modelling, Content Moderators, GPCCAR Editors

Hi Charleston

You are not the only one out there pitching for the client. There are two sides to every dispute and in my experience its the owner who can pay for the most expensive - and by implication better - experts.

I spent a lot of time in Hong Kong representing the owner of the New Airport defending against contractors who had genuine claims to present.

Best regards

Mike T.

Sun, 2008-05-18 01:39

#61

Charleston-Joseph...

Offline

Joined: 10 Jul 2005

Posts: 1347

Groups: None

My alternate email:

charlieorbe@gmail.com

Sun, 2008-05-18 01:37

#62

Charleston-Joseph...

Offline

Joined: 10 Jul 2005

Posts: 1347

Groups: None

To All Owner and Client,

My contact details:

charlieorbe@yahoo.com

Tel No.: +971 50 896 7079

Remember, I’m the only one who can protect your interest.

The rest are sympahetic to the contractor.

My credential: I worked with the contractor side for more than twenty years. I know their mentality, I know how they worked, I know their illussion, dreams and fantassy

Presently, I work in project management. We are successful for there is only one driving force "SUCCESSFUL PROJECT MANAGEMENT"

Fri, 2008-05-16 05:31

#63

Chris Oggham

Offline

Joined: 20 May 2004

Posts: 605

Groups: None

Charlie,

I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make here. Are you saying that if the client asks for a variation in the original scope of the project they won’t be asked to pay for it either in time, money or both? I can’t see it happening myself, but I’m willing to be persuaded if you can offer examples, instances where changes in the scope by the client have not incurred additional costs in one form or another.

You then say “Not an absolute truth. This is not knowledge because it generalize an events without going into details. This is hearsay/selfish/decietful.” Since generalising without going into detail is something that you seem to do a great deal, I’m prepared to take your word for it.

You then ask, "what if the variation is initiated by contractor?" Well what if it is? If it’s offered to the client and the client accepts the variation because it gives them an advantage then the client should logically expect to pay for it.

You may possibly have wandered off the point a bit when you ask about delays. If there are delays which are directly due to an action or inaction on the part of the contractor, I can’t see that it matters if there has been a variation in the scope or not; provided this variation has been accepted by the parties involved, any delays would be covered by the existing terms within the contract.

You then went on to state that you would protect all owners or clients from “this kind of contractor with this kind of mentality.” What kind of contractor is that, Charlie, the sort that expects to be paid for the work they do? Maybe it’s the sort that expects their client to realise that if they change their mind part-way through a project it will cost them in time, money or both.

Chris Oggham

Thu, 2008-05-15 03:57

#64

Charleston-Joseph...

Offline

Joined: 10 Jul 2005

Posts: 1347

Groups: None

"Any chang to the original Scope is a variation and the CLIENTS PAYS EITHER BY TIME OR MONEY OR BOTH!"

Not an absolute truth. This is not knowledge because it generalize an events without going into details. This is hearsay/selfish/decietful.

What if the variation is initiated by the contractor, contractor initiated variation?

What if there is a float in the variation???

What if there is concurrent delays with multiple events due to fault by the contractor????

Have you done a forensic delay analysis???? to support your genralize claims????

To all owners or clients, call me if you have problems with this kind of contractor with this kind of mentality. I’ll always be there to protect your interest. I know the tricks, very simple because I have the experience.

Sensei
Successful Project Management Consultant

Tue, 2008-05-13 00:52

#65

Dave Duncan

Offline

Joined: 13 Feb 2008

Posts: 8

Groups: None

Put simply,

The Float belongs to the Project Manager/Director. Float is built into the Estimate/SOW and presentented to the client for approval.

It is your job as a planner to protect the float and ensure that the project is delivered in time!!!

The Client/Owner owns the the delivery date as that is what he has agreed to accept!

Any change to the original Scope is a variation and the client pays either by time or money or both!

Mon, 2008-05-12 23:01

#66

armando moriles

Offline

Joined: 2 Feb 2003

Posts: 66

Groups: None

Hi Mr. Raf,

As a clarification, you mean you are one of the persons who did PERT? It’s really an honor to know one of the guys who took part in writing one of the major text books of our industry...

Raf, the Polaris missile project was a very huge project. Is it okay if I ask you a copy of your notes, even a level 3 or 4 timeline of the project (portion is ok)? Perhaps, you could share with me any article about the project most especially if it contains the issue about floats?You don’t have to lecture about forward/backward pass...

vty,

Arman

Tue, 2008-05-06 03:36

#67

A D

Offline

Joined: 20 May 2007

Posts: 1027

Groups: Accreditation Editors

:-)

Tue, 2008-05-06 02:21

#68

Chris Oggham

Offline

Joined: 20 May 2004

Posts: 605

Groups: None

Rav,

I think you’ve got it spot on.

Chris Oggham

Tue, 2008-05-06 01:23

#69

A D

Offline

Joined: 20 May 2007

Posts: 1027

Groups: Accreditation Editors

Dont know about the small size projects. But, i m pretty sure, for large size projects, that if client wants to work with a good contrator and if client puts this statement / clause, then contractor will definitely say "**** OFF".

There r plenty of jobs available in market and contractors r now very choosy in selecting it nowadays. Some people still live in those recession days when client was king and can get some extreme clause in the contract. Hey buddy!! wake up, this is 2008 and not 1978.

Float belongs to the project and if client / consultant is smart, then they can minimise the float in the program, but cannot take on grant, it belongs to them.

Mon, 2008-05-05 09:56

#70

Charleston-Joseph...

Offline

Joined: 10 Jul 2005

Posts: 1347

Groups: None

The argument of the client is that there was a float to squezze the instruction to vary the work. This is cover in standard contract.

However, the contractor contend that due to this variation, he was not able to finish on time.

Contractor logic is ????????

Take note that forensic schedule analysis will reveal that the event "instruction from the client to add a new bay" will not impact in the cpm because of the float.

The contractor can not cite the said variation as causation in project delay.

In conclusion, the contractor will be penalized due to delay not attributed to the instruction "to increase the number of bays" considering that there was a float

The owner owns the float.

Mon, 2008-05-05 09:11

#71

Andrew Flowerdew

Offline

Joined: 14 Dec 2004

Posts: 960

Groups: None

The question is: Should the employer be open to pay damages to the contractor at a later date for acting on and using what the contractor has told him? In this case, using the float that the contractor has told the employer is available due to his chosen method/sequence of work.

Mon, 2008-05-05 08:26

#72

Andrew Flowerdew

Offline

Joined: 14 Dec 2004

Posts: 960

Groups: None

Trevor,

The clients half baked ideas on what can be squeezed in is based entirely on what the contractor’s current programme is telling him can be squeezed in, that’s the main point of this discussion.

The programme shows in detail the time for the erection of the first 40 bays, allowing some further time for an individual bay to that shown the employer has fairly and reasonably estimated the time for this extra bay from the information in the contractor’s programme.

Mon, 2008-05-05 08:11

#73

Andrew Flowerdew

Offline

Joined: 14 Dec 2004

Posts: 960

Groups: None

Trevor

I’m away for the rest of the week so won’t be able to reply but -

If you want to stick to the original contract, why agree to use a contract that allows extra work to be instructed?

For the sake of this discussion, lets say the employer wants an increase the size of a 40 bay steel framed single story building he’s having built by adding one more bay to the end of it. At this point, no M&E or finishes, just wants the extra bay erected and clad to possibly expand into at a later date because his business is now doing unexpectedly better than a year ago when he planned this new building.

It’s an increase in work content which can be accomodated by the float as indicated by the contractors programme when instructed, but certainly not outside the scope of the original contract variation clause.

Mon, 2008-05-05 07:58

#74

Trevor Rabey

Offline

Joined: 29 Nov 2005

Posts: 530

Groups: None

OK, I’ll be in it. There are so many things wrong with this scenario that it is hard to know where to start.
Let’s call them the client (he’s not really an "employer") and the contractor.
First of all, these two deserve each other and any consequence that follows.
They should have made a contract which described what was being promised and committed to, and by whom, and then stuck to it. Otherwise, the whole concept of a contract is undermined.
The right (a tenuous one) to instruct extras is not there so that the client can just dream up stuff on a whim to add to the scope. If I go into a fruit shop and agree to buy an orange for $1, I can’t then just insist on a few grapes as well.
The client’s judgement or half-baked opinion about what can be squeezed in or not and whether that affects the contractor is irrelevant. If he wants to conduct the project planning and the construction management, he should have done so from the outset (like owner-builder) and not bothered to hire the contractor.
The contractor should have reminded the client to stick to what was agreed in the first place, and if pushed should have insisted on both money and time.
That’s enough provocation for now.

Mon, 2008-05-05 07:57

#75

Raja Izat Raja Ib...

Offline

Joined: 2 Jun 2005

Posts: 299

Groups: GPC Malaysia, Petro-Chem / Oil & Gas

yup...i have been in this situation where the progress S curve rising like rocket but the critical activities have so many interfaces.

Mon, 2008-05-05 06:11

#76

Andrew Flowerdew

Offline

Joined: 14 Dec 2004

Posts: 960

Groups: None

Think I’ll play devils advocate for a moment:

The contractor submits a programme, the CA approves it. The employers business is doing better than expected so he decides ha can afford a few additional things built. He looks at the contractor’s current programme update, (which is currently telling him the contractor will finish on time), and works out that he can instruct some extra work and the contractor can fit it in without it affecting the completion date due to the float available.

On this basis, (that completion is unaffected), and in complete reliance of what the contractor’s current programme is telling him, he instructs the additional work.

The contractor happily does the additional work and gets paid for it but later in the project, due his own fault, the contractor gets behind. The contractor now claims that if the employer hadn’t instructed the additional work he wouldn’t have fell behind because he would have had the float available.

Why should either the employer be penalised or the contractor benefit from this situation?

Mon, 2008-05-05 05:19

#77

Anoon Iimos

Offline

Joined: 22 Sep 2006

Posts: 1422

Groups: Pinoy Planning Planet Community

I believe that during the initial stage of the project float(s) doesn’t exist. How can you own something that does not exist?! or how can you own something that is not even calculated yet? And even after the calculation of float(s), it’s not certain if it would be acceptable! ...by the way, who made the calculations?!!!

Sun, 2008-05-04 01:52

#78

Charleston-Joseph...

Offline

Joined: 10 Jul 2005

Posts: 1347

Groups: None

You people out there

are lost soul in project management

the simplistic way to finish this discussion is to place in the contract

"THE OWNER OWN THE FLOAT"

Plains and simple

And you will get a very reasonable CPM grom client\s contractor.

no more bulldhitting around, no more zero total float

Fri, 2008-05-02 17:58

#79

Raphael M. Dua

Offline

Joined: 20 Jan 2001

Posts: 136

Groups: Accreditation Editors, Board of Advisors, Civil Engineering, GPCCAR Editors, Petro-Chem / Oil & Gas

Guys
As one of the folks who was there when CPM was invented and then PERT I cannot agree that float belongs to the client.
Going back to when we wrote the original Arrow Diagram software we already were considering the scheduling of resources using float. Total Float is the result of the maths within the various paths in the Arrow (now Precedence) Critical Path Networks.
PERT was created in conjunction with Booz Allen and Hamilton back in 1957 for the Polaris Missile project and was specifically created to handle estimating doubt (risk ! )The Total Float and the Free Floats (both Early and Late) and Independent are the resul of the maths.
I was both in the US and UK where in the UK International Computers and Tabulators (who are known as Fujitsu) developed 1202 Pert in 1959, 1300 Series Pert 1961, OPUS, APPRAISE, 1500 Series PERT, 1900 Series PERT, etc etc
All produced Resource Schedules which analysed the resource limitations defined. Critical Activites are scheduled immediately and may or may not overload the resource. Activities with float would be delayed if by assigning the resource, it would go into overload.

Many learned discussions in the Operational Research Society - where as a knowledge area we used to be included with, defintely came out in support of the fact that the Client can’t possibly own the Total Float, because the resource scheduling algorithm would utilse it and besides the value of the Total Float was and still is TOTALLY dependent on the forward and backward pass - I hope to God I do not have to explain Forward and Backward passes.

Most PC based software does not provide the user with late frre float and independent float values, or do not make it obviously for the more learned and skilled of our P & S folk.

So the Total Float belongs to the Network. NOw ! who owns the data and results from the network is another ball game

Raf

Fri, 2008-05-02 03:26

#80

Mike Testro

Offline

Joined: 14 Dec 2005

Posts: 4418

Groups: Building Information Modelling, Content Moderators, GPCCAR Editors

Hi Armando

Thanks for bringing this debate back to basics.

I remember doing those CPM networks using pencil and graph paper - not even calculators in those days. A forward and backward pass would take an hour or two.

Primavera was - I beleive - the first computer programme to take over the calculation process but plugging in the data was still a tedious process.

P3 has not moved on much since then.

Best regards

Mike Testro

Fri, 2008-05-02 02:31

#81

Chris Oggham

Offline

Joined: 20 May 2004

Posts: 605

Groups: None

Hi Guys,

While looking for something else entirely, I mis-typed a search term and got this article.

I found it quite interesting, although it may pose more questions than it answers.

Chris Oggham

Thu, 2008-05-01 20:19

#82

armando moriles

Offline

Joined: 2 Feb 2003

Posts: 66

Groups: None

Anoon,

I agree with you. As for me it is also better if we take a look back a little of history why PERT & CPM were developed.

I reviewed few of my notes...It was in the later part of the 1950’s that the U.S. Navy Special Project Office & the consulting firm of Booz, Allen & Hamilton conceptualized PERT in the efforts of the US Government to speed up the Polaris Missile Project. PERT concept stressed probabilistic activity time estimate because the field in which it was developed was typified by high uncertainty. In 1956, prior to the development of PERT, the Critical Path Method was developed by J.E. Kelly of the Remington Rand Corp. & M.R. Walker in an efforts by commercial industry to make an advanced scheduling & cost control methods. CPM originally made no provisions for variable time estimates which is in contrast with PERT but in the conceptual analysis, most of these differences were relatively minor.

Therefore, for me, both conepts PERT & CPM were developed for the benefit of the client / owner.

In my opinion, based on the above, the durations of the activities in the critical path is not a fact. Or, it is not beyond reasonable doubt being based either on a certain level of uncertainty & variable time estimates.

For me, both the contractor & the owner shares ownership & responsibilities of the floats both in the original path & the floats that are generated during project implementation either positive or negative floats.

Thus, should the contractor fails to manage his part of the path, LD will be charged against him. On the other hand, if it is the client who fails, the contractor may claim for EOT & among other applicable claims in accordance with the provisions of the contract.

I have a question guys, I know this is out of this thread but sorry for this...If PERT & CPM were developed by the US during the cold war, what method did the Russians used?

Regards,

Arman

Thu, 2008-05-01 03:48

#83

Anoon Iimos

Offline

Joined: 22 Sep 2006

Posts: 1422

Groups: Pinoy Planning Planet Community

I think it’s better to discuss about the practical determination of float(s) and not the ownership of it, as float is subjective so as the project.

If the project belongs to the client, and float(s) belong to the project, who has the responsibility to determine float(s)?!!! The Client or the Contractor?

I believe that it is always the contractor who’s responsible for preparing the detailed program/schedule based on his methodologies, and therefore plays with the float(s). But! the program always needs approval of the Client! so as the float(s)!

Thu, 2008-05-01 00:29

#84

A D

Offline

Joined: 20 May 2007

Posts: 1027

Groups: Accreditation Editors

First and foremost thing,

It is not necessary tat all activities with zero float will be on critical path. At least CHARLIE shud know tat or is he like a consultant who tells u time by looking into ur own watch. Just refer to Ronald Winter’s paper on Longest path. Its explained beautifully.

Neway, Instead of putting this funky statement into the contract, y there is a need to approve a program with float then. Can’t client / consultant will make changes in the program and will bring the program with almost zero float before approval. I dont need to tell here to make a program with zero float. Its all possible.

Has somebody locked someone’s brain as these foolish ideas are poping out.

With such a booming market and with so many jobs flowing around, which contractor would like to work with a client / consultant who will force u to make a program with zero float or yelling OWNER BELONGS TO FLOAT.

Cheers,

Ravi

Wed, 2008-04-30 20:57

#85

armando moriles

Offline

Joined: 2 Feb 2003

Posts: 66

Groups: None

Guys,

It is very educational to read all your comments. Be rest assured that I or probably other PP members have valued your comments. Thanks guys.

Regards,

Arman

Wed, 2008-04-30 10:32

#86

Gwen Blair

Offline

Joined: 2 Jul 2004

Posts: 182

Groups: Petro-Chem / Oil & Gas

We do.
Unless stipulated otherwise in the contract, the float belongs to the project.
Whether the Owner, Client, Contractor or Sub contractor want to claim it, at the end of the day all considerations will be given for the benefit of the project objectives.

Wed, 2008-04-30 08:44

#87

Se de Leon

Offline

Joined: 15 May 2001

Posts: 321

Groups: None

Chris is right. If it was just that simple, we should not be having this discussion for several years now I believe, in planningplanet.

Wed, 2008-04-30 08:35

#88

Se de Leon

Offline

Joined: 15 May 2001

Posts: 321

Groups: None

Charlie,

Who invited you anyway? It was just an information for those attending. Simple. Trying to be smart again?

cheers,

Wed, 2008-04-30 06:39

#89

Charleston-Joseph...

Offline

Joined: 10 Jul 2005

Posts: 1347

Groups: None

Anoon

Take note that if contractor will prepare cpm without float then all activities are critical.

if one activity is delayed than the project delay

and if delay by contractor is concurrent with owner delay, then, there is no eot entitlement.

Contractor will lost everything

what im trying to say is for the contractor to be reasonable in preparing cpm to minimize not eliminate the use of float.

Wed, 2008-04-30 06:19

#90

Anoon Iimos

Offline

Joined: 22 Sep 2006

Posts: 1422

Groups: Pinoy Planning Planet Community

"everything is negotiable" contracts are negotiable, but I believe (always)that during the drafting of the contract there is no detailed program/schedule that determine(s) the float, so nobody ever notice or give importance to floats (who cares!)how can you practically determine float(s) on EPC projects?!!!

if you include in the contract, that the "Owner owns the float", then it is supposed to be considered that the owner had prepared the detailed program/schedule and is confident that such is feasible in order to negotiate with probable contractors. If that is the case (if i’m on the contractor’s side) i’ll see to it that i’m going to prepare a program/schedule without any float!

Planning Planet

Tips on using this forum..

Replies

Forum Sponsor:

Top Posters

Contact Us

More like this

User login

Partners & Sponsors