Jagboro, G O and Alli, O R (1999) A study of the monetary value of extension of time in building project. Journal of Financial Management of Property and Construction, 4(3), pp. 39-46. ISSN 1366-4387
Abstract
Contractual claims associated with building projects essentially are fluctuations, variations and contract period elongation. While fluctuation and variations claims are quantified in monetary values, disputes do arise in the computation of the monetary value of extension of time. This dichotomy is predicated on the perception of extension of time by consultants as time adjustment compensation and,- contractors as time adjustment and monetary loss compensations. The posit of this paper was that the monetary value of contractual claims (CCMV), does correlate with the approved extension of contract period (TET) in the form of a regression equation such that: CCMVi = aa0 + aai TETi + µi; i = 1, 2 ... n. Cost data were obtained for sixty projects including residential, and low rise office buildings. The coefficient of determination for the casual relationship was computed as R12 = -0.0070; (F--5% = 0.59). This finding has empirically established conclusively that the monetary value of extension of time is highly insignificant and reinforced the compensation approach in the resolution of disputes emanating from extension of time.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | building projects, contract provisions, contractual claims, extension of time, monetary value |
| Index terms: | variation, computation, compensation, resolution, cost data, dispute, office building |
| Subjects: | contractual condition, conflict resolution, computational methods, dispute resolution, accounting and finance, construction type |
| Topics: | Digital Applications, Contract Administration, Cost Management, Stakeholder Management, Construction Technology, Legal Issues |
| 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