NEC ECC: Terminal Float Retained Whilst Multiple CEs Being Reviewed

The Contractor is in the process of providing quotations/programme for multiple CEs, some of which will have an overlapping impact on the critical path and therefore delay to planned Completion. Some of these quotations relate to events which are in prior periods, for which the PM has requested revised quotations in order to get the necessary information. This means that there are circa 10No. CEs at various stages with a potential aggregated impact on planned Completion.

During this process, the Contractor has retained their original Terminal Float allowance, stating that because the CEs are not yet implemented, the effect on Terminal Float is unknown and to remove it on the Cl.32 programme would be to their detriment, if for example, whilst assessing a CE, some of the delay was attributable to them which could be mitigated using their terminal float.

Due to the CEs not being implemented, planned Completion is currently beyond the Completion Date and I believe the schedule should show zero terminal float. What would be the correct approach in this instance? I believe the CE programmes should only be focusing on the impact on planned Completion, and therefore the Cl.32 programme will eventually demonstrate the ‘revised’ terminal float (if any) once the outstanding CEs have all been administered?

1 Like

Terminal float is the difference between planned Completion and Completion Date on the Contractors programme. Let’s say that planned Completion was two weeks earlier than the Completion Date, and then a CE is working its way through the system that will delay planned Completion by three weeks and hence currently now one week beyond the Completion Date. I practically would still show the terminal float bar as being a two week long bar as an indicator as to where Completion Date should go to once the CE is implemented. However, by accepting that programme does not accept liability of quantum and if the CE is accepted as two weeks impact then Completion Date would only move by two weeks. At that point, planned would be one week beyond the Completion Date and the terminal float would be showing as a week beyond the Completion Date. Either that would need to be taken to adjudication (or senior representatives first) to try to get the additional week agreed, or the Contractor would have to mitigate that last week back and also remove the terminal float bar (or be liable for delay damages).