Float belong to the owner

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

Why don’t you ask the client what he means by this, with an example?

Just because he keeps repeating "float belongs to owner" doesn’t mean he knows what he is talking about, or can explain what he means, or that it means anything.

The float belongs to the Tasks, and whoever is doing the construction management owns the Tasks.
Is you client volunteering to take over the construction management?

The float belongs to the Project

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.

I refer you all to an article written by Anthony Morgan Director & Expert in Construction Disputes in Forensic Services for Price Waterhouse Cooper "Who owns the float?".

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

Hi Armando,

This is where float becomes a huge issue in projects. If I’m working for the client, I would insist that the contractor has the obligation to mitigate delay which is finishing the 60 day task to only 30 days. Take note I used the word mitigate not accelerate. If I’m working for the contractor, what I would do is to demonstrate to the client the "real cost" you incurred because of the delay attributed to the client not as a global delay event. From the opinion of many in this thread even myself, float is owned by the project, I don’t think the contractor can reserve the right to owning positive float. This is just my opinion, the best basis still is what’s written in your contract documents.

Se

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

Se,

Thanks for your comments and yes I do agree that the float belongs to the project as a shared commodity and not to the owner. However, just for argument purposes, in our case the critical path responsibility matrix clearly identifies the owner’s responsibility. Being the EPC contractor directly dealing with the owner, we accepted owner’s claim of the positive float we generated to cover up their delay in terms of flexibility and proactivity. But then, we specified that in accordance with the provisions of the contract we reserve our right of ownership of the float we generated. Because what will happen now is that although we were advance on our first activity of the critical path by 30 days, we will still be charged with LD should we fail to attain contract finish date.


Regards,

Arman

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

I cannot believe that I have read 2 pages of response on this matter and not one of the contributors included a reference to the contract documents. First and foremost, what does the contract documents say about float and float ownership?

If the documents say, “the Owner” then the Owner owns the float. If the documents say, “the Contractor” then the Contractor owns it. If it calls for the project to own it, then whoever uses it reasonably first gets it. If the document is silent on this issue but mentions, “project float”, then the project most likely owns it.

If the contract is totally silent on this issue, then you are betting a lot of money on opinions. I am not sure of your legal environment where you live, but in the USA if you run around loudly insisting on redefining the contract your way without consideration of the other party’s viewpoint, then you are a trial layer’s best friend and you will probably be responsible for helping him buy a brand new luxury car, pay for his kids’ braces, and a tummy-tuck for his wife. Good luck!

Ronald,

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

Regards,
Sigfredo

Oh what a topical subject, I think Ronald has summed it up. One point that I did notice was from Se de Leon:

“If I’m working for the client, I would insist that the contractor has the obligation to mitigate delay which is finishing the 60 day task to only 30 days. Take note I used the word mitigate not accelerate.”

The contractor’s obligation is normally to mitigate the actual delay event which does not mean that he has to accelerate subsequent activities to overcome the effect of a previous delay, (unless of course the delay is the contractor’s liability). Instructing a contractor to shorten the duration of a subsequent activity is asking him to accelerate whatever term you wish to use.

In the example below, it would normally be the contractor’s obligation to try and mitigate the Employer caused 30 day delay. Assuming he has done this, (if it within his power to do so), then the contractor gets a 30 day eot.

With the eot the contractor still has 60 days available to complete task B – hence asking the contractor “to mitigate delay which is finishing the 60 day task to only 30 days” is acceleration, not mitigation, as you are effectively reducing the contractor’s contract period by 30 days - I assume by not properly giving the contractor the eot he is entitled too. Constructive acceleration in the USA.

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.

Seems clear enough to me what you meant:

"If I’m working for the client, I would insist that the contractor has the obligation to mitigate delay which is finishing the 60 day task to only 30 days. Take note I used the word mitigate not accelerate.”


The contractor has no obligation to mitgate activites following the delay, his obligation is to mitgate the delay event, not its subsequent effect. His entitlement to an eot has arisen and should be honoured.

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.

Well I guess this is where the difference is. Interestingly, contracts that I have encountered specifically stated the obligation of the contractor to mitigate not only the delay event but the project delay. Which contract are you referring to? I would certainly not recommend it if I’m working for the client/owner.

Again as I said earlier, it boils down to what the contract document is saying.

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.

I think we’ve gone off the purpose of this thread a bit but float, mitigation and acceleration are pretty intertwined.

But it is true, where the contractor then goes faster, (or appears to catch up time), of his own accord, it gets an even more interesting debate.

There is a very very commonly held but mistaken view that the contractor has some ongoing obligation to mitgate employer delays throughout the contract - not true, although the contractor does has an ongoing obligation to mitgate his own delays. If the contractor is entitled to an eot then it is the event itself and not the ongoing delay effect of the event that the contractor is obliged to mitigate, (normally).

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

Andrew,

Interesting and bright idea.

This makes project management complicated. I think PMI should take your idea seriuosly and start revamp the whole project management though.

I still believe in the traditional project management though: on schedule, within budget and within specified quality.

Who own the float?????? Let this be stated in the contract to avoid misunderstanding and I would prefer: the owner own the float, in this way the contractor will prepare a cpm schedule with minimal float.


Constructive acceleration may help save the day for best project management practive, maybe, but then what will become of our peers from forensic claims specialist??

Cheers

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.

There are always some simple things contract drafters could do to make this area of project management simpler - like expressly state who owns the float, but for some reason it never seems to happen. The NEC has taken the trouble to sort out terminal float though.

I don’t know of a standard form that states, (impliedly or expressly), that the contractor is obliged to mitigate a delay that he is entitled to an extension of time for once that entitlement has accrued - other than an obligation to make the delay as short as possible in the first place by using reasonable or best endeavours.

If the contractor was under an ongoing obligation to reduce a delay then how could you ever ever work out what the eot should be during the project?

For example - the actual critical delay was 10 days but as the Contract Administrator I think the contractor should be able to reduce that to 5 days by the end of the project so I’m going to give him a 5 day eot - this would make a nonsense of any eot provisions and risk lots of arguments over the prevention principle if the contractor failed to reduce the delay to 5 days by the end of the project let alone a lot of arguments from the contractor that he is entitled to the full 10 days.

If the delay is 10 days and the entitlement to an eot is 10 days there is no further obligation on the contractor to mitgate that 10 days. I know eot’s are rarely that simple or clear cut but this is at least the starting position.

Float, personally I think if the contract is silent then the starting point should be the project owns it, it’s the fairest starting point and afterall, if the parties had thought about it at the time of contract and wanted it to be different wouldn’t they have said so in their contract? Answers on a postcard to that please!!!!!!!!!

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!

Just for clarification – when I say ongoing delay, I mean that critical delay caused when the event is over.

Say the employer instructs a variation and it’s going to take 20 days to do it and the contractor is entitled to an eot for this variation. The contractor plugs this new activity into the programme and it causes 20 days of critical delay. The contractor does have an obligation to try and reduce this 20 days if he can, maybe by reprogramming the work sequence, possibly by increasing resources on the variation work, etc, etc.

The contractor does what he can and at the end of doing the variation work he has managed to reduce the critical delay to 15 days. The contractor is entitled to 15 days eot for this variation.

There is no further ongoing obligation on the contractor during the rest of the project to try and reduce the 15 days. His obligation is only to mitigate the affect of the event itself as and when it occurs.

Once it’s finished, there is no further obligation on the contractor BUT there is an obligation on the contract administrator now to award an eot in a fair and impartial manner, (subject to notice provisions etc).

And if this process was properly followed on every contract - there would be a lot less disputes.

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.

Charlie,

You be rude, never known that before: Actually going through your example as per SCL Protocol:

Excavation has 90 days float

Start of excavation delayed by 60 days by Employer, (reasonable mobilisation period should be allowed following employer delay).

Excavation still has 30 days float - therefore can not be critical to completion and would not entitle the contractor to any extension of time.

If the numbers were reversed, (90 and 60), then the contractor would normally be entitled to 30 days eot.

Under the Protocol ,(and most contracts), you are only entitled to an eot for the amount of critical delay caused.

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

Critical Delay Caused: This can be derived from as-built programme. Ownership of float question comes only during entitlemnet of extension of time by contractor.

Ownership of float depends upon which method u r using to demonstrate entitlement to own the float. The method depends upon the evidence available, existing progrtamme evidence and particular circumstances. There are mainly only two methods, of which there r different variants and hybrids given different names (Impact as-planned, as-planned v/s as-built, as-built but-for, collapsed as-built, time impact method, window slice method).

Method of analysis will b means of demonstrating causation and inevitably and this will be theoretical based on disputed facts and opinion, even though u r using as-built method.

The method of analysis using as-built programme has d advantage that it creates accurate record of actual progress if based on traceable evidence. In practice, it is necessary to focus the analysis on key areas of delay to avoid unnecessary expense. This makes the method iterative. It is not usually sufficient to simply compare the as-built programme to the planned programme without verifying the planned programme. It is necessary instead to prepare a construction logic which explains the sequence of events and reasons for the actions taken and delay caused.

The method of analysis using time impact or snapshot approach requires base programme initially adopted by the contractor to be updated for each event. The update requires the construction logic to be examined for any change with new activities created if necessary and the durations re-evaluated. This update may create a new critical path and an extended period. The updated programme is then updated for the next event and so on. If data is not available at the time of the delay then another method needs to be used. The advantage of this method is that it records the unfolding of events and places actions in context.

Ownership of float is not a weekly meeting issue and will be raised only during EOT claims. Whatever method is adopted, it is necessary that the expert preparing the programme understands the construction issues involved as well as the limitations of the particular programme software and the method. The expert must also be able to explain the analysis to allow the judge, arbitrator, and adjudicator or A/E to understand.

Cheers,

Ravi

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”.

Andy,

BTW do u hav ronald’s paper on Longest Path now. I lost somewhere. If u hav, wil u plz paste the link here.

Cheers,

Rav

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

It’s seldom you encounter a programme’s critical path at the onset of the project will be the acceptable critical path for some of the reasons below:

1. The planner plugged-in buffers. Long durations.
2. Constraints were unnecessarily assigned.
3. Crewing is not clear. e.g. 4 people in one crew, 6 people in 1 crew.
4. Terminal float.
5. Inadequate details in schedule.
6. Is the acceptance of the programme by the client’s CA bound him contractually?

The above and maybe more combined with contract stipulations or absence of stipulations(Contractor has the obligation to mitigate project delay, Best endeavours)adds up to the confusion on how eot, mitigation, acceleration, ownership of float should be resolved.

If there’s one contract that connect all these dots, it would certainly much easier to come to an agreement. But unfortunately, for whatever reason, contracts I have encountered lacks one or more of the above.

No wonder, even in this thread, we don’t have an agreement yet.

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.

This is for all those planning to attend the 52nd Annual Meeting of AACE International & 6th World Congress of ICEC in Toronto. There will be a technical topic which will discuss/debate the subject of "Who owns the float".

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.

Hi Guys,

Charlie has made the point clear and simple that - All the owner has to do is to place in his contract with the contractor that "THE OWNER WILL OWN THE FLOAT".

But then again if it was really just that simple, "Who owns the float", would not be one of the topics under discussion at 52nd Annual Meeting of AACE International & 6th World Congress of ICEC in Toronto.

While Charlie has suggested an approach to the difficulty, what happens if the contractor says "No" to a contract with such a condition specified?

Chris Oggham

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.

BUT BUT BUT

WHY CAN’T WE JUST INCLDUE IN THE CONTRACT

"THE OWNER OWNS THE FLOAT"

WHY????, WHY???

I worked in the project management consultant. What professional bias will I be charged if I will advised the owner to include "THE OWNER OWNS THE FLOAT"

Am I doing a desrvice to the project management practice.

Or it will take a lot of tiime for any project mnagement institute to revise there books or idea by simply stating "THE OWNER OWNS THE FLOAT".

"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!

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.

Charlie,

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

cheers,

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

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.

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

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

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)!

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

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

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