Schexnayder, C and Ohrn, L G (1997) Highway specifications: quality versus pay. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 123(4), pp. 437-443. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
This paper presents a case study that assesses three asphalt concrete paving specifications currently in use in various areas of the country. The primary question addressed is how specifications relate quality characteristics to payment for performance. The study indicates that there is little or no consistency with respect to what different highway agencies consider as quality and how quality is paid for through the use of payment factors. It is clear that the key to good specifications is research that identifies and quantifies the relationships that pay factor calculations are based upon. After settling on the quality characteristics, a major concern that must be addressed is determining what test method best represents the characteristic, and can these characteristics be determined at the time of construction. It is clear that there is considerable work still to be done in developing good specifications that ensure a quality product and are equitable to both the owner and contractor.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | agency, paving, owner, specification, case study |
| Subjects: | data collection methods, transportation engineering, contractual condition, sociology |
| Topics: | Stakeholder Management, Engineering Principles, Contract Administration, Research Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PTE |
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