Float Ownership in Collaborative NEC Projects and Contractor-Driven Fast-Track Projects

This is the third blog post in a series on float ownership. The first post addressed what float is, why it matters, main approaches to float ownership, practical considerations, common approaches in the U.S. and other countries, and recommendations. The second post discussed float ownership for lump-sum turnkey engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC) projects and offshore and mega-infrastructure projects, and this third post covers collaborative NEC projects and contractor-driven fast-track projects. Subsequent posts will address these topics:

• Float and concurrent delay analysis
• Typical float-related provisions in EPC contracts
• Float ownership provisions in AIA contracts
• Float ownership provisions in the AGC/ConsensusDocs 200 – Standard Owner/Constructor Agreement (2023)
• Float ownership provisions in FIDIC Red Book 2017 contracts
• Float ownership under industry delay analysis standard practices

Collaborative NEC Projects
Contractual float ownership provisions vary based on the project type. New Engineering Contracts (NEC) are a comprehensive collection of construction and civil engineering contracts that originated in the U.K. in 1993. In collaborative NEC projects, float is typically project-owned, although NEC does not explicitly declare float to be project-owned. Float sits within the accepted schedule. A collaborative NEC project is intentionally structured to promote cooperation, transparency, proactive risk management, and joint problem-solving rather than adversarial claims behavior.

A typical float ownership clause in an NEC contract states:

Total float contained in the Accepted Schedule is not for the exclusive use of either Party and shall be available to accommodate delay by either Party. A compensation event shall only adjust the Completion Date to the extent it affects Completion.

Infrastructure and energy projects worldwide frequently use NEC contracts. The principal form is the NEC4 Engineering and Construction Contract. All NEC contracts fundamentally oblige parties to act in a spirit of mutual trust and cooperation. Instead of traditional claims, changes are managed through compensation events, time and cost are assessed prospectively, and pricing is forward-looking. This approach avoids retrospective disputes common under FIDIC-style regimes.

Collaborative NEC projects handle float ownership very differently from traditional lump-sum EPC contracts. Unlike FIDIC-style EPC forms, NEC does not expressly state who “owns” float. Instead, float is managed indirectly through accepted schedule provisions, compensation event assessments, early warning procedures, and a defined completion date. Allocation is functional rather than declarative.

Under NEC, the contractor’s accepted, detailed schedule is the baseline for assessing delay. Float exists within the schedule, but the completion date remains the contractual anchor. Extension of time (EOT) is assessed based on impact to the completion date, not planned early finish. This means that in practice, NEC operates similarly to “project-owned float.”

When a compensation event occurs, assessment is prospective; the contractor forecasts impact on completion. Only delay that affects completion triggers a completion date adjustment. If an event consumes float but does not delay completion, then no extension to the completion date is granted. This functionally mirrors project-owned float, even though NEC does not use that terminology.

NEC distinguishes between the contractual completion milestone and a contractor’s planned early finish, if that is the contractor’s plan. If a contractor plans to finish early, then the owner is not automatically liable for loss of early completion unless the contract includes a bonus for early completion. Therefore, an early finish buffer is not protected unless expressly agreed.

Contractor-Driven Fast-Track Projects
On a contractor-driven fast-track project, float ownership is usually structured very differently from a project-financed, lump-sum turnkey EPC project. Because the contractor controls sequencing, procurement, and design development—and often commits to early completion—float becomes a commercial asset rather than just a schedule buffer.

Typical features on a contractor-driven fast-track project include overlapping design and construction, early procurement packages, and contractor control of means, methods, and sequencing. There also tend to be aggressive completion targets, incentive-based bonuses for early completion, and a negotiated guaranteed maximum price. This type of contract is common in data centers, industrial facilities, commercial developments, and some energy projects without full project finance.

In fast-track delivery, the contractor assumes sequencing risk and integration risk, invests heavily in acceleration planning, and may commit to early completion. Float becomes a contractor-generated contingency, a pricing input, and a competitive advantage. Therefore, contractor-driven projects often include more protective float provisions.

There are three common models in fast-track projects:

1. The contractor owns all float. Float in the contractor’s schedule is for the exclusive benefit of the contractor. Employer-caused delay entitles the contractor to an EOT to preserve its planned completion, even if the contract completion date is not yet impacted. The contractor preserves any planned early finish. This is a strong protection for acceleration strategy. This model is less common than others but is used where early completion is central to the business case and there is contractor-negotiated pricing power and no heavy lender constraint.

2. Hybrid. This model, which is the most common in fast-track projects, is a practical compromise. It typically includes shared total float, with terminal float belonging to the contractor and EOT being triggered if owner delay affects planned completion beyond available float. This approach protects the contractor’s early completion strategy and the owner’s fixed completion date. This model is very common in negotiated design-build projects. Below is an example clause:

Total float shall be available to both Parties; however, terminal float between the Contractor’s planned completion and the Contract Completion Date shall belong exclusively to the Contractor.

3. The project owns the float. This model is more common in banked energy and public infrastructure projects and strict LD-backed regimes, and is less typical of contractor-driven projects. It is less aligned with true fast-track contractor control.

There is no consistent industry norm. Many fast-track projects are silent on float, default to first-come interpretation, and tie EOT strictly to the contractual completion date.

Many fast-track contracts include early completion bonuses, revenue-sharing mechanisms, and milestone incentives. If float were project-owned, then an owner delay could eliminate bonus opportunity and expose the contractor to risk without protection. Thus, terminal float protection is common.

Fast-track projects often include express concurrency clauses, acceleration controls, and constructive and direct acceleration protections. The common approach is that concurrent delay allows time but not compensation. However, float allocation affects whether concurrency exists in the first place.

Summary
Below are the float ownership approaches recommended for four project types:

1. LSTK EPC projects in power and energy: project-owned float
2. Offshore and mega-infrastructure projects: a detailed float allocation clause
3. Collaborative NEC projects: project-owned float with a clear float ownership/time allocation clause
4. Contractor-driven fast-track projects: contractor-owned float

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

Blog

Discover industry insights on construction disputes and claims, project management, risk analysis, and more.

MORE

Articles

Articles by our engineering and construction claims experts cover topics ranging from acceleration to why claims occur.

MORE

Publications

We are committed to sharing industry knowledge through publication of our books and presentations.

MORE