Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorRamachandra, T
dc.contributor.authorRotimi, J.O.B.
dc.contributor.authorRajeev, K
dc.date.accessioned2013-11-28T22:29:31Z
dc.date.available2013-11-28T22:29:31Z
dc.date.copyright2013
dc.date.issued2013-11-29
dc.identifier.citationThe 38th Australasian Universities Building Education Association Conference held at Faculty of Engineering, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand, 2013-11-20 to 2013-11-22
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10292/6029
dc.description.abstractContractors’ claims for extension of time and/or cost reimbursements could result in disagreements that may not be amicably resolved by the parties concerned. Consequently significant additional costs are incurred in construction projects due to disagreements over these claims. A major criticism of the Sri Lankan construction industry is persistent delays in project delivery. A contributory factor to those delays is disagreements over certain percentage of business’ overhead expenses that are unrecoverable by the contractor. This unrecovered head office overheads (HOOH) is an actual loss to the contractor and the contractor could make a claim for the actual costs incurred during the delay. The selection and application of the most suitable recovery or calculation method is critical for both clients and contractors. As an aspect of a larger study which develops a HOOH claim process model, the current study focuses on the review of the methods currently being practiced to recover HOOH claims internationally as well as within the Sri Lankan construction industry. The preferred methods used within Sri Lankan construction industry to evaluate contractors’ claims are the formula approach and actual method by contractors and clients respectively. This study shows that salaries and wages of head office human resources and transporting and travelling costs contribute significantly to the contractors’ HOOH. There are a number of issues with the quantification approaches used during the HOOH claim stages that result in conflicts. The research therefore suggests that there needs to be pre-established claim-tracking processes for claim initiation, quantification and evaluation. The pre-established process would provide a clear understanding of HOOH claims and positively direct claimants to agreed claim records, HOOH cost data and quantification approaches.
dc.publisherAustralian Universities Building Education Association (AUBEA)
dc.relation.urihttp://www.aubea2013.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/Final-for-handbook-and-website-31Oct.pdf
dc.rightsNOTICE: this is the author’s version of a work that was accepted for publication. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reflected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication.
dc.subjectClaim
dc.subjectCompensable delay events
dc.subjectConstruction
dc.subjectHead office overhead
dc.subjectSri Lanka
dc.titleAnalysis of contractors' head office overhead on compensable delay events
dc.typeConference Contribution
dc.rights.accessrightsOpenAccess
aut.conference.typePaper Published in Proceedings
pubs.elements-id149018


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record