The contractor owns the float on the project" How many time have you heard that statement?

The contractor owns the float on the project" How many time have you heard that statement? Usally it comes straight after "Any EOT (Extention of Time) claim is not valid unless it affects the critical path". I would be intersted in any views that you have on this.

At the commenecment of a project if a critical path programme is requested then issue one, the critical path and float activities are clearly displayed. Its true the main contractor actually owns the total / free float on non-critical activities. Float will not affect the critical path unless it the activity with the float gets eaten up due to delays on preceding activities. Only when the float is gone then this activity becomes critical (and your critical path is altered) EOT should be based on the critical path of the contract programme. One would be foolish to make a claim off the critical path.

There are 3 conflicting views as to who owns float in the program. The Contractor? The Employer? The Project? The issue has been the cause of considerable argument and debate down the years. A view that is supported by the SCL protocol, that if a contract is silent on the issue of float ownership it is a shared commodity.....first come, first served or in other words no one party owns or has exclusive right to the available float. Refer to the judgment in Ascon V McAlpine which addresses the issue and concept of float in its ruling and supports the view that float is a shared commodity.

I believe the Contractor should own the float, however the float should be communicated with the owner. For example during contract negotiations two dates should be agreed upon, Date of Completion and Date for Pratical Completion for the project, the total number of days between these two dates is the Contractors float. If the Contractor has any delays the number of days will be reduced, however if the Prinicipal delays the project a new Date for Pratical Completion should be set, this includes any delays due to wet weather.

I think Float should be owned by the Project! I am working in middle east for last 10 years and FIDIC form of contracts are widely used in this part of the world. FIDIC is silent about the ownership of the FLOAT. According to FIDIC conditions of contract the contractor develop the contract schedule but there is a liberty to the client for accept or reject it and ask the contractor to ammend accordingly. Once its accepted by the client then only it becomes a contractual binding on both parties.Since both parties consent is there then FLOAT is also for both parties, here I would agree with Michael Duffy that it should be dealt with first come, first served basis.

From reading above comments, I get the impression there are 2 different discussion going on here as we have different understanding of project float. My understanding of float is based on a single task within the contract programme. There should be no float on the project practical completion date. When a critical path is deveopled and calculated our PC date is critical. This is the last task on our critical path / contract programme and it is the date when L/A kick in. As a planner I produce a target programme to highlight an early completion date but this still is not our Contract PC date and no EOT should not be based on a target programme. If we are discussion the difference between proposed early completion (target) and actual completion (contract) this time period is owned by the main contractor. On the other hand if the MC gets paid for accelleration costs to reach the proposed target date, this new date is now critical and is owned by the client. Next issue will depend on the final agreement between client / MC what date L/A are enforced (early completion or orginal PC) ie accelleration cost to meet early completion but L/A kick in at original PC date. I think this is the grey area as the MC feels no L/A until PC but client thinks I paid for this period but can not get my L/A until original PC date.