The Float That Wasn't There
You are the project controls lead on a $52M infrastructure upgrade with a 400-day contractual completion. The contractor's updated schedule shows the project finishing on day 395 - five days of total float. However, three activities on the critical path are being progressed using an unapproved 'acceleration' method that the contractor says saves 20 days. Without it, the schedule finishes on day 415. Separately, the owner has issued a design change that the contractor claims adds 12 days; the contractor's schedule shows the change absorbed within existing float. The contractor is also claiming a 10-day extension for a utility strike, but the strike occurred on an activity with 15 days of free float at the time.
1. Assess the true schedule position and the validity of the 10-day extension claim.
Read the worked answer
The reported five days of float is not real. It depends on an unapproved acceleration method worth 20 days. Strip that out and the schedule is at day 415 - 15 days late against a 400-day completion, not five days early. The float shown is borrowed against an unapproved assumption.
Utility strike claim: the activity had 15 days of free float when the strike occurred. A 10-day delay consumed float without affecting the completion date, so there is no entitlement to time on the face of the schedule. Free float belongs to the activity, and delay within it does not delay the project. The claim fails unless the contractor can show the float was subsequently needed by another party or was otherwise not genuinely available. Ask for the contemporaneous schedule that proves the float existed and was usable.
Design change claim: the contractor says 12 days is absorbed within float - but if the underlying float is fictitious, that absorption is illusory. The 12 days must be re-tested against a schedule built on approved methods. It may well be a genuine 12-day entitlement once the acceleration is removed.
2. What should you do before certifying any extension of time?
Read the worked answer
Do not certify on the submitted update. Sequence:
- Require a baseline-compliant schedule using only approved construction methods. The acceleration method must be either formally approved (with its cost and risk implications) or removed. Until then, no float figure is reliable.
- Run a time-impact analysis for each event separately, then combined, against that compliant schedule - not against the contractor's optimistic one.
- Test float ownership explicitly. Record who held the float at the time of each event and whether it was genuinely available. The utility strike's 15 days of free float must be evidenced, not asserted.
- Reconcile the design change against the compliant schedule; the 12 days may become a real entitlement once the fictitious float is removed.
- Separate entitlement from quantum. Establish time entitlement first; money follows.
- Document the position in writing to both parties, flagging that the current update is not a valid basis for certification.
The trap is accepting a schedule that looks comfortable (five days float) and therefore certifying nothing - when the project is in fact 15 days late and the owner may be accruing liability.