The Float That Two Parties Claimed
On a design-build highway interchange, the contractor's schedule shows the critical path through bridge girder erection, with 18 days of total float on the paving package. The owner's independent reviewer notes that the paving package float is shared with a utility relocation that the owner controls, and the owner's utility work is forecast to finish 12 days later than planned. The contractor has already used 10 days of the paving float for its own resequencing. At the monthly progress meeting, the contractor reports the project "on schedule" because the critical path (girder erection) still shows positive float, while the owner's reviewer argues the project is at risk because the utility slip has consumed the shared float. The contract is silent on float ownership. The project director asks the scheduler to state the project's true schedule status and recommend how to handle the float dispute.
1. Determine the project's true schedule status. Is the contractor's "on schedule" claim defensible?
Read the worked answer
The contractor's claim is not defensible as stated.
- The paving package had 18 days total float. The contractor consumed 10 days; the owner's utility slip will consume 12 days. Combined consumption = 22 days, which exceeds the 18-day float by 4 days. That means the paving package (and any path through it) is forecast to drive the project 4 days late unless recovered.
- The contractor points to girder erection's positive float, but girder erection is not the only path that matters. Once the paving/utility path exhausts its float, it becomes critical-or more critical than girder erection. Reporting only the originally critical path misses the newly driving path.
- The contract is silent on float ownership, which is exactly why the dispute exists. Regardless of ownership, the schedule math is objective: shared float consumed beyond its total makes the path late.
True status: the project is forecast 4 days late on the paving/utility path, and that path is now the (or a) driving path. The correct report states forecast completion variance and names the driving path-not a reassuring "on schedule" based on a non-driving activity's float.
2. Recommend how the scheduler should handle the float dispute and what the report should recommend.
Read the worked answer
Handle the dispute:
- Document float consumption objectively. Show the 18-day float, the 10 days consumed by the contractor, the 12-day utility slip, and the 4-day overrun. Facts first.
- Note the contract gap (silent on float ownership) and recommend the parties agree on a float-ownership convention going forward-common options: float belongs to the project (shared), to the owner, or to the party that generated it. Each has different risk allocation.
- Separate responsibility: the contractor's 10-day resequencing is the contractor's risk; the owner's 12-day utility slip is the owner's risk (owner-controlled work). Allocate the 4-day overrun accordingly-likely split by cause.
- Recommend recovery: identify options to recover the 4 days on the paving/utility path (expedite utility relocation, resequence paving around the utility, add crews), with cost and owner.
What the report should say:
- Forecast completion date and variance (4 days late).
- The driving path (paving/utility) and its float status (negative 4 days).
- A float-consumption table by party.
- A recommendation to resolve float ownership contractually and to recover the 4 days.
Judgment point: the exam tests whether you can see that shared float consumed by two parties can create a critical path that neither party's summary shows, and that "on schedule" must be judged against the longest path, not a comfortable one.