Aziz, A M A (2008) Minimum performance bounds for evaluating contractors performance during construction of highway pavement projects. Construction Management and Economics, 26(5), pp. 507-529. ISSN 1466433X
Abstract
For project control during construction, evaluating the performance of contractors is usually established through progress measurement that compares the actual performance to the planned performance. Corrective actions and/or performance penalties are then established as relative measures that judge the actual performance based on current project plans without considering the performance of other similar projects or the lowest performance that projects could reach while still being successful. To establish a generalized benchmark measure and a non-project-specific project control tool, the concept of minimum performance bounds is explained in relation to their development for highway pavement projects. The bounds were developed using constrained-parameters polynomial regression and cluster analysis for a sample of 497 highway pavement projects in Washington State. Minimum bounds for small, medium and large projects were fairly distinguishable signifying the project size effect on the location and shape of performance bounds. Bounds were also developed for projects classified by asphalt quantities, contract values, project duration and project length, being the common criteria used by highway agencies. Owners would use the minimum performance bounds as control tools when requesting corrective actions, establishing incentives, imposing performance penalties, initiating a default clause for substandard performance, and/ or in pre-qualifying contractors for new projects.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | cash flow forecasting; highways; performance evaluation; regression analysis |
| Index terms: | default, penalty, size effect, cluster analysis, performance evaluation, performance-based, agency, owner, cash flow forecasting, regression analysis, progress measurement, project control, contractor's performance, duration |
| Subjects: | engineering principles, control systems, dispute resolution, financial and cost management, data analysis and analytics, performance measurement, contract management, sociology, project controls, statistical analysis, regulatory law |
| Topics: | Contract Administration, Time Control, Quality Management, Legal Issues, Stakeholder Management, Research Practice, Project Management, Engineering Principles, Cost Management |
| 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