Perry, J G and Barnes, M (2000) Target cost contracts: An analysis of the interplay between fee, target, share and price. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 7(2), pp. 202-208. ISSN 0969-9988
Abstract
Target cost contracts are growing in popularity but concerns remain about the interplay between fee, target, sharing ratios and the final price. This paper offers a fundamental analysis of the principles under-pinning target contracts. It shows that there is scope for manipulation of tenders and that suboptimal methods of tender evaluation are in use. The paper analyses both fixed fee and percentage fee contracts. Methods of tender evaluation are proposed that will both reduce the scope for manipulation by tenderers and increase the likelihood of the contract being awarded to the tenderer whose final price will be the lowest. The analysis reveals a strong case for setting the contractor's share of cost overrun or underrun at a value that is not less than 50%. Finally, the paper proposes two simplifications that would reduce the number of variables in target cost contracts of the future. One is for the employer to set the fee and the other requires only that a target be tendered but with the fee built into it.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | award criteria; contractor's share; fees; manipulation of tenders; targets; tender evaluation |
| Index terms: | cost overrun, tender evaluation, target cost, simplification |
| Subjects: | management, financial and cost management, tendering, economics |
| Topics: | Business Strategy, Cost Management, Procurement |
| Descriptive scope: | 1 C |
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