Professional Documents
Culture Documents
F
loat ownership has been the subject of hot debate for regulated in the contract in some way, shouldn’t the focus be
a long time. Whether float is owned by the contractor, on the specific situations that may give rise to such disputes?
the owner, or the project, is still an ongoing argument
in many countries around the world. In this article, the focus What is Float?
is not about which party is correct; rather, the focus is more Generally speaking, float is the period during which a non-
about the practical implications of float ownership. In my critical activity can be delayed. There are a few types of float;
view, the debate has become more of a hypothetical debate, the most important types are the free float and the total float.
with little association with reality. The free float is “the amount of time that a schedule activity
Should the question be who owns the float or, what can be delayed without delaying the early start date of any
does float ownership mean, and what are the implications of immediately following schedule activities” (PMI, 2008, p. 435).
such ownership? Also, many project managers overlook the Free float is used mainly for resource leveling (smoothing);
contract clauses that regulate the utilization of the float and in other words, easing the high peaks by rescheduling the
engage in unnecessary debate based on irrelevant assumptions activities so the resources become more uniformly disrupted.
or past experiences, which do not apply to the project at The most important type of float is the total float, which is
hand. If many of the implications of such a debate are already “the total amount of time that a schedule activity may be delayed
from its early start date without delaying the project finish date or
violating a schedule constraint” (PMI, 2008, p. 451). Total float
is the one that is vital for project completion and therefore is
the focus of this paper. For the purpose of this paper, the term
float is used to refer to total float.
Should the Aspects of the Arguments
The debate is fierce, because each party (i.e., the contractor
question be who owns
and the owner) understands the vital role of float to the
the float or, what does float project. Generally speaking, each party believes that the
exclusive ownership of float is in the party’s best interest. This
ownership mean, and what are lays the foundation for an adversarial relationship between
parties, especially if the contract does not regulate the float
the implications of such utilization between parties. The float ownership has two
major aspects: the first is the ability to directly or indirectly
ownership?
influence the construction methodology and/or sequence The View that Float is Owned by the Contractor
once the project execution has started, and the second aspect The view that float is owned by the contractor implies that the
is probably more interesting and relates to the entitlement contractor is entitled to utilize such float for his or her own
of extension of time (EoT) and the application of liquidated risk events and recovery rescheduling. This traditional view
damages (LDs). once had wide acceptance among practitioners, especially in
There are three main views on the matter: some argue the early days of delay claims and before the widespread use of
that the entitlement to utilize float is for the contractor, some sophisticated critical path method (CPM) software packages.
believe it is only for the owner, and others feel that it is owned At that time, most of the contractors’ schedules were prepared
by the project.1 These views are discussed in more detail in a simple bar chart format (Wickwire, Driscoll, Hurlbut, &
hereinafter. Hillman, 2003), which did not allow for easy and practical
monitoring of the float and tracking its consumption
A Contract Perspective throughout the project.
Many practitioners expect to find a clause in the contract The proponents of this view argue that the contractor
that says, in explicit wording, that float is owned by one of was the party who developed the schedule and the float is an
the parties; for example, “Float is owned by the contractor attribute to this schedule. Float allows the contractors the
(or the owner).” If such a clause with that explicit wording flexibility to perform their duties properly and effectively
is not stated in the contract, each party asserts (or claims) meet the completion date; it also helps the contractor plan the
the float ownership rights to be his own, based on either work, and therefore it is the contractor’s own contingency for
past experience in other projects; previous court cases, which any unforeseeable events. In extreme cases, they go further to
might not apply to the project at hand; or just according suggest that if an owner risk event occurred in a non-critical
to their own personal preference and view of the debate. activity, the contractor should be given an extension of time
This inaccurate perception gives rise to unnecessary disputes to maintain the same level of contingency before the event
between parties. occurred. Moreover, about 20 years ago, some commentators
Although such an explicit clause can be found in some suggested that the contractor should be able to sell the float to
contracts, it is not the only way to regulate the float usage the owner (De La Garza, Vorster, & Parvin, 1991).
between parties. Most contracts deal with the matter through This view still has its appeal in some parts of the world.
the inclusion of what is referred to as “joint ownership of A recent survey in the United Kingdom revealed that 80%
float” and/or “non-sequestering of float” clauses. of the respondents assumed that the contractor owns the
The “joint ownership of float” clause indirectly float; not surprisingly, the majority of those surveyed were
indicates ownership by stating that no time extension or contractors (Harris & Scott, 2001). Given that most forms of
other compensation will be granted for delays to non- contracts include “joint ownership of float” clauses, the survey
critical activities until the delay exceeds the available float results should have been different (i.e., should have been
(Householder & Rutland, 1990). On the other hand, the similar to the contract view). This inconsistency highlights
“non-sequestering of float” clause prevents the contractor the fact that many practitioners fall into the traps of their
from preparing a baseline schedule with overstated duration own assumptions and ignore what the contract says about
to reduce float, for example, by stating that only 30% of the the matter.
activities can be critical (Wickwire, Driscoll, Hurlbut, &
Hillman, 2003). The View that Float is Owned by the Owner
It might be surprising to learn that there are numerous Another side of the argument is that the float is owned
disputes about this, because some project managers presume by the project owner. The proponents of this view argue
that the float is owned by the contractor (or the owner) and that float is contingency time for the project; hence, it is a
manage the project based on that inference, despite having risk management tool against delays caused by an owner
“joint ownership of float” and/or “non-sequestering of float” risk event. From this point of view, if delay events affected
clauses in the contract that suggest otherwise. non-critical activities, their only effect is reduction of float,
1
A fourth view is that the float is a shared resource that is not owned by any party. This view is very similar to the view that
the project owns the float, and the differences don’t have noticeable implications for the purpose of this paper; therefore, this
view is not included in the discussion.
2
See, for example, GSBCA (1975) – Dawson Construction Co.; ASBCA (1987) – Titan Pacific Construction Corp.; DDC
(1990) – Williams Enterprises, Inc. v. Strait Manufacturing & Welding Inc.; DOTCAB (1990) – Ealahan Electric Co.; Cl.
Ct. (1990) – Weaver-Bailey Contractors, Inc. v. United States; and DCCAB (1996) – MCI Construction, Inc.; all are cited in
(Wickwire, Driscoll, Hurlbut, & Hillman, 2003).
3
See Ascon Contracting Ltd v. Alfred McAlpine Construction (1999).
4
A free copy can be downloaded from www.eotprotocol.com.