Echeverry, D; Ibbs, C W and Burati, J (1988) Graduated unit price payment schedules. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 114(1), pp. 1-18. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
This paper focuses on providing assistance to contractors in visualizing the effects of variations in quality of their work on the payment received under graduated unit price schedules. The methodology is developed by analyzing an example consisting of the graduated payment schedules applied by a state agency on the construction of asphaltic surface courses. The techniques developed should be applicable to many situations where graduated payment schedules are enforced. Simulation techniques are used to model a broad spectrum of realistic pavement qualities. The quality of a pavement is associated with how accurately the probability distribution function of quality parameters in the field targets design specified values for these parameters. The results provide a direct means to relate the quality of the pavement to the expected payment. For a contractor working under specifications that enforce graduated payment schedules, the results provide better tools to estimate the final payments and the “cost” of attaining the sought quality level, and they therefore contribute to reducing the contractor’s risk.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | estimate, probability distribution, agency, methodology, variation, specification |
| Subjects: | financial and cost management, research methods, contractual condition, sociology, statistical analysis |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Cost Management, Contract Administration |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here