Severson, G D; Russell, J S and Jaselskis, E J (1994) Predicting contract surety bond claims using contractor financial data. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 120(2), pp. 405-420. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
This paper describes the results of a study to predict contract bond claims based upon contractor financial data. Financial statements of 87 contractors (36 claim and 51 nonclaim) were obtained from four companies underwriting construction-contract surety bonds. A claim contractor was defined as one that defaulted on a bond, many times requiring the surety to pay a loss. A nonclaim contractor was defined as one that has not defaulted on a surety bond. A predictive model was developed using discrete choice modeling. Variables identified in the model are cost monitoring, underbillings/sales, total current liabilities/sales, retained earnings/sales, and net income before taxes/sales. This model predicts the probability of experiencing a claim in the accounting period following the period in which the financial statement was prepared. Considering each variable, recommendations are presented for reducing the probability of claim. Additionally, questions related to the variables have been developed for consideration by the management of construction companies. The model can assist construction-industry professionals by providing them with a quantitative tool to evaluate contractors.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | surety, construction company, liability, accounting, modelling, income, monitoring |
| Subjects: | organization, control systems, economic analysis, analytical methods, warranties, liability law |
| Topics: | Legal Issues, Contract Administration, Site Management, Engineering Principles, Business Strategy |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 PC |
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