Architectural research

Architectural Institute of Korea (대한건축학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Finding Significant Factors to Affect Cost Contingency on Construction Projects Using ANOVA Statistical Method -Focused on Transportation Construction Projects in the US-

  • Received : 2014.03.04
  • Accepted : 2014.05.12
  • Published : 2014.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Risks, uncertainties, and associated cost overruns are critical problems for construction projects. Cost contingency is an important funding source for these unforeseen events and is included in the base estimate to help perform financially successful projects. In order to predict more accurate contingency, many empirical models using regression analysis and artificial neural network method have been proposed and showed its viability to minimize prediction errors. However, categorical factors on contingency cannot have been treated and thus considered in these empirical models since those models are able to treat only numerical factors. This paper identified potential factors on contingency in transportation construction projects and evaluated categorical factors using the one-way ANOVA statistical method. Among factors including project work type, delivery method type, contract agreement type, bid award type, letting type, and geographical location, two factors of project work type and contract agreement type were found to be statistically important on allocating cost contingency.

Keywords

References

  1. American Association of Cost Engineers (AACE)'s Risk Management Committee (2000). "AACE International's risk management dictionary." Cost Eng., 42(4), 28-31.
  2. Baccarini, D. (2004). "Accuracy in estimating project cost construction contingency: A statistical analysis." The Int. Constr. Research Conf. of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, Headingley Cricket Club, Leeds. Australia.
  3. Chen. D. and Hartman, F. T. (2000). "A neural network approach to risk assessment and contingency allocation." AACE International Transactions, RISK.07.01-RISK.07.06.
  4. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) (2007). Major project program cost estimating guidance, Washington, DC
  5. Flood, I and Issa, R. R. A (2010). "Empirical modeling methodologies for construction." J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 136(1), 36-48. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000138
  6. Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) (2007). Design-Build guidelines, Tallahassee, FL.
  7. Flyvberg, B., Holm, M. S., and Buhl, S. (2002). "Underestimating costs in public works projects: Error or lie?" J. Amer. Plan. Assoc., 68(3), 279-295. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944360208976273
  8. Gunhan, S. and Arditi, D. (2007). "Budgeting owner's construction contingency." J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 133(7), 491-497.
  9. Hale, D. R., Shrestha, P. P., Gibson, G. E., and Migliaccio, G. C. (2009). "Empirical comparison of design/build and design/bid/build project delivery methods." J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 135(7), 579-587. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000017
  10. Hollmann, J. K. (2007). "The monte-carlo challenge: A better approach." AACE International Transactions, RISK.03.01-RISK.03.07.
  11. Lhee, S. C., Issa, R. R., and Flood, I. (2009). "Predicting owner's contingency for transportation construction projects using intelligent computing techniques." Proc., ASCE Int. Workshop on Comput. in Civ. Eng., Austin, TX, 442-451.
  12. Lhee, S. C. (2009). "Artificial neural network model to predict financial contingency for transportation construction projects" Ph.D. dissertation, University of Florida.
  13. Lhee, S. C., Issa, R. R., and Flood, I. (2012). "Predicting of financial contingency for asphalt resurfacing projects using artificial neural networks." J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 138(1), 22-30. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000408
  14. Mak, S. and Picken, D. (2000). "Using risk analysis to determine construction project contingencies." J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 126(2), 130-136. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2000)126:2(130)
  15. Molenaar, K. R. (2005). "Programmatic cost risk analysis for highway megaprojects." J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 131(3), 343-353. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2005)131:3(343)
  16. Moselhi, O., Hegazy, T., and Fazio, P. (1993). "DBID: Analogy-based DSS for bidding in construction." J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 119(3), 466-479. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(1993)119:3(466)
  17. Popescu, C. M., Phaobunjong, K., and Ovararin, N. (2003). Estimating building costs, Marcel Dekker, New York.
  18. Sall, J., Creighton, L., and Lehman, A. (2005). JMP start statistics, Third edition. Toronto, Canada: SAS Institute/Thomson.
  19. Smith, G. R. and Bohn, C. M. (1999). "Small to medium contractor contingency and assumption of risk." J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 125(2), 101-108. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(1999)125:2(101)
  20. Thal, A. E., Cook, J. J., and White, E. D. (2010). " Estimation of cost contingency for Air Force construction projects." J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 136(11), 1181-1188. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000227
  21. Thompson, P. A. and Perry, J. G. (1992). Engineering construction risks: A guide to project risk analysis and risk management, Thomas Telford, London. U.K.
  22. Touran, A. (2003). "Calculation of contingency in construction projects." IEEE Trans. Eng. Manage., 50(2), 135-140. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2003.810824
  23. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Economic Research Services (2000), Rural Definitions: State-Level Map (Florida), Washington, DC.
  24. Weistein, F. (2007). Wolfram math world, the web's most extensive mathematics resources

Cited by

  1. The Mode Analysis of Sandwich Beam Subjected Under Winkler Elastic Foundation vol.153, pp.1755-1315, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/153/5/052015