Float belong to the owner

Guys
As one of the folks who was there when CPM was invented and then PERT I cannot agree that float belongs to the client.
Going back to when we wrote the original Arrow Diagram software we already were considering the scheduling of resources using float. Total Float is the result of the maths within the various paths in the Arrow (now Precedence) Critical Path Networks.
PERT was created in conjunction with Booz Allen and Hamilton back in 1957 for the Polaris Missile project and was specifically created to handle estimating doubt (risk ! )The Total Float and the Free Floats (both Early and Late) and Independent are the resul of the maths.
I was both in the US and UK where in the UK International Computers and Tabulators (who are known as Fujitsu) developed 1202 Pert in 1959, 1300 Series Pert 1961, OPUS, APPRAISE, 1500 Series PERT, 1900 Series PERT, etc etc
All produced Resource Schedules which analysed the resource limitations defined. Critical Activites are scheduled immediately and may or may not overload the resource. Activities with float would be delayed if by assigning the resource, it would go into overload.

Many learned discussions in the Operational Research Society - where as a knowledge area we used to be included with, defintely came out in support of the fact that the Client can’t possibly own the Total Float, because the resource scheduling algorithm would utilse it and besides the value of the Total Float was and still is TOTALLY dependent on the forward and backward pass - I hope to God I do not have to explain Forward and Backward passes.

Most PC based software does not provide the user with late frre float and independent float values, or do not make it obviously for the more learned and skilled of our P & S folk.

So the Total Float belongs to the Network. NOw ! who owns the data and results from the network is another ball game

Raf

You people out there

are lost soul in project management

the simplistic way to finish this discussion is to place in the contract

"THE OWNER OWN THE FLOAT"

Plains and simple

And you will get a very reasonable CPM grom client\s contractor.

no more bulldhitting around, no more zero total float

I believe that during the initial stage of the project float(s) doesn’t exist. How can you own something that does not exist?! or how can you own something that is not even calculated yet? And even after the calculation of float(s), it’s not certain if it would be acceptable! ...by the way, who made the calculations?!!!

Think I’ll play devils advocate for a moment:

The contractor submits a programme, the CA approves it. The employers business is doing better than expected so he decides ha can afford a few additional things built. He looks at the contractor’s current programme update, (which is currently telling him the contractor will finish on time), and works out that he can instruct some extra work and the contractor can fit it in without it affecting the completion date due to the float available.

On this basis, (that completion is unaffected), and in complete reliance of what the contractor’s current programme is telling him, he instructs the additional work.

The contractor happily does the additional work and gets paid for it but later in the project, due his own fault, the contractor gets behind. The contractor now claims that if the employer hadn’t instructed the additional work he wouldn’t have fell behind because he would have had the float available.

Why should either the employer be penalised or the contractor benefit from this situation?

yup...i have been in this situation where the progress S curve rising like rocket but the critical activities have so many interfaces.

OK, I’ll be in it. There are so many things wrong with this scenario that it is hard to know where to start.
Let’s call them the client (he’s not really an "employer") and the contractor.
First of all, these two deserve each other and any consequence that follows.
They should have made a contract which described what was being promised and committed to, and by whom, and then stuck to it. Otherwise, the whole concept of a contract is undermined.
The right (a tenuous one) to instruct extras is not there so that the client can just dream up stuff on a whim to add to the scope. If I go into a fruit shop and agree to buy an orange for $1, I can’t then just insist on a few grapes as well.
The client’s judgement or half-baked opinion about what can be squeezed in or not and whether that affects the contractor is irrelevant. If he wants to conduct the project planning and the construction management, he should have done so from the outset (like owner-builder) and not bothered to hire the contractor.
The contractor should have reminded the client to stick to what was agreed in the first place, and if pushed should have insisted on both money and time.
That’s enough provocation for now.

Trevor

I’m away for the rest of the week so won’t be able to reply but -

If you want to stick to the original contract, why agree to use a contract that allows extra work to be instructed?

For the sake of this discussion, lets say the employer wants an increase the size of a 40 bay steel framed single story building he’s having built by adding one more bay to the end of it. At this point, no M&E or finishes, just wants the extra bay erected and clad to possibly expand into at a later date because his business is now doing unexpectedly better than a year ago when he planned this new building.

It’s an increase in work content which can be accomodated by the float as indicated by the contractors programme when instructed, but certainly not outside the scope of the original contract variation clause.

Trevor,

The clients half baked ideas on what can be squeezed in is based entirely on what the contractor’s current programme is telling him can be squeezed in, that’s the main point of this discussion.

The programme shows in detail the time for the erection of the first 40 bays, allowing some further time for an individual bay to that shown the employer has fairly and reasonably estimated the time for this extra bay from the information in the contractor’s programme.

The question is: Should the employer be open to pay damages to the contractor at a later date for acting on and using what the contractor has told him? In this case, using the float that the contractor has told the employer is available due to his chosen method/sequence of work.

The argument of the client is that there was a float to squezze the instruction to vary the work. This is cover in standard contract.

However, the contractor contend that due to this variation, he was not able to finish on time.

Contractor logic is ????????

Take note that forensic schedule analysis will reveal that the event "instruction from the client to add a new bay" will not impact in the cpm because of the float.

The contractor can not cite the said variation as causation in project delay.

In conclusion, the contractor will be penalized due to delay not attributed to the instruction "to increase the number of bays" considering that there was a float

The owner owns the float.

Dont know about the small size projects. But, i m pretty sure, for large size projects, that if client wants to work with a good contrator and if client puts this statement / clause, then contractor will definitely say "**** OFF".

There r plenty of jobs available in market and contractors r now very choosy in selecting it nowadays. Some people still live in those recession days when client was king and can get some extreme clause in the contract. Hey buddy!! wake up, this is 2008 and not 1978.

Float belongs to the project and if client / consultant is smart, then they can minimise the float in the program, but cannot take on grant, it belongs to them.

Rav,

I think you’ve got it spot on.

Chris Oggham

:-)

Hi Mr. Raf,

As a clarification, you mean you are one of the persons who did PERT? It’s really an honor to know one of the guys who took part in writing one of the major text books of our industry...

Raf, the Polaris missile project was a very huge project. Is it okay if I ask you a copy of your notes, even a level 3 or 4 timeline of the project (portion is ok)? Perhaps, you could share with me any article about the project most especially if it contains the issue about floats?You don’t have to lecture about forward/backward pass...

vty,

Arman

"Any chang to the original Scope is a variation and the CLIENTS PAYS EITHER BY TIME OR MONEY OR BOTH!"

Not an absolute truth. This is not knowledge because it generalize an events without going into details. This is hearsay/selfish/decietful.

What if the variation is initiated by the contractor, contractor initiated variation?

What if there is a float in the variation???

What if there is concurrent delays with multiple events due to fault by the contractor????

Have you done a forensic delay analysis???? to support your genralize claims????

To all owners or clients, call me if you have problems with this kind of contractor with this kind of mentality. I’ll always be there to protect your interest. I know the tricks, very simple because I have the experience.

Sensei
Successful Project Management Consultant

Charlie,

I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make here. Are you saying that if the client asks for a variation in the original scope of the project they won’t be asked to pay for it either in time, money or both? I can’t see it happening myself, but I’m willing to be persuaded if you can offer examples, instances where changes in the scope by the client have not incurred additional costs in one form or another.

You then say “Not an absolute truth. This is not knowledge because it generalize an events without going into details. This is hearsay/selfish/decietful.” Since generalising without going into detail is something that you seem to do a great deal, I’m prepared to take your word for it.

You then ask, "what if the variation is initiated by contractor?" Well what if it is? If it’s offered to the client and the client accepts the variation because it gives them an advantage then the client should logically expect to pay for it.

You may possibly have wandered off the point a bit when you ask about delays. If there are delays which are directly due to an action or inaction on the part of the contractor, I can’t see that it matters if there has been a variation in the scope or not; provided this variation has been accepted by the parties involved, any delays would be covered by the existing terms within the contract.

You then went on to state that you would protect all owners or clients from “this kind of contractor with this kind of mentality.” What kind of contractor is that, Charlie, the sort that expects to be paid for the work they do? Maybe it’s the sort that expects their client to realise that if they change their mind part-way through a project it will cost them in time, money or both.

Chris Oggham

To All Owner and Client,

My contact details:

charlieorbe@yahoo.com

Tel No.: +971 50 896 7079

Remember, I’m the only one who can protect your interest.

The rest are sympahetic to the contractor.

My credential: I worked with the contractor side for more than twenty years. I know their mentality, I know how they worked, I know their illussion, dreams and fantassy

Presently, I work in project management. We are successful for there is only one driving force "SUCCESSFUL PROJECT MANAGEMENT"

My alternate email:

charlieorbe@gmail.com

Hi Charleston

You are not the only one out there pitching for the client. There are two sides to every dispute and in my experience its the owner who can pay for the most expensive - and by implication better - experts.

I spent a lot of time in Hong Kong representing the owner of the New Airport defending against contractors who had genuine claims to present.

Best regards

Mike T.

Gentlemen

I think that most people have missed the point on who owns float.
According to the AACE International Standard on Forensic Schedule analysis Practice 29R-03
Which states that "In the absence of of contrary contractual language, network float , as opposed to project float is a shared commodity between the owner and the contractor"

There is that clear, no disputing in that.

It is time to move on

Raf

i guess it can only become a shared commodity (network float) if it exists (if there is an Approved Program) and only during the execution of the project, what after the completion of the project? i (still) cannot believe on as-built float(s).

Mike,

If you said is true,

Then,

Convince the planning planet world.

This can be done by telling us your experience in a constructive way, or by example or by your post (convincing way).

Rap,

It is not yet time to move on....

Because it is still not clear in the contract "WHO OWN THE FLOAT"

AACE to a lesser extent to the point of nuisance SCL EOT protocal or your belove PMI PMBook are only guide. It does not replace what is in the contract.

And to remove ambiguity "THE OWNER OWN THE FLOAT" if ever place in the contact, otherwise, it will only create chaos in project implementation.

Hi charlie,

Do you really think that you are acting in good faith by imposing such clause in the contract? If yes, please explain how such clause could be considered fair to both contractor & owner.

I don’t think scoring points against a contracting party(contractor) just for the sake of removing ambgiguity would result in a smooth administration of contract.

Cheers,
Se

Se,

If only you have get involved at the infancy of this thread, you will know that my intention is for the good of project management and for the project in general by providing this cluase to eliminate nuisance from the contractor by throwing premature claims for extension of time knowing that the events happen during the existent of float.

IF you will make a small effort to re-trace how the development of this thread then you will appreciate my effort to be fair to all : "the owner owns the float".

A lot of you guys/gals out there must think of ways for your projects to move forward instead of being bog down arguing who owns the float.

Also to threaten that there will be no contractor to do the job because of this clause "the owner owns the float" only demonstrate the highest level of ignorance"

So Charlie,

Which project u hav worked on wherein it states that FLOAT BELONGS TO THE OWNER or r u suggesting for any of ur new project to hav this clause.

If yes, then plz let me know on whihc project u r working or whats ur company name?

Theres something called, late start and late finish. As contractor is submitting the program, contractor has full rights to work as per late start and late finish dates and no contract person can deny this. If u agree to this statement, then definitely activity owner owns the float rather than client alone.

Cheers,

Rav

Gentlemen

This debate has been going on since time disputes started many years ago and it has been a very lucrative topic for lawyers everywhere.

It has also been going on too long in this forum.

An attempt was made two years ago by Keith Pickavance and Fenwick Elliott to draft a contract rider to add to the JCT suite of contract forms. This was called "Time Risk Management" and dealt with all matters relating to how EOT and other related matters were to be dealt with contractually.

Although it was an excellent document I have no knowledge of it ever being used on a project.

I t does howver give a useful guide as to an ideal way forward.

Best regards

Mike Testro.

Hi Charlie,

How can we come up with good project management practice that you are saying if you can not even answer direct questions about acting in good faith and fairness?

Se

Se,

Your english is insufficient.

Read behind the line.

if you need brain is small ok

My answer "I’m acting in good faith and in fairness".

period

Hope this will make you happy and jumping with joy.

I believe I ask you to explain it. Your answer is insufficient, not my english.

Expalin what!!!!!

You ask me

by whose power you have the right to ask me. Are you going to pay for my time. Am i in an interview for possible job position. I place limit to my time here in PP otherwise I will loss my job.

you also want to know

you want tutorial

Hey men, dont be authoritarian. take it or leave it

we are only here in our free time

Beside, I’ve been in this world for too long to know people like you even how much time I will explain will never understand. you got a big wall to entertain any idea against your idea.

Believe me I know.

Charleston

Considering the amount of help over the years that has been "freely" given to you by many members of PP, I think you owe Se quite an apology.

You expect courtesy and help from the rest of your colleagues, but fly off the handle when asked to explain.

The sooner you get the chip off your shoulder, the nicer you might become.

Instead of the bore you have become.

Raf

No need to apologize...

I place the blame to Andrew because he is playing the devils advocate

provoking the brainy, not so brainy and the brainless into brainstorming, discussion and crazy hurling of crazy ideas.

This thread could have stop had it been Mr. Andrew responded to my answer to his question a simple correct or not correct from him is enough to silence everyone.

Since I’m the only one who answer Mr. Andrew hypothetical case, the others are just reacting to others opinion and not focus on the Mr. Andrew hypothetical case, AND since there was a silence from Mr. Andrew, therefor

MY ANSWER IS CORRECT

sorry to all of you folks, the losers will lick there wounds,

But of course this is still an open planet so so

Why not answer Mr. Andrew’s hypothetical case and let PP knows where you stand. This is the whole point.

Maybe Mr Andrew is busy with his agent working out his day rate to reply.

Heil!

I seems to agree

Actually, Mr. Andrew said he will be going vacation.

Why it takes him too long?

Mr. Andrew, where are you?

Planning planet need you to finish off this thread.

With regard to Andrew Flowerdrew’s post of 5 May, in my opinion the Contractor should not get an eot.

The reason being, that when the Employer instructed the additional works, there was no delay or likely delay to completion of the project.

Later on in the project, when the contractor fell behind programme and caused a critical delay to completion, he was the cause at that time.

The two ’events’ occured at completely different times in the project and the circumstances are unrelated. No eot to the contractor.

Roger Gibson

Sadly haven’t been on vacation, been in East Africa working.

The example wasn’t the best but it was just trying to highlight that the arguments over ownership of float are not black and white - one or the other should own it, end of discussion. There’s a bit more to it than that and will often depend on the circumstances.

In the example I gave the employer had done nothing wrong, just circumstances had caused him to change his plans and he was making use of the fact that the contractor was on site building his project to change those plans. Wouldn’t we all?

My question was along the lines of, (some 3 pages ago), should the employer be open to pay damages to the contractor at a later date if he has acted upon and relied upon what the contractor has told him in an earlier programme? In this case I agree with Roger, I don’t think the contractor should be able to take advantage. Had the change been down to some mistake by the employer, eg he’d supplied the wrong information to the contractor and the time was spent putting that mistake right, then that’s a different situation.

Who owns the float, (if the contract is silent), isn’t just about the employer or contractor does, it also involves a consideration of the circumstances under which one or the other used the available float at the time it was used.

Charlie’s solution, put it in the contract in express terms, obviously answers the question beyond doubt who owns it.

If as most people on here appear to believe, (except Charlie), it is the contractor, fine, but does that automatically entitle the contractor to anything – no. If the contractor owns the float and the employer uses it, the contractor still has to prove his loss to get any damages or an extension of time.

If the employers use of the float didn’t cause any loss, the contractor gets nothing so his “ownership” hasn’t gained him anything. Similarly if the employer owns the float but the employers use of it causes the contractor loss, the contractor will normally still be able to claim that through loss and expense or similar. So who in reality gains from owning it?

Hence in my opinion it is the project that should own the float, either party can use it – but if in doing so it causes the other party loss or damage, then the party using it is liable to pay. Seems fair to me.

I think I’ll ignore Gwen’s comment.

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.

Let us say Charlie is correct as he is the only one who believe he is. OWNER OWNS THE FLOAT.

What are some of the possible implications of OWNER OWNS THE FLOAT?

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.

so Mr. Know it All, Is this what you want to happen when you say OWNER OWNS THE FLOAT?

No need to make part 2 of this thread. If you don’t have replies to the discussion, please don’t add on to the already piled-up BS stuff of yours.

I will let other planners give their comments about THIS BS that OWNER OWN THE FLOAT.

Gentlemen,

It is a pity that you finish interesting treads like this, specially when Charlie is involved. At least you start debating very well until the intellectual debate comes to this absurd end. Thanks to all brilliant minds for your ideas that help me to manage a discussion regarding the float of my schedule.

Sensei, I do really like to read your posts BUT I believe that ego and arrogance are your worst enemies and not PP members.

Cheers,

Look out everyone - Particularly Andrew - Charleston has set up a new thread on "Float Belong to the Owner 2"

Dear Everyone

I think that the horse was flogged to death many moons ago and it is time to move on.

Float, by which I believe we have meant Total Float is a result of the arithmetical computation carried out a logic driven Critical Path Network and as such must be part of the schedule / programme.

If a client and /or contractor decide to obfurscate it by saying who can use it by clauses in a contract, we as Planners and Schedulers have lost our control of the schedule for which we have worked hard to create and maintain.

So lets put this tired (the subject has been around for over forty years now) object to bed.

Ethical Project Planning and Scheduling is far more important.

Raf

Good Day To All,

Who owns the total float?...

The float is not own by either the client or the contractor....So, who owns it?.....

In the real-life the total float is owned by the project. This solution was mutually agreed after failure to reach to an agreement regarding the ownership of the float. What does it means the project owns the float? the answer to this question is that the first to use the float is the one who owns it. For example, if the concrete casting for a tower has a total float of 20 days. prior to casting of the slab, the engineer discovered discrepancies in the design and revised the design then issued instruction to the contractor to proceed according to the new design. In this scenario who should own the 20 days float? the answer is not so simple. In order to determine who is the float owner you have to refer to the actual situation when the instruction was issued. if the contractor was delayed say 20 days and consumed the float prior to issuance of the instruction then the contractor owns the float. Scenario 2 if the contractor was delayed for 10 days prior to issuance of the instruction then the contractors owns 10 days and the engineer owns 10 days if the impact of the changes is 10 days or more.

Thanx,
Francis

Francis Aborot,

You are a provoking another round of intense and emotional discussion, but actually,

Thanks to you Francis for resurrecting a dead thread

Who Owns the Float, the saga continued to unfold.

The color of my skin changed. Now I worked in the contractor side. In this time of financial crisis, it is best to be loyal to your employer.

And since most of us here worked in the contractor side, I have a big chance my idea will be acceptable to the majority of PP member.

The Contractor owned the float.

Cheers,
Happy Planning and Scheduling

Case Study Part 2 (Case Study Part 1 was the case study from Mr. Andrew)

The project I’m involved includes construction of underground tunnel for vehicular passage. The work involved the construction of diaphragm walls. Precedent to the construction of diaphragm wall is utility diversion. The utility diversion is not in our scope of work.

In our approved baseline programme, the particular utility diversion should finish by X date, however, the utility diversion actual finish date was at a later Y date. The difference between the dates is – 150 calendar days, meaning, the utility diversion was finish late than what was actually plan.

Another reality was that there were other portions of the tunnel work that we already done diaphragm wall, however, because of the delay in utility diversion, our excavator went on standby and cost us a lot of money, more than the amount I will be receiving at the end of my contract, because our specialized sub-contractor claim standby cost.

Question: Are we entitled to Extension of Time of 150 calendar days and associated cost?

Cheers,
Happy Planning and Scheduling

Charles,


Don’t be so biased and greedy even though we are working in the contractor side. Our attitude and response to the owner of course is always overwhelming subjective to defend our company...

But in our discussion here, we should consider what is proper...For our information, take a look at the following argument.

What the employer thinks?

Employer is the owner or the client. They always think about the project they have the ownership of everything in the project since they are paying for it. Based on the assumptions of the ownership of the whole project, the employer always debate that they are the owners of the project’s total float.

What do engineers thinks?

The engineers or consultants and in some projects the project manager, they debate that the ownership of the total float shall be granted to them. Their debate is based on their arguments about the design complexity and amount of changes requested by the owners. Moreover, they planned their works according to the program and they anticipated areas for delays and they enforced high total float in order to allow them to take actions on time.

Contractors Debate

The Contractors argue that the total float is part of their construction baseline program and they created the float in order to enable them recover any delays caused by any unknown unknowns. Furthermore, the contractors believe that any incomplete design or variation order has to be compensated with both time and money.

Defensive actions

All stakeholders always tries to take defensive actions to prevent any negative impact on their own benefits. The owners for example will always comment on the program trying to postpone any actions or decisions taken by them as far as they can. Meanwhile, the contractors common practice is creating two program they call them baseline program and target program. The baseline is the program which they submit to the client and the engineer where they minimize the total float in the program as much as possible. The target program is used for the internal use to set targets for achievement. The engineer understands the contractors defensive actions and they try to force some criteria to be added and/or removed from the program. The process of negotiating the program with the engineer is always based on the total float allowed in the project.

Summary

The total float is owned by the project and it is not exclusively owned by single party. The stakeholders always tries to take defensive action since, each party argues that he should be the owner of the float. THINK LIKE THIS, WE ARE PLAYING GAMES (OWNER-ENGINEER-CONTRACTOR) AND BOTH SHOULD HAVE EQUAL RIGHTS...

Thanx and more power,
FRANCIS

And after it is all over, and everyone is wrecked by the stress and the cost, and everyone believes he has been shafted regardless of the outcome, who wins?
The lawyers and the delay analysts and the experts with the opinions, who are paid to un-scamble the egg. Of course they can’t unscramble the egg, but each one allows their client to believe they can un-scramble the egg in a way which favours the party who is paying for the "services". It is the epitome of dysfunctional. And this is how humans run a planet.
Apologies to the delay analysts in PP, but that’s how it looks.

Hi Trevor

Delay Analysts only get work when a contractor has screwed up - usually because of a completely unsuitable construction programme.

I think I speak for most professional delay analysts (there are a few notable exceptions) when I say that if a potential client has a hopeless case I will tell him immediately. It is amazing how often they don’t believe me.

Delay analysts don’t cause the wreck - we are the scavengers that fly in to clear up mess.

Best regards

Mike Testro

Hi Trevor,

Dont get me wrong please...Im a Junior Planner but I know everybody has an equal right, specially in the contract premise. Even the baseline program is not owned by the contractor, it is owned by the project thats why everybody should follow. NOBODY OWNS THE FLOAT like nobody breaks the queue in the fast food...Its first come first serve basis...

Please, somebody give a reasonable argument regarding this issue. Present points on Who?, Why?, and How?.

Thank you and more power,
Francis

Hi Francis

There is no case law that I know of that turns on the issue of ownership of the float.

Two relevant documents agree with you that float belongs to the project on a first come first served basis - AACEI guide to delay nalysis and the SCL Protocol 2002.

The SCL document goes on to say that it is good planning practice for a contractor to add float to cover his own time risk contingeny and then he gets all of it that is stated as such in the programme.

The NEC form is the only one I know that addresses the subject in any sensible way which requires that:

If a contractor wants some contingency float it must be set into the programme as an interim buffer.

The employers float must be set down as a final buffer.

All parties have electronic access to the agreed contract programme.

This does not prevent the contractor having his own - shorter - target programme to work to and report progress. on the longer contract programme.

Best regards

Mike Testro