Ameen, J R M; Neale, R H and Abrahamson, M (2003) An application of regression analysis to quantify a claim for increased costs. Construction Management and Economics, 21(2), pp. 159-165. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
This paper is a case study of the use of multiple linear regression analysis to quantify a claim for extra payment to a subcontractor for work on a substantial construction earth-moving project. The basis of the claim was that the client and main contractor required the work to be executed in ways other than that originally planned by the subcontractor, reducing efficiency and so increasing costs. The authors of this paper represented the earth-moving subcontractor in a legal arbitration, in which this application of multiple linear regression analysis was fundamental to quantifying the amount claimed in the case. The analysis determined the time required to perform earth-moving tasks, based on a set explanatory variables, using data sets recorded on-site. The same equation was then applied to the plan of work used for the tender and was used to show that the comparative efficiency between tender and actual was as low as 25%. The claim was successful, and the calculations described in this paper were used to quantify a total additional payment of approximately £380 000.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | claim; cost estimation; earth-moving works; efficiency; regression analysis |
| Index terms: | cost estimating, plan of work, subcontractor, main contractor, efficiency, case study, arbitration, regression analysis |
| Subjects: | operations management, financial and cost management, data collection methods, practitioner, dispute resolution, statistical analysis, performance management |
| Topics: | Roles and Professions, Research Practice, Project Management, Cost Management, Quality Management, Legal Issues |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCEA |
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