Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Introduction
Who owns the float? It is a question that you probably will not find a definite answer for. You will
probably hear many interesting arguments that suggest that float is owned by one party or the other.
Each partys arguments appear to be valid which just adds confusion to complexity.
In my opinion, these arguments tend to distract from what matters most, regardless of who owns the
float, the first question to ask is: what are the implications of such ownership?
This article is addressing the matter in two parts; the first part focus is on providing background about
the arguments. The second part will look at a famous scenario which causes a lot of disputes and most
of the current forms of contracts does not address in an indisputable way. In these two parts, the focus
is not which party is correct; rather, the focus is more about the practical implications of the matter.
mainly based on the fact that the contractor was the party who developed the programme and the float
is a characteristic or attribute to the activities in that programme. While developing the programme,
the contractor had exclusive ability to influence the float of the activities and decide on the sequence
which directly causes activities to be critical or not. In doing so, the contractor developed the
programme so the float will be his own contingency for any unforeseeable events. In extreme cases,
they argue that even if a non-critical activity was delayed, this increases the riskiness of the project and
the contractor should be given an extension of time to maintain the same level of contingency before
the owners risk event occurred. Not so far ago, a survey in the United Kingdom suggested that 80% of
the respondents assumed that the contractor owns the float; not surprisingly, the majority of those
respondents were contractors.
While developing the programme, the contractor had
exclusive ability to influence the float of the activities
and decide on the sequence which directly causes
activities to be critical or not.
The client owns the float argument
This is just the opposite of the view above, the proponents of this view argue that the client has paid for
the project and the programme is one of the tools to manage the project and monitor progress,
therefore, the client should be able to control the float to reduce costs and control progress, especially
when the programme is a contractual requirement in which the contractor has developed it for the
clients benefit. They also counter the contractors argument in relation to delaying the non-critical
activity by saying that the only effect in this instance is reduction of float, without affecting the project
completion, therefore, it is not fair or reasonable to grant the contractor an extension of time while the
contractor did not, in fact, suffer any delays to project completion.
References
1
Harris, R. A., & Scott, S. (2001). UK practice in dealing with claims for delay. Engineering, Construction and Architectural
Management, 317324.
Householder, J., & Rutland, H. (1990). Who owns float? Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 116(1), 130133.
Project Management Institute (PMI). (2008). A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK Guide) Fourth
edition. Newtown Square, PA: Author.
Wickwire, J., Driscoll, T., Hurlbut, S., & Hillman, S. (2003). Construction scheduling: Preparation, liability, and claims. New York,
USA: Aspen Publishers, Inc
Page 2 of 5
Article Published by The Chartered Institute of Arbitrators
Introduction
Part 1 of this article discussed the various arguments in relation to the float ownership. In part 2, the
arguments are put into perspective and a famous disputed scenario is discussed. This article as well
proposes a balanced fair and reasonable solution to the dispute, from the author point of view.
ownership, it is not easy to determine a fair and reasonable solution without having a clear clause
which explicitly covers this situation.
One famous disputed scenario is when one of the
parties consumes the entire float of a non- critical
activity such that this activity becomes critical to the
completion of the project, what happens if the other
party then causes delay to this activity after it becomes
critical?
Conclusion
In my opinion, the debate in its generic form (i.e. who owns the float), is misleading and has proved to
cause disputes more than provide solutions, the question should not be who ones the float, instead, it
should be; how to determine liability under certain situations?
Page 4 of 5
Article Published by The Chartered Institute of Arbitrators
References
1
De La Garza, J. M., Vorster, M. C., & Parvin, C. M. (1991). Total float traded as a commodity. Journal of Construction Engineering
and Management, 716727.
Householder, J., & Rutland, H. (1990). Who owns float? Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 116(1), 130133.
Project Management Institute (PMI). (2008). A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK Guide)Fourth
edition. Newtown Square, PA: Author.
Sakka, Z., & El-Sayegh, S. (2007). Float consumption impact on cost and schedule in the construction industry. Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management, 124130.
Wickwire, J., Driscoll, T., Hurlbut, S., & Hillman, S. (2003). Construction scheduling: Preparation, liability, and claims. New York,
USA: Aspen Publishers, Inc
Page 5 of 5
Article Published by The Chartered Institute of Arbitrators