You are on page 1of 18

STUDY OF FACTORS AFFECTING CONSTRUCTION

COST PERFORMANCE IN NIGERIAN CONSTRUCTION


SITES.
AMUSAN.L.M Building Technology Department, College of
Science and Tech. Covenant University, Klm 10, ta!"diro#o $oad,
gun!State, %igeria.
E-mail: &orldalternativeamusan'yahoo
ABSTRACT:
(aintaining steady cost pro)ection on construction pro)ects had
*een until recently an issue of serious concern, *oth to the client
and pro)ect contractors. Cost deviation from initial Cost plan, had
*een prevalent on Construction sites. +o&ever, little or no e,orts
has made to curtail the phenomenon, it is against this *ac#ground
that this research &or# attempt to study the factors that are
responsi*le, so as to identify them and pro,er possi*le &ays of
tac#ling the menace. The study attempt this through chosen
construction practitioners as population and samples &ere dra&n
to this e,ect at random from the category of professionals, using
pro*a*ility sampling methods. The Data &ere collected from
primary source consisting of structured -uestionnaire designed in
.i#ert Scale in rating Scale of 1to/, &hile the Secondary Data
&ere collected through revie& of 0ournal articles and relevant Te1t
*oo#s. The Data &ere analysed using Severity "nde1, $an#ing and
Simple 2ercentages. "t &as discovered from the analysis that
factors such as Contractors ine1perience, inade-uate planning,
"n3ation, incessant variation order, and change in pro)ect design
&ere critical to causing cost overrun, &hile pro)ect comple1ity,
shortening of pro)ect period and fraudulent practices are also
responsi*le. The study concluded &ith recommending, ade-uate
planning using conventional techni-ues, Studying and applying
pro)ect history, material *ul# purchase, proper pro)ect design and
esta*lishing proactive fraud prevention system on sites, as
panacea for e,ective cost performance on sites.
KEY WORDS: 2erformance, Cost, Construction, 4actors.
INTRODUCTION
Construction industry in Nigeria had been a major source of employment for 70%
of labour force in the country, thus it controls the capital flow, as well as labour
resources, which has cost implications. Adequate management of these resources is
considered an important aspect of project wors! it determines to a large e"tent
the o#erall success of project wors. $o also if the resources are adequately
harnessed, issues that pertains to cost o#errun would not arise which could result to
#ariations and claims. $ome firms rely on claim as a result of #ariation incurred
during the course of the project e"ecution and afterward e#aluate their profit after
incurring necessary and unnecessary cost on a project.
%his howe#er has tendency of positioning such in a disad#antageous profit
position. An effecti#e cost management strategy is therefore necessary, this could
be achie#ed through putting in place a proacti#e cost management strategy. &'o#e
et al, (00)! *gunsemi and +agboro, (00)! ,erry et al, -../0.
%hey described cost management system as a process that should be carried out
throughout the life cycle of a project, from the inception to final completion and
final payment to the contractor. 1n the light of this, the timeliness and cost
effecti#eness of #arious operation and decision carried out will determine to an
e"tent the magnitude of cost that could be sa#ed on the project. & 2er3ner, (00)!
*gunsemi and +agboro, (00)0.
4owe#er 5issanayaa and 2umaraswamy,&-...0 opined that %ime, Cost, 6uality
target as well as project satisfaction tend to be most important ey to measure the
o#erall performance of a project wor. ,urthermore, #arious research wors ha#e
also indicated that most project records cost or time o#errun during their tenure of
e"ecution.& *dusami and *lusanya, (0000. &7bachu and *laoye, -./.!
7adewsley, et al, (0080! opined that )-percent of a#erage delay were e"perienced
yearly which culminates in cost o#errun, certain factors are responsible for this, to
this end howe#er this study attempts at in#estigating such factors and proffer
solution to the pandemic. %he scope of this research wor shall be limited to
building construction sites within the selected area in Nigeria, *gun state, 'agos
state and Northern part of Nigeria. %his is attributable to unique project
en#ironment they possess. %he aim and objecti#es of the research are as follows9
%he research wor is to determine the #arious factors that interplay in impacting
project cost performance, in#estigating the order of se#erity of the factors, and
recommending ways of curtailing the effects. ,ield sur#ey was carried out with
-00 questionnaire distributed and :7 were used for analysis of response from
construction practitioners selected randomly from population of construction firms,
%he primary data were collected with the aid of structured questionnaire designed
on 'iert $cale of -to 8 rating scale. 7ean item score, $imple percentages and
se#erity inde" were used as analytical tool of the generated data. $;$$ &$tatistical
;acages for $ocial $cience $tudents0 was used in determining pattern of
relationship among the cost determinants and #ariables. %he factors were raned in
order of their degree of se#erity. 1t was disco#ered from the findings that, these
factors are the major ones that results in cost o#errun on construction sites.
&i0.1nadequate planning &ii0 Contractors project ine"perience &iii0 1nflation &i#0
1ncessant #ariation order &#0 Change in project design &#i0 ;roject comple"ity &#ii0
shortening of contract period and &#iii0 ,raudulent practices.
1n order to pre#ent occurrence of cost o#errun or a practice action towards
pre#ention of such, the following are recommended.
&i0inadequate planning9 breaing of project planning into short term achie#able
goals, medium term planning and 'ong term planning & ii0$tudying of project
history for possible application on another similar projects &iii0<ul purchase of
material &i#0;roper design of the project during design stage so as to a#oid. =ndue
on>project #ariation &#0 ?stablishing fraudulent detecting system or system of
indi#idual accountability to discourage pilfering, stealing and other related #ices.
.

Nigerian construction industry is faced with problem of cost o#errun. *gun semi and +agboro
&(00:0 in their wor titled @%ime>cost modeling for building projects in Nigeria, noted that one
of the most serious problems the Nigeria construction industry is faced with, is the project cost
o#errun, with attendant consequence of completing projects at sums higher than the initial sum.
%herefore, woring with realistic project estimate is necessary at the outset of a project wor,
which would eliminate uncertainty and as well pro#ide a plat form for project success &,lanagan
et al, -...0. Cost o#errun howe#er is not limited to Nigeria conte"t is of international concern,
this was illustrated in the research carried out by Chan and 2umaraswamy &(00:0, in Australia, it
was found out that se#en>eighths of building contractors sur#eyed in the late -.:0As were
completed after scheduled completing while in 4ong 2ong 70% of building projects were
delayed and completed at cost higher than initial budgeted cost. Al>ahil and Al>chafly &-...0
established in a study carried out by them in -..) in $andi Arabia on contractors and consultants
that BB% of all their project undertaen were subjected to cost and time o#errun while
consultants were subjected to cost and time o#errun while consultants admitted that /8% of
project under their super#isor e"perienced cost o#errun.
*gunsemi and +agboro &(00:0 attributed the o#errun to wrong cost estimation method adopted at
the early stage of the building projects. %he study concluded with de#eloping a time>cost model
for building projects which is a step ahead of <romilows models pre#iously in use in
determining project duration that would help in a#oiding cost o#errun. Carelh &-./.0 in ?dem et
al &(00-0 reported the case of cost o#errun recorded in the construction of a theater at 7anaus, in
the Ama3on pro#ince of <ra3il, at the cost of (0,000 Cru3eiro, -( years later after the contract
has been awarded at )00 Cru3eiro. Apan &-./70 also reported the case of the <ritish National
Cest minister ban 4eadquartersA building where the cost o#errun was said to ha#e been
adduced as to the causes of project cost o#errun. 1n the same #ein ayoed &-.7.0 firmly belie#ed
that project cost o#errun is attributable to costing methods that wrong cost estimating method
would lead to adoption of wrong cost for a project wor.
2oushi et al &(0080 in their wor9 5elays and cost in creases in the construction of pri#ate
projects bin 2uwait ;resented the causes of cost o#errun as composed of three main parts!
contractor related problems, material related problems and ownersA financial constraints.
A person inter#iew sur#ey of 8)0 randomly selected pri#ate residential project owners and
de#elopers in (7 representati#e districts in metropolitan 2uwait was used for the research wor.
%he paper concluded with recommending a number of issues. %he sufficient time and money at
the design stage, selection of competent consultant and a reliable contractor to carry out the wor
and adopting right cost determination system.
$imilarly, *gunlana et al. &-..:0 in their study titled @Contraction delay in fast growing
economy9 comparing %hailand with other economics. %hey classified the main causes of cost
o#errun in de#eloping economy, %hailand as case study as client consultants shortcomings,
contractor incompetence and inadequacy of resources supplies. %he study in#ol#ed a sur#ey of
cost o#errun e"perienced in the construction of high>rise building projects in <ango, %hailand.
1n another related study, Aibinu and +agboro &(00(0, in researched on growing problem of
construction delay in Nigeria, they studied the effects of delay on the deli#ery of construction
projects in Nigeria. 6uestionnaire $ur#ey of :- construction projects was used! the authors
identified the impact of delay on project e"ecution. %ime and cost o#errun were found to be
frequent effects of delay.
%he study identified as well the cause of cost o#errun as materials related, economy #ariable
changes labour related equipment related and wrong choice of cost determination strategy at the
#arious project stages. Appropriate project cost determination strategy! impro#ed clientsA project
management procedures and inclusion of an appropriate contingency allowance in the
precontract estimate were recommended as a means of minimi3ing the ad#erse effects of cost
o#errun. $o also, ?linwa and +oshua &(00-0 carried out a study titled @%ime>cost *#errun ,actors
in Nigerian Construction 1ndustryD. %he oral inter#iews were conducted among the professionals
&Architects 6uantity $ur#eyors ?ngineers and <uilders0 in the construction industry.
6uestionnaires were distributed to different states &fi#e states9 Abuja, +os <auchi, 7inna and
2aduna0 with total of B: questionnaires collated. %he research identified the degree of o#errun as
high>between /0 and .0%, and relati#e contributions of clients, contractor, and other to o#errun
are :(, B( and :% respecti#ely.
%he go#ernment taes :(% of the blame, and this arises from refusal today for material
fluctuations which leads to delay! wrongful And abrupt termination of contract because of
selfishness and greed! go#ernment policies and instability in the system! not honoring payment
certificates for completed wors as and when due.
%hey further stated that the contractor taes B(% of the blame arising from incompetence, using
wrong cost estimation determination approach, poor project super#ision, and stries by worer
for impro#ed condition of ser#ice.
1n conclusion the paper identified the fact that cost and time o#erruns are more pre#alent in
go#ernmentEpublic sponsored projects which is /.% of the sampled projects and that this is
independent that in Nigeria this problem can be a#erted if go#ernment could be sincere in
formulating policies, addressing issues of competence and pro#iding stable economy.
;rofessionals also are to be more prudent in their design and more nowledgeable about the
a#ailability of materials and tools in construction projectsA e"ecution.
%he difference between these papers being re#iewed and this research wor is the fact that, as
good and e"ploratory as these approaches were, no one dealt with cost o#errun instigated on
account of project related issues, ?"ternal ,actors, industry related factor, organi3ational factors,
and less on contractors and client types on a project rather the papers centered on clients type and
contractors liabilities.
%his research has identified the factors such as organi3ational factors, industry related factors,
and e"ternal factors project related factors, contractorsA liability and client type on a project as
some of the factors that can cause cost o#errun on project wor. %o this end therefore this will be
part of major preoccupation of this research wor.
*n this premise, the research is carrying out detailed study of the cost o#errun factors, the effect
with a #iew to proffering solution to a#ert or curtail the negati#e impact on <uilding projects.
RESEARCH METHODS, SAMPLE SIZE AND SAMPLING TECHNIQUE
,ield sur#ey was carried out with -00 questionnaire distributed and :7 were used
for analysis of response from construction practitioners selected randomly from
population of construction firms, the data generated there from is thus a reflection
of opinion of worers of the sampled firms.
%he primary data were collected with the aid of structured questionnaire designed
on 'iert $cale of -to 8 rating scale, using se#erity inde" in determining the e"tent
of se#erity of the factors disco#ered. Fery rele#ant was rated ),Gele#ant rated
8,+ust rele#ant rated B,1rrele#ant rated ( and Fery irrele#ant rated as -.
$econdary data were collected with the aid of +ournal articles and past wors.
$imple se#erity inde" was used in determining the e"tent to which the #ariables
were accorded and their order of priority.
TYPES OF DATA ANALYSIS TOOL
$imple percentages and se#erity inde" were used as analytical tool of the generated
data. $;$$&$tatistical ;acages for $ocial $cience $tudents0 was used in
determining pattern of relationship among the cost determinants and #ariables. %he
factors were raned in order of their degree of se#erity.
PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA
%he bacground information about the respondent is as presented in the table
below.
Table 1.0 Proe!!"o# o Re!$o#%e#&
$EN ;rofessional cadre of Gespondents No of Gespondents ;ercentage
- Architect (0 (...
( <uilders -) ((.8
B ?ngineers -) ((.B.
8 6uantity $ur#eyor -0 -8..
) ?state $ur#eyor 7 -0.8)
%otal :7 -00
$ource9 AuthorAs ,ield $ur#ey Analysis (00/.
%he professional cadre of #arious professionals constituting the respondents is
presented in %able -.0 abo#e ((.8% of the respondents are <uilders,(...%
Architect, 6uantity $ur#eyors are -0.8)%,?state sur#eyors occupied 7%.while
?ngineers&Ci#il, 7echanical and ?lectrical0 occupied ((.B.%.
Table 1.' Re!$o#%e#&! Year! o E($er"e#)e
Hears of ?"perience Gespondents
population
;ercentage
5*ove 10yrs B0 66.7
(()>-0yrs (0 89.9
->)yrs -7 8/.6
%otal :7 100
$ource9 AuthorAs ,ield $ur#ey Analysis.
%he Gespondents year of ;rofessional e"perience is illustrated in %able
(.Cith this 88./%belong to the category of respondents ha#ing )>-0yrs
e"perience,().8% of ->)yrs e"perience, while 88./% belong to category
with abo#e -0yrs e"perience.
Table 1.* Re!$o#%e#&! E)o#o+, !e)&or
?conomy $ector No of Gespondents ;ercentage
;ri#ate sector
87 70.-)
;ublic sector
(0 (..(.
%otal
:7 -00
$ource9 AuthorAs ,ield $ur#ey Analysis
%able -.B presented the ?conomic sector that #arious respondents that
partoo in the $ur#ey belongs, 70.-)% of the population were from
;ri#ate $ector, while (...% belong to ;ri#ate $ector.
Table 1.- Pro).re+e#& +e&/o% .!e% b, &/e Re!$o#%e#&
$EN ;rocurement 7ethods No of Gespondents ;ercentage.
- %raditional 7ethod B 8.8/
( ;roject 7anagement : /..:
B 5irect 'abour -0 -8..B
8 5esign and <uild (0 (../)
) 'abour only Contract (/ 8-.7.
%otal :7 -00
$ource9 AuthorAs ,ield $ur#ey.
;rocurement methods used on the ;roject #arious respondents partoo at is presenred in
%able -.8.%he sur#ey indicated that majority of the projects were e"ecuted through
%raditional Approach,which constitute 8-.7.%,(../)% were e"ecuted through 5esign and
<uild method,-8..B% through 5irect 'abour,/..:% 'abour only Contract while 8.8/%
were e"ecuted through ;roject 7anagement approach.

Table 1.0 Per"o% o Co!& O1err.#
$EN No of Hears No of Gespondents ;ercentage
- Abo#e (Hrs None 0.00
( ->( years ( B./)
B :months>-year -- (-.-)
8 <elow :months B. 7).00
%otal )( -00
$ource9 AuthorAs ,ield $ur#ey Analysis.
1n %able -.: the ;eriod of occurrence of cost o#errun on site s is detailed out
here. Cost o#errun that spanned below :months was e"perienced by 7)% of the
respondents, :months to -year, e"perienced by (-.-)%, ->(years by
B./)%respondents while none of the respondents e"perienced cost o#errun that
spanned up to ( years period.
Table 1.2 Co!& O1err.# De&er+"#a#&!
sEn Cost>o#errun
determinants
C.G
I)J
G
I8J
+.G
IBJ
1GG
I(J
F.G
I-J
$.1
%
G.2
- Contractors ;roject
ine"perience
8( (( B 0 0 .-.:0 -
( 1nadequate planning 8) -) 7 0 0 .-.B8 (
B 1nflation 8( (0 ) 0 0 .-.00 B
8 1ncessant #ariation
order
88 -: : - 0 .0.70 8
) Change in ;roject
design
8B -7 7 0 0 .0.70 8
: ;roject comple"ity 8( (0 B ( 0 .0.80 :
7 $hortening of contract
period
88 -8 . 0 0 .0.80 :
/ ,raudulent ;ractices 8( -/ 7 0 0 .0.80 :
. =nstable economy 8( () -0 0 0 /..)) .
-0 1naccurate estimate 80 -) -( 0 0 //.88 -0
-- *#erdesign 80 -/ : B 0 //.80 -0
-( ;roject site location B) () ) - - //.0) -(
-B 5elay from employer B. -: -- - 0 /7.7: -B
-8 ,orce 7ajeure B0 () -- - 0 /).-0 -:
-) 7aterial ;rice
fluctuations
B0 -/ -. 0 0 /B.B0 -8
-: $ite conflicts B0 (0 -( B ( /B.00 -)
-7 ;oor wormanship B0 -7 (0 0 0 /B.00 -:
-/ 1nadequate financial
pro#ision
(. -7 (0 0 - /(.- -7
-. Contractors
inefficiency
B0 (0 -0 : - /(.0. -/
(0 =nsteady material
supply
B0 -) (0 ( 0 /-./0 -.
(- =npredictable weather
condition
B0 -7 -7 - 0 /0..0 -.
(( <reach of local
regulation
() (( -- / - 7..-0 (0
(B 'ac of e"ecuti#e
capacity by employer
7 -0 (0 0 0 )/.(0 (-
$ource9 AuthorAs ,ield $ur#ey Analysis $.1KKKKKK$e#erity 1nde"
'egend9 C.GKKKKKKCompletely rele#ant 1GGKKKKKK1rrele#ant
GKKKKKKKKGele#ant F.GKKKKKKFery 1rrele#ant
+.GKKKKKK+ust rele#ant G.2LKKKKKGaning
Table.1.3.0 Rela&"o#!/"$ a+o#4 5ar"able!.
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
VAR00001 11 7.00 45.00 34.0000 10.92703
VAR00002
11 10.00 25.00 18.4545 4.82418
VAR00003
11 5.00 20.00 11.2727 5.40538
VAR00004
11 .00 6.00 1.0000 1.73205
VAR00005
11 .00 1.00 .2727 .46710
VAR00006
11 58.20 91.34 84.2264 9.42419

Table 1.8.1 Cost overrun Determinants variation pattern
VAR00001 VAR00002 VAR00003 VAR00004 VAR00005 VAR00006
1 39.00 16.00 11.00 1.00 .00 87.76
2
45.00 15.00 7.00 .00 .00 91.34
3
35.00 25.00 5.00 1.00 1.00 88.05
4
30.00 20.00 10.00 6.00 1.00 82.09
5
7.00 10.00 20.00 .00 .00 58.20
6
42.00 25.00 10.00 .00 .00 89.55
7
30.00 25.00 11.00 1.00 .00 85.10
8
29.00 17.00 20.00 .00 1.00 82.10
9
44.00 16.00 6.00 1.00 .00 90.70
10
43.00 17.00 7.00 .00 .00 90.70
11
30.00 17.00 17.00 1.00 .00 80.90
Tota N
11 11 11 11 11 11
Va!ian"e
119.400 23.273 29.218 3.000 .218 88.815
Std. #!!o! o$ S%e&ne''
.661 .661 .661 .661 .661 .661
S%e&ne''
(1.527 .175 .746 2.823 1.189 (2.414
Std. #!!o! o$ Mean
3.29462 1.45455 1.62978 .52223 .14084 2.84150
%he cost o#errun determinants were presented in table -.7 abo#e, with #arious
responses collected from the respondents. <ased on the respondentsA response,
contractor project in >e"perience with se#erity inde" of .-.:% was raned -
st

&first0 and was indicated by the respondents as the main factor responsible for cost
o#errun on the project they were engaged at.
1nadequate planning was raned (
nd
with se#enty inde" .-.B8%, inflation also
raned B
rd
, with se#enty inde" .-.0%, while the duo of 1ncessant #ariation order,
and change in project design were raned 8
th
&fourth0 with se#erity inde" of .0.7%
respecti#ely so also, project comple"ity, shortening of Contract period and
fraudulent practices were raned :
th
&si"th0 with se#erity inde" of .0.8%, as
determinants factor of project cost o#errun.
,rom %able -./.0 little #ariation e"ists among the raed cost o#errun determinants
with $tandard error of $ewness of 0.::-and standard error of (./8%.
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
,rom the outcome of the Gesearch, contractorsA pre#ious project e"perience is
always necessary at times in e"ecuting a project wor, most especially when such
projects are repetiti#e in nature. Cost should ha#e been controlled on such sites
and processEmethod adopted should ha#e been noted, this e"perience could thus be
transferred to the current project being handled.%hus a contractor could draw from
wealth of e"perience in tacling on>project challenges, in adopting proacti#e
measure in controlling construction cost o#errun.
$o also, follow closely is in>adequate planning. %his is in conformity with 'o#e et
al., &(00)0! +agboro, &-...0 that ;lanning is often pi#otal to the success of
construction operations. ,or successful e"ecution of project wors, #arious
planning techniques that could be applied are9 short>term planning, medium>term
planning and long term planning.
Chen construction programme is di#ided into #arious achie#able tass and goal
the question of controlling its progress now arises. %he planning process should
ha#e been put into place in order to gi#e equal opportunity to all aspects of wor,
so as to progress as detailed out and within certain estimated cost. As a result of
this, the system has to be controlled through progressi#e measuring of achie#ed
success to the tas detailed out in the master program me. Adequate planning
in#ol#es taing a loo ahead in order to see out issues that requires due attention
and to identify potential delay or causes of delay that could lead to cost o#errun. 1t
would be disco#ered howe#er that fifty>two &)(0 cases of cost o#errun were
recorded in the research wor and majority of the respondents indicated lac of
planning, this attests to the fact that inadequate planning had been one of the
factors responsible for this trend.
%hirteen&-B0 of the fifty>two cases which constitutes (: % as against 7bachu and
*laoye, -./.! 7awdesley et al., (008 who ad#ocated that fifty>one&)-0% of
projects e"ecuted in a year e"periences cost o#errun was disco#ered in this wor.
$o also inflation was also identified, as a potential factor stimulating project cost
o#errun.
1nflation is a major ?conomic menace that e"erts a small and relati#ely
insignificant effect on economics conditions. 1n modern economics it has become a
much more telling influence and cannot be ignored in economic appraisal of
in#estment in pre Mconstruction stage, construction, as well as post construction
stage of project wors, e#en in all but the simplest of proposals. 1n simple terms
inflation is caused by an increase in stoc of money that is a#ailable for spending
while the quantity of goods a#ailable for purchase does not increase by a
proportionate amount. 1nflation could result in e"ceeding initial project budget and
which could culminates in cost o#errun. %his would in turn force the owner of
facilities being constructed to see for an additional funding to pay the e"tra cost.
,urthermore, incessant #ariation order and change in project design as indicated by
the respondent, ha#e potentials of producing cost o#errun. Change in project
design could leads to reduction in cost which is a desirable effect, but on a loss side
when resulted in cost o#errun, change in design #ariable s would cause cost
o#errun, since the propose features is not part of initial agreement. %hus adequate
care need to be e"cised while changing design and initially agreed sum, since it
could lead to cost o#errun
As well, the shortening of project period often requires reducing duration of certain
operations by increasing manpower need to achie#e it in the first instance! so as to
achie#e the tas at lesser time, this also could lead to cost o#errun. Comple"ity of
the project was also accounted for cost o#errun. %he comple"ity of the project
may at times required remodeling or restructuring which could spell change in
initially estimated cost! this could result in arri#ing at a cost greater than earlier
established cost or budget.
$o also, fraudulent practices were also lined with cost o#errun on site. ;ractices
such as stealing, under measurement, substandard material all contributing to site
cost o#errun. %he amount of material needed must ha#e been budgeted before
wor commence on site and resource s needed also budgeted for each stage , this
must ha#e been prepared and act of stealing or waste on part of such planned
resources will meant upsetting the while programme and consequently cost
o#ershot. %hus adequate precaution should be taen in order to forestall
fraudulent practice that could lead to project cost o#errun.
Table 1.1'Co#!e6.e#)e o Co!& o1err.#.
S:
n
Efects of Cost overrun. Percenta
ge
1 Tying do&n of clients capital 70;
ii Company:<rms lia*ility to insolvency /0;
iii .ia*ility of companies or <rms to *ad de*t or
*an#ruptcy
=0;
iv Under!utili>ation of manpo&er resources //;
v Tendency for an increase pro)ect cost resulting from payments for idle and
unproductive time re
ssed pro)ect cost resulting d pro)ect cost resulting
from payments for for ,or idle and
fpayments for idle and
9?;
Unproducti
ve time
arising out
of
contractor
s claims.
vi 2ro)ects a*andonment 90;
@ii Under!utili>ation of plants and e-uipment purchased
for the pro)ects.
A0;
%here is nine out of ten chances of tendency to incur cost o#errun on site, and this
could lead to project abandonment, followed closely with tendency for clients
capital being tied down. $o also there is lielihood of an increased project cost
resulting from payments for unproducti#e time. As well, there are se#enty percent
&70%0 chances of concerned firms or contractor being banrupt, insol#ent or
incurring bad debt.
CONCLUSION AND FURTHER RESEARCH
%he objecti#e of the research wor had been achie#e #isa >a>#is, studying factors
affecting cost performance on construction sites. %he research concluded by
identifying these factors as the major ones that result in cost o#errun on
construction sites.
&i0 1nadequate planning &ii0 Contactors project ine"perience &iii0 1nflation
&1F0 1ncessant #ariation order &#0 Change in project design &#i0
;roject comple"ity &#ii0 shortening of contract period and &#iii0
,raudulent practices.
%o this end therefore, in order to pre#ent occurrence of cost o#errun or a practice
action towards pre#ention of such, the following are recommended9
&-0 Adequate planning breaing of project planning into short term achie#able
goals, medium term planning and 'ong term planning
&(0 $tudying of project history for possible application on another similar
projects
&B0 <ul purchase of material
&80 ;roper design of the project during design stage so as to a#oid. =ndue on>
project #ariation
?stablishing fraudulent detecting system or system of indi#idual accountability to
discourage pilfering, stealing and other related #ices.
REFFERENCES.
Ashworth, A. &-..80 Cost $tudies of <uilding. $econd ?dition, 'ongman
$cientific and %echnical. 4arlow. ?ngland.
<athurst, ;.? and <utler, 5. A &-./00 <uilding Cost Control %echniques and
?conomics. $econd ?dition. 4einemann. 'ondon.
5issanayaa, $.7 and 2umaransammy, 7.7. &-...0 Comparing Contributory
%ime and Cost ;erformance in building projects. <uilding and ?n#ironment, B-&:0,
):.>)7/.
,erry, 5.+! <randon, ;.$ and ,erry, + .5. &-../0 Cost ;lanning of <uilding.
$e#enth ?dition. <lacwell $cience 'imited. 4osney 7ead. 'ondon.
4arris, +.* and 7acCaffer, G. &(00)0 7odern Construction 7anagement. 1owa
$tate ;ress. ,ifth ?dition, <lacwell ;ublishing Company. Ames, 1owa.=$A.
+agboro, L.*. &-../0 An ?#aluation of the factors that cause delays on
Construction ;roject in Nigeria. African +ournal of 5e#elopment $tudies, -&-N(0
;g -0)>--8.
2er3ner, 4.C. &-../0 ;roject 7anagement. $i"th ?dition. +ohn Ciley and $ons.
1ncorporated .Canada.
'o#e, ;.?.5! %se, G.H.C and ?dwards, 5.+ &(00)0 %ime>Cost relationship in
Australian building construction projects. Nigeria +ournal of Construction and
7anagement.( &-0 ;g /->/:.
7ajid, 7.O.A &-../0 ,actors of non>e"cusable delays that influence contractorAs
performance. +ournal of 7anagement and ?ngineering.-8 &B0 pg 8(>88.
7awdesley, 7! Asew, C and *AGeilly, 7 &-..70 ;lanning and Controlling
Construction ;rojects. 'ongman ;ublishers. <ershire. 'ondon.
7bachu, +.2 and *laoye, L.$ &-...0 Analysis of 7ajor 5elay factors in building
project e"ecution. Nigeria +ournal of Construction 7anagement, (&-0 ;g /->/:.
*dusami, 2.% and *lusanya, *.* &(0000 Clients Contribution to delays on
completion cost of 4ousing ;rojects in Nigeria. %he 6uantity $ur#eyor.B0, B->88.
*gunsemi, 5.G and +agboro, L.* &(00:0 %ime>cost model for building ;rojects in
Nigeria. +ournal of Construction 7anagement and ?conomics.(8, ()B>()/.
;ilcher,G &-..(0 ;reicioles of Construction 7anagement.B
rd
?dition. 7cLraw>4ill
<oos Company, <ershire. ?ngland.
$itmore, G.7 and Ng, $.% &(00B0 ,orecast 7odel for actual Construction %ime
and Cost. <uilding and ?n#ironment,/&/0 -07)>-0/..

You might also like