De La Garza, J M; Prateapusanond, A and Ambani, N (2007) Preallocation of total float in the application of a critical path method based construction contract. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 133(11), pp. 836-845. ISSN 0733-9364
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.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | contracts; scheduling |
| Index terms: | scheduling, completion time, construction process, critical path method, project delay, dispute, owner, construction contract, ownership |
| Subjects: | project controls, sociology, building construction, economics, operations research, dispute resolution, contract type |
| Topics: | Legal Issues, Time Control, Site Management, Organizational Design, Procurement, Stakeholder Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 PC |
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