Shamshiri, A; Ryu, K R; Park, J Y and Choi, K (2023) Project phase-based contingency adjustment framework for infrastructure renewal projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 149(2): 04022176, ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Given the importance of accurate contingency estimation to properly absorb cost fluctuations, there have been enormous efforts to identify risk factors and measure contingency in roadway projects. However, no study has proposed a contingency framework that reflects the linkage effects of factors through the project phases. To this end, this research develops a project phase-based contingency adjustment framework using a path analysis drawing on a dataset of 1,053 rehabilitation, reconstruction, and resurfacing (3R) roadway projects in Florida. In particular, our framework incorporates the sequential effects of factors through the lenses of project phases from planning and bidding and contract to construction and completion. The developed path model shows that individual factors may have direct and/or indirect impacts on project costs. The results of this study can be applied to better contingency and cost estimation and proper risk management in the preconstruction phases of roadway renewal projects.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | contingency; cost estimation; infrastructure; path analysis; project phases |
| Index terms: | path analysis, risk factor, risk management, linkage, estimation, reconstruction, dataset, renewal, bidding, drawing, project cost, cost estimating |
| Subjects: | economics, renovation and retrofit, environmental hazards, statistical analysis, building construction, data management, business, risk assessment, financial and cost management, bidding, technical documentation |
| Topics: | Business Strategy, Cost Management, Research Practice, Engineering Principles, Risk Management, Procurement, Sustainability, Design Practice, Digital Applications |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCA |
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