Potts, K F (1988) An alternative payment system for major 'fast track' construction projects. Construction Management and Economics, 6(1), pp. 25-33. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
In the UK, construction contractors are generally reimbursed on a monthly basis reflecting the value of work done on site plus payments for agreed off site components. If the contractor is behind programme and even if he completes late he will still be reimbursed based on the value of work done calculated using the original itemized bid price. The only way clients can influence progress of the project is to claim from the contractor predetermined liquidated and ascertained damages in the event of late completion. These damages can only be charged after completion which may be a hollow compensation, most clients preferring their projects completed on time. This paper describes an alternative payment system for UM on major fast track projects in which the contractor is financially motivated to achieve satisfactory progress throughout the period together with completion on time. The system is based on the concept of predetermined percentages which are applied on a monthly basis to each major section of the project but only if the section's relevant 'milestones' have been met during the period considered. The system as described has been satisfactorily used on a major international multi contract, multi disciplined fast track construction project with individual contracts up to £100 M in value. The overall project was completed on time and within budget.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | bills of quantities; fast track; milestones; payments |
| Index terms: | compensation, bills of quantities, programme, damages, construction project, construction contractor |
| Subjects: | production management, project controls, practitioner, dispute resolution, financial and cost management |
| Topics: | Time Control, Legal Issues, Roles and Professions, Cost Management, Project Management |
| 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