Householder, J L and Rutland, H E (1990) Who owns float? Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 116(1), pp. 130-133. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
The value of critical path method scheduling as a management tool is well known. In recent years, the use of critical path method scheduling techniques in evaluating the validity of requests for time extensions has proven beneficial. Some contracts require that the contractor submit and update critical path method schedules showing critical and noncritical activities. Owners sometimes appropriate the float time of noncritical activities to further their own interests. In doing so, they risk causing unforseen costs. If the contract is a cost-plus agreement, these extra costs are usually absorbed by the owner. If the contract is a fixed-price agreement, the contractor will incur the extra costs. In the latter case, these costs may be justifiable delay or impact claims. If the agreement given to the contractor with the bid documents attributes ownership of float to the owner, the result may be cost increases in the form of higher bids.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | critical path method, documents, cost increase, scheduling, cost-plus, ownership, validity, owner |
| Subjects: | sociology, economics, professional development, operations research, contractual arrangements, evaluation and assessment methods |
| Topics: | Time Control, Organizational Design, Stakeholder Management, Procurement, Cost Management, Information Management, Research Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here