Claims » Extensions of Time

Float in the Programme — Ownership and Consumption

Float is the lifeblood of programme management — the scheduling contingency that absorbs minor delays without affecting completion. It is also a battleground in EOT disputes. Who owns it? Does an employer event that consumes float create an EOT entitlement?

4 min read · Updated 21/04/2026

In this article

1. The float-consumption problem
2. SCL Protocol Core Principle 9 — float belongs to the project
3. When the default position does not apply
4. Practical application — programming strategically
5. Risks and mitigation
6. Conclusion

Key takeaway

The default position under the SCL Protocol is that float belongs to the project, not to either party. An employer risk event that consumes float without delaying completion does not automatically generate an EOT entitlement — because the EOT clause exists to relieve the contractor from liquidated damages liability, and there is no LD exposure if the completion date is not delayed. Contractors need to programme strategically to manage this exposure.

1. The float-consumption problem

The problem arises when the contractor’s programme contains scheduling contingency — time between the latest permissible finish of an activity and the contract completion date. This contingency may be explicit (a buffer activity) or implicit (activity durations planned conservatively). When an employer risk event occurs, it may affect activities with float, absorbing that float without actually pushing the contract completion date beyond its contractual date.

The contractor claims an EOT on the basis that the employer’s event used up programming contingency it had planned to rely on. The employer responds that no EOT is due because the contract completion date has not been affected. Which party is right?

2. SCL Protocol Core Principle 9 — float belongs to the project

This is consistent with the underlying purpose of the EOT clause: to give the contractor relief from liquidated damages exposure. If the contract completion date is not delayed, there is no LD exposure — and therefore no need for an extension of time.

3. When the default position does not apply

Two situations may displace the default analysis. The first is where the contractor has pre-agreed a completion date earlier than the contract date — a contractor’s programme showing early completion. The second is where the contract expressly provides that the contractor’s programmed float is contractor-owned. Some UAE contracts have been amended to preserve contractor-owned float, but this is not the standard position under FIDIC or JCT without amendment.

4. Practical application — programming strategically

For contractors

Programme submissions should not routinely show early completion unless you genuinely plan to complete early and want to capture the float. Showing early completion means that employer delay may consume that “extra” float without generating an EOT, even though you had planned to use the float as your own contingency. Be strategic about how much float you show — a programme that finishes on the contract date preserves your exposure position better than one showing a generous early-completion buffer.

For employers

Understand that consumption of float by employer risk events does not automatically generate an EOT entitlement. However, where float is fully consumed and the contract completion date is then delayed by further employer risk events, the full delay (including the float-consuming period) may need to be reflected in the EOT assessment — because the “no float left” baseline is what matters at that point.

5. Risks and mitigation

For contractors, showing excessive early completion in the programme creates float that the employer can absorb without generating EOT entitlement. For employers, assuming the contractor’s float is available indefinitely may lead to an underestimate of delay liability when float is exhausted and subsequent employer events do push the completion date.

Programme should be submitted and managed strategically, with a clear understanding of float allocation and consumption. SCL Protocol methodology should be applied consistently to delay analysis. Float-ownership issues should be identified and addressed in the contract where possible, rather than argued after the event.

6. Conclusion

Float ownership is a technical but commercially significant issue in delay claims. The default position — that float belongs to the project and can be consumed by any delay event — means that an employer risk event that consumes float without delaying completion does not generate an EOT entitlement. Contractors need to understand this from the programme submission stage, not when a float-consumption argument first surfaces in the EOT response.

Programme float dispute?

Float-consumption arguments live and die on the programme. Our delay analysis practice routinely advises on the programme structure and float position before a claim becomes a dispute.

Book a 30-Minute Case Assessment →

Offices in Dubai · Available for instructions across the UAE and GCC