Total Float Traded as Commodity
Publication: Journal of Construction Engineering and Management
Volume 117, Issue 4
Abstract
Total float is a by‐product of critical‐path‐method calculations. It represents the length of time that an activity's finish date may be delayed without affecting the completion date of the entire project. Disputes over the existence of total float and its ownership are at the core of most claims involving change‐order work. While some tribunals have ruled in favor of contractors, others have held for owners on very similar facts. This paper is motivated by practical experience with problems concerning float. The paper acknowledges the fact that total float is beneficial to both owners and contractors. It does so by proposing ways of making its commercial trade‐in‐opportunity value explicit. Contract language is also introduced that will allow the trading of total float as a commodity. Such contract language grants the contractor the right to administer total float, imposes on the contractor the obligation to disclose its value and trade it on demand.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
References
1.
Callahan, M. T., and Hohns, H. M. (1983), Construction Schedules. The Michie Company Publishers, Charlotteville, Va.
2.
Davis, E. W. (1974). “CPM use in top 400 construction firms.” J. Constr. Div., ASCE, 100(1), 39–49.
3.
Fondahl, J. W. (1991). “The development of the construction engineer: Past progress and future problems.” J. Constr. Engrg. and Mgmt., ASCE, 117(3), 380–392.
4.
Householder, J. L., and Rutland, H. E. (1990). “Who owns float?” J. Constr. Engrg. and Mgmt., ASCE, 116(1), 130–133.
5.
Love, S. F. (1983). “Save time and money on projects by using float.” Proj. Mgmt. Q., 14(4), 46–49.
6.
O'Connor, M. J., Colwell, G. E., and Reynolds, R. D. (1982). “MX resident engineer networking guide.” Technical Report P‐126, U.S. Army Corps of Engrs. Constr. Engrg. Res. Lab., Champaign, Ill., Apr.
7.
Ponce de Leon, G. (1984). “Schedule submittals: To approve or not to approve.” Strategem, 2(1), 1–12.
8.
Ponce de Leon, G. (1986). “Float ownership: Specs treatment.” Cost Engrg., 28(10), 12–15.
9.
Royer, K. (1986). “The federal government and the critical path.” J. Constr. Engrg. and Mgmt., ASCE, 112(2), 220–225.
10.
Tavakoli, A., and Riachi, R. (1990). “CPM use in ENR top 400 contractors,” J. Mgmt. in Engrg., ASCE, 6(3), 282–295.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Copyright
Copyright © 1991 ASCE.
History
Published online: Dec 1, 1991
Published in print: Dec 1991
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.