The contractor can say no to any of the owner’s terms and conditions. Everything is negotiable.
The contractor should especially reject, if necessary, the owner’s arbitrary contract finish date in favour of a feasible finish date based on what it will take to do the job.
Trouble is, most contractors will sign up to a contract finish date without having done sufficient planning prior to signing the contract to know if the contract finish date is even feasible, possible or achievable, and usually discovers too late that it is not. There was never enough time to do the job, never any float in it, in the first place.
There may be float in the non-critical paths (where else could it be?) and the owner may think he can add in variations (change his mind etc)into the non-critical paths withou this having any impact on the contractor or his ability to meet some target date (ie the contractor justr has to cop it). However, any float that is there is part of the contractor’s general reserve against various risks, known and unknown. Using it up has predictable consequences.

CJ-O says something profound:
"indulging into stupid debate as to who really own the float"
Yes, it is. Regardless of what legalistic nonsense either party can jam into the words of the contract and force feed to the other (slightly more gullible) party.

See

no need to attend.

All the owner has to do is to place in his contract with the contractor that "THE OWNER WILL OWN THE FLOAT".

Plain and simple, no complication.

Whatever this means to the contractor who generally preparet the project cpm schedule, let the contractor elaborate.

It is the owner prerogative to protect his interest and to stop any discord within the project team by indulging into stupid debate as to who really own the float.

The other advantage to this approach is for the contractor to seriously evaluate his cpm and to minimize exessive and unreasonable float, knowing that he can not manipulate the client regarding the issue of float.

Precisely because no two contracts are exactly the same, (even apparently standard forms are usually customised versions), that there will never be a single right answer. The best we can do on here is talk generally about the topics, the right answer for a given contract will depend on the contract itself.

Time is universal to all of us, there’s no reason why there can’t be a universal extension of time clause, at least in its general principles but with customisable risk allocation to suit each project. Then we would all know where we stood on every project - but this is dreaming as it will never happen.

Raviraj,

Sorry I don’t have a copy but Ronald posts on this site and so you could contact him directly through the site.

Andy

Charlie,

Critical is normally taken to mean that demonstrated to be on the critical path of a programme in a CPM analysis and I would agree with Ronald that this is the longest path dictating the completion of the project.

If sectional completion dates are involved then it is the longest path of activities dictating the completion of each section AND the longest path dictating the completion of the project. Using zero float as a measure of criticality is useless if the programme is full of constraints. Constraints are usually one of the first things any analyst will look for in a programme to see where the contractor has been trying to prop up his case.

That said, as a recent Scottish case showed that accurate CPM analysis is not always possible and a number of activities could be thought of as being "critical to completion" although they would not all show up as being critical in a CPM analysis. ie, it was obvious that completion was delayed by these events such as variations to the scope of work given after the current completion date had passed.

Most contracts tie the entitlement of an eot to an employer liable event that has caused a delay to the completion date. I’ve been involved in some contracts that didn’t and the discussions and debate become pretty lively then. But normally, if the event doesn’t cause delay to the completion date then there is no entitlement to an eot, although disruption might be claimable.

The eot is normally the period of delay equal to the delay to the completion date, not the duration of the event itself – hence float amongst other things is taken account of. I’m ignoring those contracts that give entitlement to an eot for “likely delay” rather than “actual delay” such as the JCT conditions.

So when determining what the eot should be it is a case of working out what the events affect on the completion date is, not the event lasted for 60 days therefore the eot is 60 days.

But like everything we discuss on here, the devil is in the detail of the contract wording. This will define under what circumstances entitlement to an eot arises and what needs to be considered in working out the period of the eot.

If your contract does tie any entitlement to an eot to the delay to the completion date then your contractor can not just say “I plan to start but I can not start so I was able to start after 60 calendar days, therefore, as per delay analysis as built as plan: I’m entitled to 60 calendar days”.

Andrew

You are a very interesting person. You add the phrase

"amount of critical delay cause"

of which the most influential word is "CRITICAL"

This means a process to identify critical

What critical, critical as if a man is dying that why he is in critical condition or

Critical as in critical path, meaning activities with total float equal to zero (take note Mr. Ronald Winter prefers longest path since activities with total float equal to zero can be manupulated by setting constrainst "zero total float")

I’ll come back, i have lots of work to do,

but this is intersting because I will move on to

the impact of your idea as applied to delay analysis as built as plan wherein the contractor can just say "I plan to start but i can not start so i was able to start after 60 calendar days, therefor,

as per delay analysis as built as plan: I’m entitled for 60 calendar days

Anoon,

This is why I proposed the owner will own the float.

The cpm schedule is usually prepared by the contractor. The owner representative will review the cpm schedule, but, the contractor will always assert that this is his program, this is the way he tender the project, this is the way he intend to built the project, etc. etc. blah blah blah.

So nobody can stop the contractor from manipulating the float.

Scenario 1, activity excavation have float of 90 calendar days, day one the contractor cannot start due to owner responsibility (maybe no access given) after 45 calendar days, site access is available, but contractor cannot start work because the equipment to start excavation was sent to another project, finally after 60 calendar days, contractor was abel to start digging.

as per eotprotocal by scl???????, contractor claim 60 calendar days delays including associated cost.

MY RESPONSE!!!!!!!!!!

BULLSHIT

EOT protocol by scl is not part of contract document.

Since i am rude and unethical, i will be sent to another project, 4m X 4m doghouse.

Then, I will resigned.

Anobody want to hire me.

the starting point is, there is no (always!) approved Program/Schedule that shows the float, so nobody ever cares what the float is all about! the problem arise once the contractor invented the program with the fabricated floats! or no float at all!

Hi All

It is difficult to distinuish between a contractor going faster than planned and too much time in the programme to start with.

It is common practice for planners to pad out durations to use up float and it all comes unstuck when the work is progressed.

As I said - it is better to put in some time contingency bars to absorb the float.

Best regards

Mike T.

Hi Everyone

As usual I have joined in at the tail end of the debate.

Firstly with regard to mitigation if a client delay occurs then in most circumstances the Contractor is obliged to mitigate the effect of the delay PROVIDED it doesn’t cost any money to do so.
This is usually set down in such contractual phrases as "reasonable measures" or "reasonable endeavours". Beware the phrase "best endeavours" as this may mean spending money.

Secondly regarding Who Owns the Float. The SCL protocolskips around this wuestion but indicates that the float may belong to the party that claims it first. This 1st Come 1st Served basis is a useful starting point.

The protocol also indicates that it is good planning practice to put in a "Contractors Time Risk Contingency" bar thus taking up the float at the very outset.

Best regards

Mike Testro

A lot of people think the reference to mitigate the delay in a contract is to the project delay but it normally isn’t.

Very simple case - take a 100 day project – obviously the contractor has 100 days to do the original scope of work. On day 20 there is a 10 day employer critical delay. Assuming the contractor has an entitlement to an eot, the new project duration should now become 110 days – which still gives the contractor 100 clear days to do the original scope of work, ie the original contract period is preserved with regard the original scope of work and therefore there is no reason why the contractor should have to do anything faster than originally planned.

But if the Employer doesn’t grant the eot or wants the contractor to still finish earlier than 110 days, then the contract period for the originally planned work is now only 90 days – shorter than the original period and hence the contractor has to accelerate.

The contractor’s obligation is to mitigate the actual delay event, ie in the above example, try and make the actual 10 day delay as short as possible if it is within the contractor’s power to do so. The contractor is contractually entitled to 110 days to complete the project, he has no obligation to do it in any shorter period of time. With the eot he still has the original 100 days to do the original 100 days of work in.

Once the 10 day delay is over and assuming the contractor is entitled to an eot for the delay, (and the full 10 days), then the contractor has no further obligation to mitigate. Asking him too go faster after the event and reduce the 10 day over run from the original completion date amounts to acceleration.

Mark,

Acceleration is usually a good source of debate and legal fun.

Actually, the costs of accelerating are often less than the costs of granting an eot so it is an option an employer should bear in mind.

The fun really begins when the Employer opts to agree and pay for acceleration and the contractor doesn’t perform.

With all due respect, there’s nothing mentioned in my posts about instructing the contractor to accelerate. What I underscored is the obligation of the contractor to mitigate delay. If you go back to post #8 item #3 of armando moriles, he clearly stated that their actual duration for activity B is 30 days not 60 days without them being told by the client to accelerate. This seems to me a mitigation measure by the contractor or the duration is too long.

I would certainly appreciate it if we post our comment not only on the context of the replies to the query but to the query itself.

Ronald,

You may have missed last part of my comment #9.

Regards,
Sigfredo

Why would you be charged with LD?

I know where you’re coming from now. That’s the very essence of float is owned by the project. Any party can use it but not abuse it. If the client were able to use it first, bad for you. If what happened was, you were the first one to use it, good for you. Unfortunately, you are on the receiving end in this case.

If you think all float has been exhausted at this point, then the only remedy is to manage your project well, document any delay event. Never give the client any reason, even small ones, to claim delay against you. In other words, cover your ass always.

Se

... unless what is written in the contract documents is nonsense.

Guys,

In one of our current projects, activities in critical path are as follows:

Activity A (By client) = 90 days
Activity B (By contractor) = 60 days (predecessor A fs)
Activity C (By contractor) = 60 days (predecessor B fs)
Activity D (By contractor) = 240 days (predecessor C fs)

Total = 450 days

1. Completion of activity A (By client) was delayed by 30 days;
2. Contractor submits EOT for the 30 days;
3. Contractor actual duration for activity B was on only 30 days against 60 days in the programme;
4. Client rejected EOT claim in lieu of activity B;
5. Contractor notified the client for the record that although the claim was rejected in lieu of activity B, contractor reserved right of ownership of its positive float generated as major activities are still about to start.

note: Contractor already started activities in parallel with activities A & B but were not part of the contract critical path.


Any comment(s) or suggestion(s) regarding float ownership regarding our case would be highly apprecaited.

Regards,

Arman

A common occurrence is for an owner to force the completion of construction/pre-commissioning to a contractual date that gives him ’float’ on his operational commissioning/ramp-up phase duration but still retains a product revenue time-line which satisfies investors/banks and other bean-counters. This usually results in multiple critical paths for the EPC/EPCM manager and a nightmare for the project planner(s). Thus it can be said that, in these instances (quite common in my experience), the owner ’owns’ the project float.

The float belongs to the Project

Hi Mohd.,

Just look for FLOAT OWNERSHIP in search

Same has been discussed many times on this forum. But, for me it is First Come - First Serve Basis.

If your program is approved, then whatever the float is available, is all available for project team. This is all verbal fight, whose float is or who owns it?

As far as program is concerned, it is very difficult for a particular person to claim for FLOAT. Untill and unless, the end dates are not moving forward, it reall doesn’t matter. Let the client scream and make him feel happy, that he owns the float.

U can refer the following link to download some good stuff for EOT. It may help u bit more.

http://www.eotprotocol.com/

As far as verbal fight is concerned, CLIENT will always keep his hand up and for Claims and reports, the Contractor will.

Cheers,

Ravi