t is a question that you probably will not find a definite answer for. The significance of the argument about who owns the float has two folds, first its ability to directly or indirectly influence the construction methodology and/or sequence once the project execution has started, and secondly, the potential entitlement of extension of time (EOT) and

the application of liquidated damages (LDs). There are mainly three?

views of the matter which are presented hereinafter .?

1. The ‘contractor owns the float’ argument -

This is the traditional view and still has its appeal among many practitioners. This view implies that the contractor is entitled to utilize float for his own risk events and recovery rescheduling.?

Not so far ago, a survey in the United Kingdom suggested that 80% of the respondents assumed that the contractor owns the float; not surprisingly, the majority of those respondents were contractors .?

2. The client owns the float argument

This is just the opposite of the view above, the proponents of this view?

argue that the client has paid for the project and the program is one?

of the tools to manage the project and monitor progress, therefore, the?

client should be able to control the float to reduce costs and control?

progress, especially when the program is a contractual requirement?

in which the contractor has developed it for the client’s benefit .?

3. The ‘project owns the float’ argument

This view basically says float is owned by neither the contractor nor the?

owner. The project owns the float which means “float is not for the?

exclusive use of any of the parties and it serves whoever needs it first”?

as long as it is used in good faith.?