Float Ownership – Why It Matters and Approaches

This is the first post in an eight-part series on float ownership. This post discusses what float is, why it matters, main approaches to float ownership, practical considerations, common approaches in the United States and other countries, and recommendations. Subsequent blog posts will discuss the following topics:

• Recommended approaches to float ownership based on project type
• 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

What Is Float?
In Critical Path Method project scheduling, float is the amount of time an activity can be delayed without delaying the controlling project completion milestone. Float can arise due to activity logic and sequencing, resource leveling, or deficiencies in schedule logic.

However, there are various types of float, as defined below.

1. “Total Float” is the difference between the early-finish and late-finish dates of an activity or early-start and late-start dates of an activity. On the critical path, activities typically have zero total float.
2. “Free Float” is the time by which an activity may be delayed without affecting the early start of any successor activity.
3. “Terminal Float” is the difference between the planned completion date and the Guaranteed Completion Date. Not all industries formally use the term “terminal float.” Some standards refer instead to “project float” or “completion float.”

Why Float Ownership Matters
In EPC and other construction contracts, treatment of float directly affects entitlement to Extensions of Time (EOT), delay claims, and compensation, and how risks are allocated between contractor and owner.

Float ownership matters because if the contractor owns float, it can absorb its own delays without delaying completion. If the owner owns float, owner-caused delays will not trigger EOTs until the float is exhausted. If float belongs to the project, either party can consume it on a first-used basis, with implications for delay claims, especially in concurrent delay situations.

Main Approaches to Float Ownership
1. Contractor owns the float. In this approach, because contractors create and manage schedules, they contend that they control float and should be able to use float to mitigate their own delays. This approach can result in early delay claims from the contractor due to owner-caused delays and reduces float available to the owner. Contract language can entitle a contractor to an Extension of Time (EOT) even if a delay only erodes float. This result often occurs where EOT provisions refer to impact on the contractor’s planned completion date, not just the contractual completion date. Certain delay provisions allow EOTs for owner-caused delays that affect the contractor’s schedule even if the contract completion date is not otherwise impacted. This interpretation has been noted, for example, in discussions of FIDIC 2017 editions (to be discussed in a later blog post). Contractual time bar and entitlement provisions may affect this interpretation.

Below is an example of a contractor-owned float provision:

All float contained in the project schedule shall be considered for the exclusive use of the Contractor and shall not be used by the Owner without prior written consent.

2. Owner owns the float. Here, the owner contends that because it pays for the time, float should be a project resource. The effect of the owner’s position is that the owner can allocate float for owner-caused changes or delays, which reduces contractor flexibility. This approach may reduce the contractor’s incentive to manage the schedule efficiently.

Below is an example of an owner-owned float provision:

Float is not for the exclusive use or benefit of any party but is a resource of the Project and may be allocated by the Owner at its discretion.

3. Project float as a shared resource. Here, float is held for the benefit of the whole project, and contractual clauses define float as a project resource and require good-faith use (e.g., to meet guaranteed completion deadlines). This approach is often paired with collaborative contracting or project controls that require mutual agreement before float is consumed or can create a “race to use float” and lead to opportunistic behaviour, undermining schedule integrity. It requires strong governance and dispute resolution mechanisms. In many cases where the contract is silent, industry protocols (e.g., the Society of Construction Law Delay and Disruption Protocol) suggest float is assumed to be project-owned: whichever party first uses it reduces it. However, not all courts base their decisions on these standards unless they are referenced in the contract. This float definition aligns with U.S. federal case law trends.

Below is an example of a shared float provision:

Float shall be available for use by either the Owner or the Contractor on a first-come, first-served basis, without priority or ownership.

Practical Considerations
Float ownership determines how time extensions and delay compensation are allocated when concurrent delays occur. For example, if both parties cause delays, but float absorbs them, the question of entitlement to time extension or compensation for subsequent delays arises. If no float is then available, subsequent delay may trigger an entitlement. If both parties cause subsequent delay, the result is usually an EOT without compensation. If only the owner causes delay, and float is gone, the contractor may be entitled to an EOT and compensation. If the contractor causes subsequent delay, the owner may be entitled to liquidated damages.

Many contracts require regular updates to the project schedule. Clear float provisions can ensure transparency and avoid manipulation.

When disputes occur, courts and arbitrators may interpret unclear float ownership provisions differently, especially if one party uses float to shield its own delays. Legal outcomes vary by contract and governing law.

Common Approaches to Float and Concurrent Delay in the United States and Other Countries
Float ownership and concurrent delay are not settled issues in many jurisdictions.

In United States federal government cases, float is often a project resource; concurrent delays generally result in time extension only, but no compensation for delay-related costs. This approach aligns with boards like the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals. However, not all jurisdictions treat concurrency the same way. Some U.S. courts apply apportionment instead.

In the United Kingdom, the Malmaison approach¹ is often applied; the contractor receives EOTs for concurrent delays, but no compensation for delay-related costs. However, some tribunals apply a dominant cause analysis that attributes the delay to the most dominant cause even if a minor concurrent delay occurred.

In Australia and Canada, float is generally a shared resource that is interpreted to be a first-come, first-served resource unless the contract states otherwise. Some tribunals also may apply a dominant cause analysis.

In France and the Middle East, civil law float treatment typically depends on the contract, not the legal system type. Contractual silence might be interpreted narrowly, requiring explicit float allocation clauses. Civil law jurisdictions may analyze causation differently.

Recommendations
The following recommendations are made regarding contractual float ownership provisions:

1. Float ownership should be a contractually determined issue with real implications for EOT and delay claims. Courts generally will not rewrite contracts to impose ownership; they will enforce the express language agreed to by the parties and interpret schedules accordingly.

2. Clearly define float ownership in the contract (do not assume default interpretations). Draft clear float ownership language. Be explicit about whether float belongs to the contractor, the owner, or the project; how float can be consumed; and how float interacts with EOT provisions and delay claims. Explicit provisions reduce disputes.

3. Align EOT clauses with float intent. If you intend contractor-owned float, ensure EOT clauses refer to the contractor’s planned completion rather than only the contractual completion date. If float is shared, EOT language should require float exhaustion first.

4. Define float in schedules and avoid ambiguity by defining:

1. total float vs. free float
2. terminal float (difference between planned and contractual completion)
3. how float is represented in CPM schedules

5. Align scheduling specifications with industry standards, e.g., AACE RP 29R-03, Society of Construction Law Delay and Disruption Protocol, ASCE ANSI 67-17 Schedule Delay Analysis, or similar, with float ownership stipulations. Industry standards can guide interpretations where contract language is unclear—but should not replace express contract terms.

6. Have a clear baseline schedule and regular updates so that float consumption is trackable and defensible, and disputes about who consumed float are supported by documented schedule updates. Use collaborative scheduling reviews to track float use and build accountability.

7. Include in the contract terms the float management protocols for change orders, delay analysis, and time extension requests.

¹    Henry Boot Construction (UK) Ltd v Malmaison Hotel (Manchester) Ltd (1999), 70 Construction Law Reports 32.

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