A Perception Survey On Unabsorbed Head Office Overhead Recovery Methodologies
Volume 3 - Issue 7, July 2019 Edition
[Download Full Paper]
Author(s)
Chandana Jayalath
Keywords
Contract prolongation, Head office overhead, Kendall’s coefficient
Abstract
Recovery of unabsorbed head office overhead (HOOH) during contract prolongation is a contentious issue among the contractors who lodge their claims on a formula method of calculation. Consultants too have different perceptions as to their appropriateness since a myriad of variables influence the final outcome. This paper reports from an empirical study into the current practice in Sri Lanka, as part of a wider study aimed at developing a framework for improving delay claims analyses. The part of the study reported here is based on a questionnaire survey of key informants from construction and consulting companies. The issues investigated include industry awareness, use of the techniques and their reliability in practice. The Kendall’s coefficient was used to compute the concordance as to opinion between two groups. The main findings of the study are that two groups hold the equal stance of high awareness and low level of success in application.
References
[1] Jayalath (2012) Recovery of Unabsorbed Head Office Overheads in a Contract Prolongation, Articlesbase.com
[2] James G. Zack, Jr.(2002) Calculation And Recovery Of Home/Head Office Overhead, 3rd World Congress on Cost Engineering, Project Management & Quantity Surveying, 14 – 18 April 2002 Melbourne, Australia
[3] Samarathunga, I (2014) Head Office Overhead Revisited, SLQS Qatar
[4] Robert K. Yin (2002) Case Study Research Design and Methods, Second Edition, Applied Social Research Methods Series Volume 5, Sage publications
[5] Rea L. M. and Parker, P. A. (1997) Designing and Conducting Survey Research, 2nd Ed.,Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco, USA.
[6] De Vaus, D. A. (2002) Surveys in Social Research, 5th Ed., Routledge, London
[7] Creswell, J. W. (2003) Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method approached. Sage Publication Ltd, London, 2th edition
[8] Schwartzkopf, William, John J. McNamara and Julian F. Hoffar. (1992) Calculating Construction Damages. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
[9] Ibbs, W., & Nguyen, L D. 2007. Alternative for Quantifying Field-overhead Damages, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Volume 133(10), ASCE
[10] Hobson D, Holland NL (1999) Indirect Cost Categorization and Allocation by Construction Contractors, Journal of Architectural Engineering 5(2)
[11] R. L. Peurifoy, G. D. Oberlender, Estimating construction costs, 4th Ed., McGraw Hill, NewYork, 1989
[12] Irwin, W.J (2014) Current Issues to Watch For in Construction Claims, Part III: Overhead Claims, Lorman, January 08, 2014
[13] NCHRP PROGRAM SYNTHESIS 315 (2003) Compensation for Contractors’ Home Office Overhead, A Synthesis of Highway Practice, National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Washington, D.C.
[14] Fultz, Jack F. Overhead. Cambridge MA: Abt Books, 1980.
[15] Cilensek, R. (1991) Understanding Constructor Overhead, Cost Engineering (AACE), 33(12), 21-30.
[16] Pulver HE (1989) Construction Estimates and Costs, NewYork, McGraw Hill
[17] Snodgrass (1991) Ideal Overhead; Kean and Mean, Credit Union Management, 14-4, 44.45
[18] Patton MQ. Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods, 3rd Sage Publications; Thousand Oaks, CA: 2002
[19] Siegel, S., and Castellan, N. J., Jr. (1988), Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.), NewYork: McGraw-Hill