The Hidden Problem with Construction Float
Float looks simple but in reality, it is anything but. When the Accura team supports clients with construction delay analysis, we see most construction programs show float but many do not explain it. Even less deal with it when delay hits.
The issue usually starts with ownership. Contracts rarely define who controls float (as this article explores). Is it available to the project as a whole, or does it sit with the contractor? That question only gets asked when the float is gone.
Courts tend to step around abstract arguments and focus on what actually happened. If float was used, they look at how it was used and what impact that had on completion. That aligns with the broader approach in V601 Developments Pty Ltd v Probuild Constructions (Aust) Pty Ltd [2021] VSC 849, where the Court focused on actual project events rather than theoretical constructs.
The placement issue
Float is often pushed to the end of the programme. It creates comfort on paper but does little to manage risk. When disruption occurs early, that float is quickly consumed, often without clear attribution.
A more effective approach is targeted float or “delay allowance”. Place it against known risks. If procurement is uncertain, float sits there. If sequencing is tight due to labour constraints, that is where time is needed.
The final issue is visibility. Float is rarely explained in submissions or contemporaneous records. When disputes arise, parties struggle to show how it was intended to operate.
Clarity at the start avoids most of this. If teams can clearly define where float sits, explain its purpose, and align it with actual project risk, employers and contractors can mitigate claims and help projects stay better on track.
At Accura Consulting, our team of experts work with clients to create a tailored solution to problems. If you have an issue and want expert support, get in touch.
Back to News and Insights
Related News and
Insights from Accura
