Laryea, S (2016) Risk apportionment in target cost contracts. Proceedings of Institution of Civil Engineers: Management, Procurement and Law, 169(6), pp. 248-257. ISSN 17514304
Abstract
Much of the current literature on target cost contracts is approached from the perspective of the client-contractor relationship. While the financial risk of a project is shared between the parties, the share formula is predominantly set by the client, which demonstrates little evidence of collaboration. The contractor's business risk is not explicitly taken into account outside of the fee percentage. However, from a contractor's perspective, the risk in a target cost contract has to be taken into account on two levels: first, the shared risk of the target cost contract (i.e. the financial risk apportioned through the share formula) and, second, the contractor's own risk in relation to their tender price (i.e. the business risk of the contractor that relates to their profit). The way that five NEC3 Engineering and Construction Contract option C target cost contracts in South Africa actually concluded in practice was examined as a means to develop a better understanding of how risk actually accrues to the parties. A decision-support framework that links project risk with contractor's risk is proposed. The framework presents nine risk/reward scenarios that contractors tendering for target cost contracts can use as a basis for risk-pricing decisions.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | contracting; project management; tendering |
| Index terms: | tender price, project management, construction contract, profit, collaboration, option, target cost, South Africa, risk apportionment, pricing, evidence |
| Subjects: | evaluation and assessment methods, economic analysis, management, financial risk, Geography, tendering, decision analysis, contract type, economics, project management theory and practice |
| Topics: | Business Strategy, Research Practice, Cost Management, Procurement, Geographical Context, Project Management, Organizational Design, Risk Management |
| 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