Contractor’s programme - Construction Contracts - page 71

42 When a contractor says that it owns the float, what does that
mean?
Float is a commonly used term that is much misunderstood. It is the difference between the
period required to perform a task and the period available in which to do it. Critical activit-
ies are critical because they have no float; there is no difference between the period needed
to carry out the activity and the period allocated for it. In other words, there is no scope for
any delay at all before the completion date of the project is affected. To say that an activity
hasadayoffloatmeansthattheactivitycouldbeextendedbyanotherdaywithoutaffecting
the completion date of the project. Put another way, the activity could commence a day late
without there being any effect on the overall programme.
Contractorssometimesarguethatanextensionoftimeisdueevenifanon-criticalactivity
is delayed. They argue that they own the float and that the employer therefore cannot 'take
advantage' of it. This is a very strange contention. No one owns float. It is like trying to ar-
guethatapersonistakingadvantageoftheairaroundthem.Floatissimplythespacebefore
or after individual activities when they are put together in the form of a programme. Wheth-
er it actually exists at all depends on whether the programme is accurate.
It is sometimes argued that if a contractor programmes to complete a 12-month contract
in 10 months, the 2 months are the contractor's float. Therefore, the argument continues, if
theprojectisdelayedbyevenaweek,anextensionoftimewillbedueevenifthecontractor
finishes several weeks before the completion date. That is obviously wrong. If the week's
delay causes float to be used because of some employer default, the contractor has no en-
titlement to an extension of time; the delay does not affect the completion date, and that is
the crucial point. It has been suggested that in such circumstances, if the contractor is sub-
sequently delayed for reasons which do not warrant an extension of time and for which it
would become liable to pay liquidated damages, the architect should nevertheless give an
extension of time for a period not exceeding the length of the float. 5 The point was made by
the court obiter dicta (words said by the way and not necessary for the decision).
Abetterviewwassetoutin Ascon Contracting Ltd v Alfred McAlpine Construction Isle of
Man Ltd, 6 where the judge put the position like this when dealing with a contractor's claim
against a sub-contractor:
ImustdealwiththepointmadebyMcAlpineastotheeffectofitsmaincontract'float'
. . . It does not seem to be in dispute that McAlpine's programme contained a 'float' of
fiveweeksinthesense,asIunderstandit,thathadworkstartedontimeandhadallsub-
programmes for sub-contract works and for elements to be carried out by McAlpine's
own labour been fulfilled without slippage the main contract would have been com-