Contractors deal with deadlines on every project and meeting every deadline on a project can often feel like walking a tightrope. This is where schedule float or slack comes into play. Understanding float is critical for successfully managing risk, making informed decisions, and keeping projects on track. In construction scheduling, “float” is a term of art in critical path method (CPM) scheduling that represents the amount of time a given task or activity can be delayed without delaying the project’s overall completion date.[i] Activities that have float are considered non-critical, meaning they are not located on the project’s critical path.[ii] An activity with zero float is on the critical path.
Modern scheduling practices distinguish between two types of float: “free float” and “total float.” Total float refers to the time an activity may be delayed without pushing back the project’s final completion date.[iii] Free float is a subset of total float and is the amount of time an activity can be delayed without affecting the early start of any succession activity.[iv] Both types of float are important in scheduling but they serve different purposes. Float allows the contractor to define priorities and allows a contractor to resequence activities or reallocate resources as the project moves forward without causing delay. However, if a noncritical activity is delayed to the extent that all the float is consumed, then that activity moves onto the critical path.
The determination
of float is based on the anticipated duration of each activity, which in turn
is calculated by estimating productivity under reasonably foreseeable
conditions.[v]
When an activity has positive total float, it is expected to finish on or
before its late finish date, with actual timing depending on how much float is
used as the work progresses. However, if an activity has negative float—meaning
it is already projected to delay the overall schedule—then the critical path is
affected, and the estimated project completion date is pushed back accordingly.[vi]
In such cases, the contractor may seek a time extension, resequence the work,
take steps to accelerate, or accept the late completion and related
consequences.
Who Owns the
Float?
When the contract does not explicitly allocate float, disputes often arise when the owner and contractor wish to use the same float to cover their respective delays. Over the years, three main theories have emerged among the parties: (1) the contractor owns the float, (2) the owner owns the float, or (3) the project (or “neither party”) owns the float. Disputes over float ownership frequently arise between owners and contractors, because both parties seek to use the float for their own benefit. Owners may claim a contractual right to control the float, while contractors generally want to retain control to maintain flexibility in their scheduling.
If float is considered to be the contractor’s, then the
contractor has the right to defer commencement of activities not on the
critical path until the last possible date—effectively placing all of them on
the critical path.[vii]
Float can also allow a contractor to define priorities and resequence
activities or reallocate resources as the project moves forward without causing
delay.[viii]
However, if a noncritical activity is delayed to the extent that all the float
is consumed, then that activity moves onto the critical path. In such a scenario, changes requested by the
owner that affect the entire schedule, may entitle the contractor to a time
extension, or additional compensation for acceleration of activities to stay
within the schedule.
If the owner is entitled to the float time, the owner
could cause delays in commencing any non-critical activity, leaving the
contractor with no flexibility to adjust starting or completion dates for the
affected activities.[ix]
Thus, if sufficient float exists, then the owner can argue that there is no
basis for a time extension.
In the absence of contractual provisions regarding ownership of float, the party using the float first generally owns it.[x] In other words, the “float” is a shared resource “owned by the “project” rather than by either the contractor or owner, and may be consumed by either party without liability to the other on a “first come” basis. Float is an expiring resource that can be used by any party to the contract, provided that party acts in good faith. As a result, either party may use available float on a first-come, first-served basis, with no resulting liability to the other unless the delay extends beyond the float and impacts the project’s completion.
Modern Jurisprudence: Shared or “Project” Float
(First-Come, First-Served: Modern Rule)
An intermediate approach referred to as the shared-float
concept has developed for when the contract is silent on float ownership. Under
this approach, courts generally hold that a construction schedule’s float is
available to the party who uses it first.[xi] Thus, a
delay is mitigated by the float and does not delay the project; thus, the party
responsible effectively benefits from the float and cannot be charged for a
project delay nor claim one, as the case may be.
For example, in In re Blackhawk Heating & Plumbing
Co., the General Services Administration Board of Contract Appeals focused
on whether the Government delay alleged by the contractor resulted in a delay
to the project completion date.[xii] On
appeal, the Board determined that at the time of the Government delay, there
was sufficient float available in the schedule for the Government to absorb its
delay; therefore, there was no resulting impact to the project completion date.[xiii] The
Board of Contract Appeal in In re Dawson Construction Co. denied
contractors’ time extensions when the Government had caused delays and, rather
than extend the project completion date, simply used the remaining float.[xiv]
In In re Santa Fe, Inc., the contractor argued
that time extensions were warranted due to changes made by the Government.[xv] The
Government disagreed, asserting that the affected tasks had sufficient float
and that the contract only allowed for an extension if all float associated
with the activity had been exhausted. The Veterans’ Administration Board of
Contract Appeals sided with the Government, reasoning that an equitable time
adjustment is only appropriate when a Government-mandated change delays the
project’s overall completion.[xvi] Since the delays were absorbed by existing
float, no extension was justified.
Lastly, in Maron Const. Co., Inc., the contract included a provision stating that if the Government altered the work in a way that delayed the project’s completion, an equitable adjustment would be provided.[xvii] However, since the delay caused by the change could be accommodated within the existing float and did not push back the completion date, the Board concluded that no time adjustment was necessary.
In the absence of clear contract terms, float is generally treated as a shared project resource, available to whoever uses it first. Understanding schedule float is critical and learning how to use float to your advantage can provide flexibility dealing with delays without affecting project completion.
[i] Blinderman Constr. Co., Inc. v.
U.S., 39 Fed. Cl. 529, 579-580 (1997).
[ii] HPS Mechanical, Inc. v. JMR Construction Corp., 2014 WL 3845176 (N.D. Cal.
2014).
[iii] Id. (citing 5 Bruner & O’Conner & O’Conner on Construction Law, § 15:8).
[iv] Fundamentals
of Construction Law (ABA) 10.III.A.
[v] 6 Bruner & O’Conner & O’Conner on
Construction Law, § 15:9.
[vi] Id.
[vii] Matthew Bender, 1 Construction
Law P 3.05 (2025).
[viii]
Fundamentals of Construction Law (ABA) 10.III.A.
[ix] Matthew Bender, 1 Construction
Law P 3.05 (2025).
[x] Fundamentals of Construction Law (ABA) 10.III.A.;
citing J.A. Jones Construction Co., ENGBCA 6348, 2000 Eng. BCA
LEXIS 10, 2000-2 BCA P 31,000; Dawson Constr. Co., VABCA No. 3306-10,
93-3 BCA 26,177.
[xi] 6 Bruner & O’Conner &
O’Conner on Construction Law, § 15:9.
[xii] Blackhawk Heating &
Plumbing Co., GSBCA No. 2432, 1975 GSBCA LEXIS 33, 75-1 BCA P 11,261, aff'd
on recon., 1975 GSBCA LEXIS 34, 76-1 BCA P 11,649
[xiii]
Id.
[xiv] Dawson Construction Co.,
GSBCA 3998, 1975 GSBCA LEXIS 55, 75-2 BCA P 11,563.
[xv] In re Santa Fe, Inc.,
V.A.B.C.A. No. 1943, 1984 VA BCA LEXIS 87, 84-2 BCA (CCH) P17,341, at 86,409
(1984).
[xvi] Id.
[xvii]
Maron Construction Co. v.
General Services Administration, GSBCA 13625, 1998 GSBCA LEXIS 128, 98-1
BCA P 29,685, at 147,113.
No comments:
Post a Comment