Preallocation of Total Float in the Application of a Critical Path Method Based Construction Contract
Publication: Journal of Construction Engineering and Management
Volume 133, Issue 11
Abstract
Under current scheduling practices, total float time is considered “free” and does not belong exclusively to any specific party in the construction process; rather, it belongs to the project and can be used by both owners and contractors to mitigate the potentially negative impact of delays. Utilization of float is, hence, on a “first-come, first-served” basis. Within this usage protocol and guided by the Common Law’s Proximate Cause principle, the party that encounters critical delays in the later stages of a project is more likely to be held responsible for delays to the overall project completion time. Given these practices, float ownership and its utilization has continued to become a major source of disputes when project delays occur. The objective of this paper is to introduce the concept of float preallocation and management for critical path method based construction schedules. The principles for preallocating and managing “total float” include recommending contract clauses to direct its use and to explain the manner in which responsibility for any resulting delay may be assigned. The paper also introduces a bookkeeping procedure to facilitate the application of this concept on project schedules. The proposed concept continues to recognize that total float is an asset for both parties.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
References
Ambani, N. (2004). “Bookkeeping procedures for the application of the concept of preallocation of total float.” Master's thesis, Virginia Polytechnic and State Univ., Blacksburg, Va.
De La Garza, J., Vorster, M. C., and Parvin, C. M. (1991). “Total float traded as commodity.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 117(4), 716–727.
Gong, D., and Rowings, J. E., Jr. (1995). “Calculation of safe float use in risk-analysis-oriented network scheduling.” Int. J. Proj. Manage., 13(3), 187–194.
Householder, J. L., and Rutland, H. E. (1990). “Who owns float.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 116(1), 130–133.
Pasiphol, S., and Popescu, C. (1994). “Qualitative criteria combination for total float distribution.” Proc., 1994 Transactions of AACE International the Association for Total Cost Management, DCL3.1–DCL3.6.
Person, J. C. (1991). “Who owns the float?” Construction briefings, Federal Publications Inc., No. 91-7, 1–12.
Ponce de Leon, G. (1986). “Float ownership specs treatment.” Cost Eng., 28(10), 12–15.
Prateapusanond, A. (2003). “A comprehensive practice of preallocation of total float in the application of a CPM-based construction contract.” Ph.D. dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic and State Univ., Blacksburg, Va.
Schumacher, L. (1996). “An integrated and proactive approach for avoiding delay claims on major capital projects.” Cost Eng., 38(6), 37–39.
Wickwire, J. M., Driscoll, T. J., and Hurlbut, S. B. (1991). Construction scheduling: Preparation, liability, and claims.” Wiley Law Publication, New York.
Wickwire, J. M., Warner, T., and Berry, M. R. (1999). “Chapter 17—Construction scheduling.” Construction law handbook, R. F. Cushman and J. J. Myers, eds., Aspen Law & Business, Gaithersburg, N.Y.
Zack, J. G. (1996). “Specifying modern schedule management.” Constr. Specifier, 49(8), 42–48.
Zack, J. G., Jr. (1992). “Schedule ‘games’ people play, and some suggested ‘remedies.’” J. Manage. Eng., 8(2), 138–152.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Copyright
© 2007 ASCE.
History
Received: Jun 15, 2006
Accepted: May 3, 2007
Published online: Nov 1, 2007
Published in print: Nov 2007
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.