The pilot-in-command (PIC) of the business jet described that at the conclusion of the flight the second-in-command (SIC) would conduct the landing. The SIC briefed the approach and the PIC agreed. The tower cleared the airplane for the visual approach to runway 22 (4,552-ft-long), noting winds were 300° at 18 knots, gusting to 26 knots. The PIC told the SIC that if he did not feel comfortable with the approach to landing, he should voice his concern, and initiate a go-around or transfer control of the airplane to the PIC. The PIC also briefed the procedure for taking control of the airplane should any unsafe conditions be observed. The PIC further described that after turning final, the landing checklist was completed, and the airplane was established on a stabilized approach. The SIC noted that he would fly at a slightly higher speed due to varying winds and gusts. Just before touchdown, the airplane “encountered a gust of wind that resulted in a ground effect float.” The airplane then touched down “at Ref speed” and on what the PIC perceived to be the first third of the runway. Due to the float and wind gust upon touchdown, the PIC called for the controls with the intent to initiate a go-around or to bring the airplane to a stop. The PIC then decided not to commence a go-around due to the limited amount of remaining runway available, low airspeed, and time to initiate takeoff power. The PIC realized that the airplane would not come to a stop on the remaining runway, even with maximum braking applied, and the airplane overran the runway and came to a stop in a brook beyond the departure end. The forward portion of the fuselage was substantially damaged during the runway excursion. The PIC reported that there were no mechanical malfunctions or failures of the airplane that would have precluded normal operation. Review of airport surveillance camera footage showed that the airplane touched down beyond the midpoint of the runway.