2013
DOI: 10.1155/2013/935978
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Magnitude of Construction Cost and Schedule Overruns in Public Work Projects

Abstract: This study analyzed 363 Clark County Department of Public Works (CCDPW) projects to determine construction cost and schedule overruns in various types and sizes of the projects. The sample projects were constructed from 1991 to 2008, with a total construction cost of $1.85 billion, equivalent to 2012 cost. A one-factor ANOVA test was conducted to determine whether construction cost and schedule overruns significantly varied based on types and sizes of the projects. The study showed that large, long-duration pr… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

1
30
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
6
3

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 55 publications
(31 citation statements)
references
References 7 publications
1
30
0
Order By: Relevance
“…There are many existing publications dedicated to causes of profit losses and construction delays on international EPC mega projects: Asia [5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16], Europe [17,18], Africa [19][20][21][22], Americas [23][24][25], and Australia [26,27]. Among the factors identified, the most common cause of project schedule and cost overrun was found to be poor design development prior to construction [5][6][7][8]12,13,[15][16][17][18][22][23][24]27].…”
Section: Existing Literaturementioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…There are many existing publications dedicated to causes of profit losses and construction delays on international EPC mega projects: Asia [5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16], Europe [17,18], Africa [19][20][21][22], Americas [23][24][25], and Australia [26,27]. Among the factors identified, the most common cause of project schedule and cost overrun was found to be poor design development prior to construction [5][6][7][8]12,13,[15][16][17][18][22][23][24]27].…”
Section: Existing Literaturementioning
confidence: 99%
“…[7,28]. Shrestha [24] studied the magnitude of construction costs and schedule delays based on the type, size, duration and completion years using statistical analysis. Sambasivan [6], Wong [27] and Habibi [23] hypothesized that design error and change is one of the major causes of delays through diverse data analysis techniques, such as a relative importance index ranking method, severe index, etc.…”
Section: Existing Literaturementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Chang [15] assess the reasons for cost and schedule increases specifically in the design portion, identifying owner's change requests, omissions, poor schedule estimation, and general failures; consultants lack of ability and/or omissions; and general growing needs, stakeholders and changing of governing specifications as the largest impacting factors. Overall, it has been estimated that 70% of projects experience an average schedule overrun between 10% and 30% due to these issues [16] with larger projects, such as offshore EPC O&G megaprojects, more likely to experience the higher end of that range [17]. Olawale and Sun present 90 mitigating measures for design, general risk, schedule estimation, complexity, and subcontract management to prevent, predict, and/or correct the sources of overruns [18].…”
Section: Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Cost component and cost magnitude can be very subjective for each decision holder, resulting in tender proposals with different costs. Shrestha et al, (2013), stated that cost magnitude in contractor companies is influenced by project size, project complexity, and schedule.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%