Singh, G and Banjoko, O O (1990) The development of a rational bill of quantities. Construction Management and Economics, 8(1), pp. 31-47. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
The civil engineering industry world-wide has long known that the Conventional Bill of Quantities (BOQ) is inadequate conceptually and functionally. Moreover, the only alternative to it, the Method-Related BOQ (MR Bill), is only marginally better; its development having been constrained by inadequate analysis, problems of inertia attached to current practice, and lack of scientific methodology for the evaluation of comparative performances of alternative prototype forms of BOQ. An analysis and evaluation of the two forms of Bill and of six newly established others, using a newly developed scientific methodology based on worth assessment, statistics, and simulation, is presented. A suitable form of Bill, which is logical and in conformity with the principles of the Measurement Contract with Quantities, has emerged and is recommended to the industry.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | bill of quantities; civil engineering; computation; contracts; estimates; financial control; simulation |
| Index terms: | statistics, estimate, bills of quantities, computation, methodology, financial control, prototype |
| Subjects: | economic analysis, financial and cost management, modelling and simulation, computational methods, mathematical modelling, research methods |
| Topics: | Cost Management, Business Strategy, Research Practice, Engineering Principles, Digital Applications |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
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