A Survey of Claim Pricing of Construction Projects in Thailand
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Efficient construction claim management is necessary for all parties in a construction project. Claim
pricing is one of the most important sub-processes of claim management, which gives substantive description
and details of extra costs incurred or to be incurred due to change. This paper aims at 1) finding suitable pricing
method for each claim component of both contractors and employers, and 2) surveying claim pricing process of
existing employers’ claim management system. The research was done by reviewing literatures, analyzing
FIDIC’s “Conditions of Contract for Construction (First Edition)”, and performing interview of 29 key staff from
both public and private organizations. It was found that there are 23 contractor’s claim cost components and 22
employer’s claim cost components. From the survey results, Thai construction industry has much simpler claim
pricing methods than those theoretically described in international practices in several aspects, i.e. the number
of claim components and the indemnity method. This factor should be recognized in the development of the
industry dealing with the high international competitive atmosphere in the future.
Downloads
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
All material is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0) License, unless otherwise stated. As such, authors are free to share, copy, and redistribute the material in any medium or format. The authors must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. The authors may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use. The authors may not use the material for commercial purposes. If the authors remix, transform, or build upon the material, they may not distribute the modified material, unless permission is obtained from JARS. Final, accepted versions of the paper may be posted on third party repositories, provided appropriate acknowledgement to the original source is clearly noted.
References
Adrian, J. J. (1988). Construction claims: A quantitative approach. Englewood Cliff, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Drew, D., & Skitmore, M. (1997). The effect of contract type and size on competitiveness in bidding. Construction Management & Economics, 15(5), 469-489.
Federation Internationale des Ingenieurs-Conseils. (1999). Conditions of contract for construction. Lausanne, Switzerland: Author.
Kululanga, G. K. (2001). Construction contractors’ claim process framework. ASCE Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 127(4), 309-314.
Levin, P. (1998). Construction contract claims, changes & dispute resolution (2nd ed.). Boston: ASCE Press.
Pogorilich, D. A. (1992). The daily report as a job management tool. Cost Engineering, 34(2), 23-25.
Ross, S. A., Westerfield, R. W., & Jordan, B. D. (2000). Fundamentals of corporate finance (5th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Scott, S., & Assadi, S. (1999). A survey of site records kept by construction supervisors. Construction Management and Economic, 17, 375-382.
Semple, C., & Hartman, F. T. (1994). Construction claims and disputes: Clauses and cost/time overruns. ASCE Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 120(4), 785-795.
Tanakitkhamjorn, P. (2005). การศึกษาการเรียกชดเชยจากความล่าช้าในงานก่อสร้างที่เกิดจากค่าสูญเสียโอกาสในการทำกำไร [A study of construction delay claims due to loss of opportunity profit]. Master Thesis, Civil Engineering Department, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand.