It has always been my understanding that under these contracts, float is owned by the project -i.e. both client & contractor can use it to absorb impact of delays on a first come, first served basis.
Recently, a respected colleague advised me that recent UK cases had eroded this position towards the NEC way of looking at things -i.e. terminal float (difference between planned & contractual completion dates) is owned solely by the contractor.
What’s the PP view? This was news to me, but then I freely admit to an almost total ignorance of case law. Should (UK) clients noawadays just assume they don’t own the float, and adjust contractual milestones accordingly?
Also, does the use of terms like ’terminal float’, ’time risk allowance’ , ’schedule buffer’, or ’unpriced float’ to describe float at the end of the project carry any contractual/legal weight when assessing EOTs & LDs?
Thanks and regards,
Gary
Recently, a respected colleague advised me that recent UK cases had eroded this position towards the NEC way of looking at things -i.e. terminal float (difference between planned & contractual completion dates) is owned solely by the contractor.
What’s the PP view? This was news to me, but then I freely admit to an almost total ignorance of case law. Should (UK) clients noawadays just assume they don’t own the float, and adjust contractual milestones accordingly?
Also, does the use of terms like ’terminal float’, ’time risk allowance’ , ’schedule buffer’, or ’unpriced float’ to describe float at the end of the project carry any contractual/legal weight when assessing EOTs & LDs?
Thanks and regards,
Gary