Terminal Float
In the Open Standard
David BordoliMember for 24 years 6 months
- Created
- 64
- 9
0
Hello all you propeller heads...
Can anyone tell me where the term ’Terminal Float’ came from? I have heard it referred to recently in conjunction with the NEC contracts. A Google search on those terms does throw up a few learned papers that mention it and there are a couple of references to it in other threads on PlanningPlanet.
The mother of all glossaries, the Wideman Comparative Glossary of Project Management Terms v3.1 (http://www.maxwideman.com/pmglossary/index.htm) does not mention it.
I can’t find reference in the NEC suite (but then it is a massive document). I realise it is jargon connected with ’time risk allowances’ (clause 31.2).
I imagine it was contrived by a non-planner and really means time contingency (or buffer) at the end of the project.
My view, for what it’s worth is, simplistically, that float is unallocated time within a programme, contingency is allocated time (say, to take account of unexpected events) so, therefore, float is not contingency and mixing the terms will lead to confusion.
For instance: A contractor provides a contingency period at the end of the project - lets say he describes it as such and it occupies the one month period between the planned end of his works and the contractual completion date. Now, if the employer omits some work that take makes the planned programme is one month shorter, in most contracts the employer cannot reduce the contract period. In my view (which is still under development) the contingency period stays at one month and there is now also an additional free float period of one month at the end of the programme. I believe that free float period now belongs to the programme in the usual fashion to be used on first come first served basis but the contingency period can only be used by the contractor (and he only has to do that once the free float is used up).
Apologies for rambling.
Regards
David
Can anyone tell me where the term ’Terminal Float’ came from? I have heard it referred to recently in conjunction with the NEC contracts. A Google search on those terms does throw up a few learned papers that mention it and there are a couple of references to it in other threads on PlanningPlanet.
The mother of all glossaries, the Wideman Comparative Glossary of Project Management Terms v3.1 (http://www.maxwideman.com/pmglossary/index.htm) does not mention it.
I can’t find reference in the NEC suite (but then it is a massive document). I realise it is jargon connected with ’time risk allowances’ (clause 31.2).
I imagine it was contrived by a non-planner and really means time contingency (or buffer) at the end of the project.
My view, for what it’s worth is, simplistically, that float is unallocated time within a programme, contingency is allocated time (say, to take account of unexpected events) so, therefore, float is not contingency and mixing the terms will lead to confusion.
For instance: A contractor provides a contingency period at the end of the project - lets say he describes it as such and it occupies the one month period between the planned end of his works and the contractual completion date. Now, if the employer omits some work that take makes the planned programme is one month shorter, in most contracts the employer cannot reduce the contract period. In my view (which is still under development) the contingency period stays at one month and there is now also an additional free float period of one month at the end of the programme. I believe that free float period now belongs to the programme in the usual fashion to be used on first come first served basis but the contingency period can only be used by the contractor (and he only has to do that once the free float is used up).
Apologies for rambling.
Regards
David
64 replies
Oldest first- 0Andrew Flowerdew ·David,
Defintely a relevant point. The contractor would have a good claim for the ownership of any contingency but as we know, not always float.
The NEC gives the contractor ownership of terminal float so in that case the use of the two terms is probably less important, but inter-mixing them can only lead to confusion which is best avoided. If mixed up someone will try and use the same principle on a contract where it isn’t applicable and arguments will follow. The distinction therefore is important in other contracts.
Brad, it may be boring, but it might cost someone a few million pounds one day if they get it wrong, so I think it’s worth discussing. - 0Puneet Gupta ·Terminal Float is same as Total float on the last planned activity in the network.
Terminal Float is not same as contingency.
Contractor may show early completion of his work but what about the predecessor activity of his work which is dependent on Engineer / Architect / Other Contractor work?
So in my opinion terminal float is same as Total Float.
There can be two ways of showing terminal float in a network.
1. Put the Early Finish constraint on the project completion date and link it with the last activity of the network. Any delay on the longest path will not shift the project completion date.
2.Link the last activity with Project’s Contractual completion date as FS relationship with required lag.
If the network is defined as mentioned in point 1, It will act as Total Float.
In case 2 , It will act as Contractor’s contingency.Any single day delay on the longest path will delay the Contract completion date.
Normally I prefer Option 1 , Until n unless told to me by project manager that this is a contingency.
Thanks - 0David Bordoli ·Rohit
Thanks for your contribution... I think!
Clive
And for yours - I feel it a pity that others have not waded through the thread like you did to find the true meaning of life, sorry, I mean the true subject of the thread! Why, oh why is everyone keen on giving me their interpretation of what Terminal Float might or might not be! Seems we might be going off piste again...
David - 0David Bordoli ·Chris
We might have to let this one die but Clive (below) did throw a little light:
To turn to the matter in hand I do recall on a training course regarding the NEC, unfortunately directly after lunch when I am not at my best, that the term Terminal float was used by the course leader, a gentleman who had an intimate hand in drafting said suite of contracts.
If he wasn’t such a piss-head and so shy of exposing his sources we might have solved it!
Anyway, I guess the die is almost cast and there is little chance of turning the large tanker that is the misuse of our precise language (yes... I am trying to mix as many metaphors as I can - just to confuse Charlie with my native english speak).
One day, when I have time to breath again I’ll write that paper throwing a few F’s into the contingency/float debate. No-one takes any notice though but feels good to get it off my chest.
Anyhow... I take comfort in the fact that the ’where are all the planners in London’ thread has more misleading bunkum than this. So, Clive - if you are still around - I think you should consider that thread a contender for Orbe d’Or.
Love and Peace
David
Log in or join to reply
ProjectControls.com is free to join. Members can post questions, reply, vote and follow discussions.
Existing members: your original username and password still work. Forgot password?