Guild of Project Controls: Compendium | Roles | Assessment | Certifications | Membership

Tips on using this forum..

(1) Explain your problem, don't simply post "This isn't working". What were you doing when you faced the problem? What have you tried to resolve - did you look for a solution using "Search" ? Has it happened just once or several times?

(2) It's also good to get feedback when a solution is found, return to the original post to explain how it was resolved so that more people can also use the results.

OWNER OWNS THE FLOAT PART 2

14 replies [Last post]
Thu, 2008-05-22 07:06
Charleston-Joseph...
User offline. Last seen 2 years 38 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 10 Jul 2005
Posts: 1347
Groups: None
This is a continuation of "OWNER OWN THE FLOAT"

It is better to end the part 1 when Mr. Andrew gave his idea. As I said if Mr. Andrew will render his opinion, then I will stop. Sometimes this planet needs to show respect to the maestro, the best of the best. and this can be done by showing respect to Mr. Andrew’s idea and final opinion.

But I know, some of you guys with bloodied nose want to come back with me with all the craziness including democracy this plannet can gave us.

So okay with me, if you want to continue the fight.

I also have some score to settle with previous post

Actually when I say fight, no physical contact, only battle of the brains. While there’s a lot of sour grapes and born lossers in this planet, I hope our experience here will give us some sort of achieving the ideals of "SPORTMAHSHIP"

AND SPORTMANSHIP means sometimes you win, sometimes you loss, it is not the lossing or the winning that matter, it is how we play the game. at the end of the day, it will make us a better, not bitter, person.

OK with me.

Top

Replies

Wed, 2008-05-28 08:23
#1
Andrew Flowerdew
User offline. Last seen 2 years 23 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 14 Dec 2004
Posts: 960
Groups: None
Mike,

Lol, City Inn adds nothing to anything!!!!!

Scotland has gone off on a frolic of its own with the thinking in this case. Scotlands position on concurrent delay is now unique in the world even if the judge thought he was following the general American approach – mistakenly thought however.

But Steria v Sigma is the latest English eot case on concurrent delay - which thankfully supported Malmaison as the correct approach. Apportionment wasn’t pleaded though so watch this space!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

Bungay - definitely nearly neighbours, well 30 mins down the road, I live a few miles north of Great Yarmouth
Top
Wed, 2008-05-28 06:50
#2
Mike Testro
User offline. Last seen 4 weeks 4 days ago. Offline
Joined: 14 Dec 2005
Posts: 4418
Groups: Building Information Modelling, Content Moderators, GPCCAR Editors
Hi Andrew

I didn’t include the City Inns case in my summary because it didn’t add much to my argument.

But of course at least one Scottish case is considered relevant in England which is the John Doyle v Laing Management in respect of Global Claims.

It could be that the City Inns case will drift down to England.

Best regards

Mike Testro

ps we are near neighbours - I live in Bungay.
Top
Wed, 2008-05-28 06:43
#3
Charleston-Joseph...
User offline. Last seen 2 years 38 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 10 Jul 2005
Posts: 1347
Groups: None
Andrew/Mike,

I agree.

Indeed it enlighten me.

Thank you.

On the other hand, I may stumble on something different from what the internet say, maybe 20 years from now

I’ll come back and reply to your post.

Once again, i thank you so much.

Top
Wed, 2008-05-28 06:27
#4
Andrew Flowerdew
User offline. Last seen 2 years 23 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 14 Dec 2004
Posts: 960
Groups: None
Charlie,

Sadly time to eat humble pie!!!!

Mikes comment “the concurrency rules as they stand for now indicate that the Contractor gets his EOT and relief of LAD’s but no loss and expense for the period of concurrency." is generally right but the contractor may be able to claim something depending on the contract:

"the concurrency rules as they stand for now indicate that the Contractor gets his EOT and relief of LAD’s but no automatic right to loss and expense for the period of concurrency."

But in Scotland, (and currently only in Scotland), that has all changed with the introduction of apportionment - City Inn v Shepherd Construction case.

English law and every other common law jurisdiction in the world still follow the norm as stated above.

The key here is another of Mikes statements in an earlier post – “the contractor is no worse off than when he signed up”.

The easiest solution to the problem of a contractor thinking he can finish early is that WHEN THE CONTRACT IS SIGNED - if the contractor really thinks he can finish early, then move the completion date!!!!! All arguments disappear about terminal float and concurrency during the use of terminal float, any eot provisions just act as normal.

Or agree, (in writing), with the employer that despite the contractual completion date you intend to finish early, that’s what you’ve priced on, the terminal float is yours and that is the basis that the EMPLOYER HAS ACCEPTED your tender on.

ie Don’t come back later and complain, agree things up front if they are your real intention and you genuinely believe you can do them. Otherwise you’ll just be seen later as trying to get something for nothing and usually lose out.
Top
Wed, 2008-05-28 06:25
#5
Mike Testro
User offline. Last seen 4 weeks 4 days ago. Offline
Joined: 14 Dec 2005
Posts: 4418
Groups: Building Information Modelling, Content Moderators, GPCCAR Editors
Hi Charleston

The current situation on concurreny has eveolved over three landmark cases:

1. Balfour Beatty v Chestermount which established the "Dot On" principle.

2. Henry Boot v Malmaison which set down the principle that all delay events had to be established - no "Cherry Picking".

3. The Brompton Hospital Case which clarified the concurrency situation thus:

True concurrency is where two events are delaying the work in the same time zone.

For example: The employer cannot give access to the site for 4 weeks and the contractor cannot mobilize his piling rig for the same 4 weeks.

In this case the contractor gets an EOT but no costs.

If the employers delay stretches to 6 weeks and the contractors rig is ready in 4 weeks then the contractor gets EOT for six weeks and loss and expense for 2 weeks.

If the site is open in 4 weeks but the contractor’s rig is still off site for 6 weeks the contractor gets EOT for 4 weeks and the employer gets LAD’s for 2 weeks.

I trust that is clear.

Of course it is rarely that simple and when there are about 20 concurrent events it can get really complex - but that is why there are delay analysts like me.

Best regards

Mike T.
Top
Wed, 2008-05-28 00:57
#6
Charleston-Joseph...
User offline. Last seen 2 years 38 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 10 Jul 2005
Posts: 1347
Groups: None
Mike,

in your statement "If the 2 months contractor delay was truly concurrent with the 2 months employers delay then in the original scenario the 12 month contract would not have been exceeded so no EOT claim."

However you added:

"Otherwise the concurrency rules as they stand for now indicate that the Contractor gets his EOT and relief of LAD’s but no loss and expense for the period of concurrency"

Please explain what you mean by simple scenario, and PP will check your idea if it is correct or wrong

Because in my HUMBLIEST opinion, your "Otherwise ... did not exist.

PP forgive me if I’m wrong otherwise, we do have to forgive Mike if he is wrong.
Top
Tue, 2008-05-27 09:34
#7
Mike Testro
User offline. Last seen 4 weeks 4 days ago. Offline
Joined: 14 Dec 2005
Posts: 4418
Groups: Building Information Modelling, Content Moderators, GPCCAR Editors
Hi Charlestone.

If the 2 months contractor delay was truly concurrent with the 2 months employers delay then in the original scenario the 12 month contract would not have been exceeded so no EOT claim.

Otherwise the concurrency rules as they stand for now indicate that the Contractor gets his EOT and relief of LAD’s but no loss and expense for the period of concurrency.

For delays beyond the concurrent period LAD’s and Loss and expense fall where they are due under the contract.

Best regards

Mike Testro

Top
Tue, 2008-05-27 08:55
#8
Charleston-Joseph...
User offline. Last seen 2 years 38 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 10 Jul 2005
Posts: 1347
Groups: None
Alex,

In this scenario:

What if the contractor have its own delay for 2 months and the owner also caused 2 months of delay. Who should paid for the cost.


This is a state of contractor caused inexcusable delays concurrent with owner caused delays.

According to a lot of reference books and reference guide found in the internet:

The contractor will not get a penny. The contractor will pay the cost.

Sensei
Successful Project Management Consultant
Top
Mon, 2008-05-26 11:11
#9
Mike Testro
User offline. Last seen 4 weeks 4 days ago. Offline
Joined: 14 Dec 2005
Posts: 4418
Groups: Building Information Modelling, Content Moderators, GPCCAR Editors
Hi Charleston

Please read the definitive case:

Glenlion Construction Ltd v The Guinness Trust, QBD 28 July 1987

Best regards

Mike Testro
Top
Mon, 2008-05-26 09:33
#10
Alex Wong
User offline. Last seen 11 years 4 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 12 Feb 2003
Posts: 874
Groups: TILOS
Charleston

What if the owner approved the project plan...

What if the contractor have its own delay for 2 months and the owner also caused 2 months of delay. Who should paid for the cost.

The Contractor accepted the project, the owner accepted the bid offer. Who own the float, Who own the project ...

Well one thing for sure, the owner owns the final product, whatever the project is.

IMHO The project owns the float, and whether it is in favour of the owner or the contractor it is a case by case bases, it is a shared responsibility and ownership.

Like any rights comes with obligations.

Alex
Top
Mon, 2008-05-26 09:26
#11
Charleston-Joseph...
User offline. Last seen 2 years 38 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 10 Jul 2005
Posts: 1347
Groups: None
You mean to say,

Hey Mr. Client I can finish your 12 month project duration into 50 percent, 6 months

However in the course of the project implementation, you caused me too much delays not attributed to my actions so the project finish in 12 months.

Therefor Mr. Client, I will file a claim

See you in court because I will not settle for less that the arbitration or adjucation will offer

Is this what you want to happen in project management?

Is this what SCL eot protocal desire?? Is this what AACE wanted to happened

Please check your reference.

Because in my HUMBLIEST opinion, it is not possible.
Top
Mon, 2008-05-26 09:21
#12
Charleston-Joseph...
User offline. Last seen 2 years 38 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 10 Jul 2005
Posts: 1347
Groups: None
MIke,

I’m really bery busy, but...
I can’t help myself

Your scenario is fantastic. If ever it happened, maybe an exception but not normal because!!!!

What will stop the contractor to make imaginary assumption that he can finish the job earlier than the contract duration let say from your example of 10 months from original ten months. or

why not make it 6 months in this way the contractor can squezze more from the client in the event the project finish let say 8 months or 10 months or 12 months, the original duration.

THIS IS GREED.

Hallucinations

be real or please cite specific or real world that really happened so that we can research in the internet if it did happened.
Top
Mon, 2008-05-26 06:59
#13
Mike Testro
User offline. Last seen 4 weeks 4 days ago. Offline
Joined: 14 Dec 2005
Posts: 4418
Groups: Building Information Modelling, Content Moderators, GPCCAR Editors
Hello Charleston.

If a contractor has signed up to complete a project in - say 12 months - but there is the potential to complete in 10 months then if the Contractor completes in 10 months then he has done well and made extra money.

If the Employer causes delay that uses up the two months opportunity the contractor cannot claim extra time or money for the "loss of opportunity" because the contractor is no worse off than when he signed up.

To this extent the owner owns the float.

If the delays go beyond 12 months then to contractor can claim redress.

The contractor can claim use of float for his own mistakes as and when they occur thus reducing float available to the owner.

This is the basic principal of "Float belongs to First Come First Served".

Best regards

Mike Testro
Top
Thu, 2008-05-22 07:12
#14
Charleston-Joseph...
User offline. Last seen 2 years 38 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 10 Jul 2005
Posts: 1347
Groups: None
for your SE,

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.

Se, this is a good start to acknowledge Mr. Andrew idea is good.

Let us say Charlie is correct.. Se, your acknowledgement that I’m correct will stand as it is.

What are some of the possible implications of OWNER OWNS THE FLOAT? Se, take note that you are making hypothetical scenario... this may only exist in your bitter state. please cool down, relax and enjoy what you learn from the maestro. The moment you are using this for revenge, then, people will not be on your side. Please calm down, be cool and relax

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.

The scenario above is a product of a bitter person who try to remove the best of the best that we cna derive from Mr. Andrew’s opinion.

so Mr. Know it All, Is this what you want to happen when you say OWNER OWNS THE FLOAT? I love it when you finally confirm to the whole planning planet world that I’m Mr. Know it all. take note it is your word and not mine.

We will let this cool down first, then I will respond. brainless
Top