Love, P E D (2026) Quantifying the costs of field rework in construction. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 152(1): 06025003, ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Limited knowledge exists about the actual costs of field rework in construction. The reported costs of rework presented in the literature vary significantly because of differing definitions and methods used to quantify them. Exacerbating this problem is the difficulty in obtaining actual field rework data because contractors are typically averse to providing access to their costs due to commercial confidentiality. This paper presents the findings of an exploratory study undertaken by a contractor's quality managers, who sought to determine the actual costs of field rework in their projects. Actual rework costs, excluding those materializing postcompletion because data were unavailable, were underreported by 300% and were found to be, on average, 0.38% (minimum 0.01% and maximum 3.67%) of a project's contract value. The quality managers suggested that precompletion and postcompletion rework costs were roughly equal. Thus, with the inclusion of postcompletion corrections, average rework costs increase to an average of 0.76% (minimum 0.02% and maximum 7.34%) of a project's contract value. Several practical recommendations to help the contractor better track rework costs and their causes have also been identified. The contributions of this paper are twofold: it provides: (1) new insights into the makeup of actual field rework costs, and (2) a series of actions to improve an organization's ability to document, track, and communicate its rework.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | contractor; costs; nonconformance; profit; rework; underreporting |
| Index terms: | actual cost, manager, profit, exploratory study, rework, confidentiality |
| Subjects: | financial and cost management, economic analysis, operations management, practitioner, professional ethics, research methods |
| Topics: | Project Management, Legal Issues, Research Practice, Cost Management, Business Strategy, Roles and Professions |
| 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