Content uploaded by Kongkoon Tochaiwat
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Kongkoon Tochaiwat
Content may be subject to copyright.
CONTRACTORS’ CONSTRUCTION CLAIMS AND
CLAIM MANAGEMENT PROCESS
Kongkoon Tochaiwat and Visuth Chovichien
Chulalongkorn University
254 Phayathai Road Patumwan
Bangkok 10330 Thailand
Tel. 0-2218-6463 FAX 0-2251-7304
E-mail kongkoon@hotmail.com, fcevcc@eng.chula.ac.th
Abstract
Construction claims have such high impacts on
the projects’ cost and time that the contractors
should establish the effective claim
management in their organizations. This
research aimed at presenting the key concepts
of construction claims, and construction claim
management, focusing on the contractors’ point
of view. In addition, a questionnaire survey
was done to assess the efficiency of the
contractors in managing their claims. Three-
hundred claim management staffs from
contractors’ organizations were then selected
by using stratified sampling technique, taking
into account their company locations. It was
found that the active tasks that the
contractors can perform efficiently consist of
(1) recognition and identification of the change,
(2) systematic and accurate documentation of
the change, (3) analysis of time and cost
impacts of the change. As to the defensive
tasks, they are systematic and accurate
documentation of change, and analysis of time
and cost impacts of the change. On the other
hand, the activities that the contractor can not
perform well and should be improved are: (1)
active notification of the change, (2) active
negotiation of the claim, and (3) defensive
recognition and identification of the change.
The result from this research can help the
contractors improve their weaknesses and
maintain their strengths of their claim
management process.
1. Introduction
Construction claims are found in almost
every construction project. It is the seeking of
consideration or change by one of the
parties involved in the construction process.
Nowadays, the substantially increasing volume
of claims are the result of the rising complexity
of the projects, the price structure of the
construction industry and the legal approach
taken by a lot of owners and contractors [17].
There are several researches that show
the order of magnitude of the effects from
construction claims on cost and time of the
projects. Semple et al. (1994) presented the
results of their survey of the claims in 24
construction projects in Western Canada.
It was found that the large majority of claims
involved some delays and in a number of cases
delays exceeded the original contract duration
by over 100%. As to the project cost, more
than half of the claims were the additional costs
of at least 30% of the original contract values.
Callahan (1998) reported that transit agencies
in the United States and Canada experienced an
average cost growth of 7% of contract value
from settlement of disputes and claims for
heavy civil contracts. In Thailand,
Khanchitvorakul (2000) surveyed the claim
behavior of 21 the construction companies and
discovered that the average cost growth from
contract value causing by claims was
approximately 7%, proximate to Callahan’s
finding.
Although construction claims have
significant effects on the projects, they are not
always given adequate considerations. Scott
and Assadi (1999) concluded that the records
available on sites seldom allow an as-built
schedule to be constructed easily. Pogorilich
(1992) reported that the daily report is often
given the least amount of attention although it
may be the most important document on the
project. Surawongsin (2002) surveyed the
construction claim management practices in
Thai construction companies and found that
lack of awareness of on-site people is
considered as the major problem of claim
management. Inadequacies of supporting
evidences, stemming from unaware project
personnel as well as improperly designed
documentation system, are the next serious
shortcomings causing a loss of chance to
recover incurred damages. Surawongsin also
recommended the management level to pay
more attention to these aspects for having an
effective claims management system.
This research aimed at presenting the
key concepts of construction claims, and
construction claim management, focusing on
the contractors’ side. In addition, a
questionnaires survey was performed to assess
the efficiency of the contractors in managing
their claims.
2. Construction Claims
Construction claim is a demand or
assertion by one of the parties seeking, as a
matter of right, adjustment or interpretation of
contract terms, payment of money, extension of
time or other relief with respect to the terms of
the contract [17]. Kumaraswamy (1997)
described the relations among “conflict”,
“claim” and “dispute”. In summary, disputes
are taken to imply prolonged disagreement on
unsettled claims and protracted unresolved/
destructive conflicts. This concept can be
illustrated by Fig.1.
Fig.1 Relationships between conflicts,
claims and disputes [16]
According to Bu-Bshait and Manzanera
(1990), typical construction claims against
owners are caused by a lot of reasons such as
poor project planning, scope changes,
constructive variation orders, errors and
omissions, contract accelerations and
expediting. There are various ways to classify
construction claims into categories. However,
th ey c an be grou ped i nto 3 grou ps.
The first group classifies claims into
two basic types by the objectives of claims.
They consist of (1) claim for extra time to
complete the contract, and (2) claim for extra
money arising out of the contract [7].
The second group categorizes claims by
considering their legal bases, Chappell (1984),
Alkass and Harris (1991) and Hughes and
Barber (1992) classified claims into three
major types:
1) Contractual claims
Contractual claims are the claims that
fall within the specific clauses of the contract,
typically ground conditions, valuation,
variations, late issue of information, and delay
in inspecting finished work.
2) Extra-contractual claims
This type of claim has no specific
grounds within contract but is a result of breach
of contract, which may be express or implied.
An example of extra-contractual claim is the
extra work incurred as a result of defective
material supplied by the employer.
3) Ex-gratia claims
Ex-gratia claims are the claims that
there is no ground existing in the contract or
the law, but the contractor believes that he has
moral grounds, e.g. additional costs incurred as
result of rapidly increased prices.
The last group, as proposed by Adrian
(1988), classified claims into four major types:
(1) Delay claim, (2) Scope-of-work claim, (3)
Acceleration claim, and (4) Changing-site-
condition claim, in order to facilitate the
calculation of damages of claims
3. Construction Claim Management
The word “Management” means the
process of dealing with or controlling people or
CONFLICT
S
IMPROVEMENT
S
CLAIM
S
OTHER
SOURCES
SETTLEMENT
S
DISPUTE
S
things [11]. When combined with the meaning
of the word “Claim” defined by Arditi and
Patel (1989), the word “Construction claim
management” can be construed as the process
of dealing with or controlling the seeking of
consideration or change by one of the parties
involved in the construction process. Cox
(1997) considered variation and claim
management as the management of risks and
should begin even before the start of
constructions by both employers and
contractors.
There are many sub-processes related to
construction claim management. Levin (1998)
indicated seven basic procedures for claims and
change order administration. They are:
1) recognition and identification of
change,
2) notification of change,
3) systematic and accurate
documentation of change,
4) analysis of time and cost impacts of
change,
5) pricing of change,
6) negotiation of claim, and
7) dispute resolution and settlement.
Recognition and Identification of Change
Construction claim recognition and
identification involves “timely” and “accurate”
detection of a construction claim. It is the first
and critically important ingredient of the claim
process [15]. Callahan(1998) viewed the
ability to recognize an emerging problem that
could lead to a dispute, and allowing for this
problem to be dealt with early in its life as the
most important part of dispute avoidance. He
also presented the techniques used to anticipate
or identify disputes at an early stage by all
transit agencies in the United States and
Canada, including the commuter rail agencies,
which have undertaken construction in the last
5 years. They are (1) preconstruction meeting,
(2) project meetings, (3) construction
scheduling, (4) bid evaluation/ comparison,
(5) project cost/ payment forecasting,
(6) regular review of project documentation,
and (7) proactive problem management at
meeting.
In order to form a foundation for proper
claim management and to keep the contractors
out of troubles and free to concentrate on
constructions of the jobs, Levin (1998) listed of
the general circumstances that typically cause
claims and variation order.
Notification of Change
Construction claim notification
involves alerting the other party of a potential
problem in a manner that is non-adversarial.
Time limit requirements are very crucial and
critical. An initial letter of a claim notice to the
other should be concise, clear, simple,
conciliatory, and cooperative. It should
indicate the problem and alert the other party of
the potential increase in time or cost [15].
Time limit requirement are normally
specified in the contracts. For example, the
Construction Contract (First Edition), prepared
by Federation Internationale des Ingenieurs-
Conseils (FIDIC) requires the contractor to
notify the employer within 28 days after he
became aware or should have become aware of
the event or circumstance [10].
Systematic and Accurate Documentation of
Change
Records and documentation play a very
important role in the settlement of contract
claims. Bu-Bshait and Manzanera (1990)
listed nine records usually needed to
substantiate a claim. With more focus on the
delay claim, Elnagar and Yates (1997)
investigated the types of documentation used to
determine the causes of project delays. The ten
documents ranked as the top indicators of
project delays are presented.
Jergeas and Hartman (1994) suggested
that construction contractors should always file
some necessary records. Fifteen records were
listed in the paper. Furthermore, Adrian (1988)
explained how some techniques such as
camera, and recording devices can be
alternatives in recording the important
information.
However, there are many evidences
showing that the importance of record
management is not realized as much as it
should be. Scott and Assadi (1999) concluded
that records available on sites seldom allow the
as-built schedules to be constructed easily.
Pogorilich (1992) reported that the daily
reports are often given the least amount of
attention although they may be the most
important document on the projects. Too often
daily reports are prepared with minimal details
and are subsequently ignored by managements.
Analysis of Time and Cost Impacts of Change
There are several literatures concerning
the calculation procedures of the time and cost
impacts caused by the events entitling rights to
claim. These can be grouped into two major
categories: time impact analysis (or schedule
analysis) and cost impact analysis.
There are several schedule analysis
techniques such as: (1) Global Impact Analysis
[2], (2) Net Impact Analysis [2], (3) Impacted
As-Planned Analysis [17], (4) What-If
Technique [3], (5) But-For Technique [2, 3,
18], (6) Contemporaneous Period Analysis
Technique [2, 3, 18], (7) The Affected Baseline
Schedule Technique [3], (8) Collapsed As-
Built Analysis [3, 18], and (9) Fragnet Analysis
[17]. The main differences of these techniques
are their input schedules. Some techniques
require as-planned schedule, while others
require as-built schedule. Updated schedule is
also the input for some schedule analysis
techniques.
Pricing of Change
The purpose of this sub-process is to
give the other party in the contract a
substantive description and details of the extra
costs incurred or to be incurred due to a
contract change. This detailed cost description
is necessary for understanding, negotiating, and
justifying extra contract costs. Pricing of
claims can be divided into two types:
1) Forward Pricing
Under this scheme, the price is
negotiated before the work is done. This type
of pricing method is typically preferred since it
encourages prompt revision of the progress
schedule, thus maintaining accurate record of
the sequencing of the remaining work, the final
contract price, and the final completion date.
2) Post pricing :
In post pricing, the risks have been
incurred and the added costs have been known.
The difficulty is identifying and isolating all
the changes and their attendant costs. The
claimants are supposed to have good cost
records, with adequate descriptions of works
performed. Thus, after a determination of the
work which was affected by a change, the
claimant will be able to identify and price all
the costs associated with the changed work
[17]. Adrian (1988) described the
relationships between four types of claims (e.g.
delay claim, scope-of-work claim, acceleration
claim, and changing-site-condition claim) and
each cost components (i.e. addition direct labor
hours, equipment rental cost, interest cost or
finance cost). Table1 summarizes the
relationships.
Table1 Types of claim components for various types of claims [1]
Type of Cost Claimed
Type of Claim
Delay Claim
Scope-of-
work Claim
Acceleration
Claim
Changing-
site-condition
Claim
Additional direct labor hours
X
//
X
//
Additional direct labor hours
due to lost productivity
//
/
//
/
Increased labor rate
//
/
//
/
Additional material quantity
X
//
/
/
Additional material unit price
//
//
/
/
Table1 Types of claim components for various types of claims (Cont.)
Type of Cost Claimed
Type of Claim
Delay Claim
Scope-of-
work Claim
Acceleration
Claim
Changing-
site-condition
Claim
Additional subcontractor
work
X
//
X
/
Additional subcontractor cost
//
/
/
//
Equipment rental cost
/
//
//
//
Cost for owned-equipment
use
//
//
/
//
Cost for increased owned-
equipment rates
/
X
/
/
Job overhead costs(variable)
/
//
/
//
Job overhead costs(fixed)
//
X
X
/
Company overhead costs
(variable)
/
/
/
/
Company overhead costs
(fixed)
//
/
X
/
Interest or finance costs
//
/
/
/
Profit
/
//
/
//
Loss of opportunity profit
/
/
/
/
Remarks: // = Normally included in claim; / = Sometimes included; X = Not included.
Negotiation
Kululanga (1989) explained the reason
for having negotiation and its advantages. A
structured and proper negotiation preparation
includes (1) ascertaining that all information is
current and complete, (2) minimizing the scope
of negotiation beforehand so that insignificant
points should not precipitate a violent argument
and disrupt progress, (3) knowing one’s
weakness and trying to utilize weak points by
conceding them in return from the other party,
(4) foreseeing problems, and (5) anticipating
the opposition’s next move.
If an agreement cannot be reached and
any party believes his position is correct, he
should propose an alternative dispute
resolution method. If this fails, the choice
remaining is to implement the contractor’s
“disputes” mechanism or take the matter to
court.
Dispute Resolution and Settlement
There are many options the employers
and the contractors can select for settling any
dispute occurring in their project. Murdoch
and Hughes (1996) listed the various disputes
resolution methods: litigation, arbitration,
conciliation, quasi-conciliation, mediation,
private inquiry, adjudication, and mini-trial.
He also explained that these terms are often
used interchangeably and also listed the details
of each approach. Each dispute resolution
method has particular advantages and
disadvantages. Sometimes more than one
method of dispute resolutions are implement,
as specified in the FIDIC’s “The Construction
Contract” [10].
4. Thai Contractors’ Claim Management
Efficiency
In order to assess the efficiency of the
contractors’ organizations in managing their
claims in each sub-process, a questionnaire
survey was performed. In the questionnaires,
the respondents were asked about:
1) Their personal data such as their
present positions, their working experiences,
and their experienced maximum contract
values. These data will be used in separating
the unqualified respondents. The contract
value of 20 million baht (approximately
500,000 dollar recommended by the Federation
Internationale des Ingenieurs-Conseils (FIDIC)
for separating middle-sized projects and large
projects [4]) was used as the dividing point.
2) Their abilities to manage their claims
classified into 9 groups by deliberately
analyzing the numbers and the similarities of
the contractors’ tasks for each sub-process and
the party (the contractor and the employer) who
files the claim: (1) recognition and
identification of the contractors’ change,
(2) notification of the contractors’ change,
(3) performing systematic and accurate
documentation of the contractors’ change,
(4) performing analysis of time and price the
contractors’ change, (5) negotiation the
contractors’ claim, (6) recognition and
identification of the employers’ change (against
the contractors), (7) performing systematic
and accurate documentation of the
employers’ change (against the contractors),
(8) performing analysis of time and price the
employers’ change (against the contractors),
(9) negotiation the employers’ claim (against
the contractors).
After preparing the questionnaires, the
300 claim management staffs from contractor
companies were then selected by using the
stratified sampling technique [18], taking
account of their company locations (Bangkok,
Vicinity, Central Part, Northern Part, North
Eastern Part, and Southern Part). The criterion
used in classifying the locations was adopted
from that of the National Statistical Office,
which groups the Eastern Part and the Western
Part with the Central Part [21].
The Efficiency Indexes, which help
presenting the efficiency of the contractor
population, can be calculated by averaging all
the 32 respondents’ five-leveled Likert Scale
answer [19], for each question. The
contractors’ Efficiency Indexes of every task of
contractors’ claim management sub-processes
and of the overall efficiency are shown in
Fig.2.
0
1
2
3
Recognition
Notification*
Documentation
Analysis
Negotiation
Overall
Active
Defensive
Remark: * Defensive Notification of Change Efficiency Neglected
Fig.2 Contractor Claim Management
Efficiency
The efficiency of the contractors in
performing defensive notification of the change
tasks can not be assessed and was neglected
because there is nothing the contractors have to
perform in being notified the changes by the
employers.
From Fig.2, the active tasks that the
contractors, in average, can perform well
(better than the overall efficiency index)
comprise the (1) recognition and identification
of the change, (2) systematic and accurate
documentation of the change, (3) analysis of
time and cost impacts of the change, while the
defensive ones are the systematic and accurate
documentation of change, and analysis of time
and cost impacts of the change.
On the other hand, the activities that the
contractor can not perform well (worse than
their average) and should be improved are:
(1) active notification of the change, (2) active
negotiation of the claim of change, and
(3) defensive recognition and identification of
the change.
When comparing between the active
and the defensive efficiencies, it was found that
the contractors seem to be able to perform
better in claiming against the employers than
defending themselves from being claimed. The
probable reason of this finding is that the
contractors become aware of the active claims
sooner and easier to access the data required in
managing these claims. However, the
(Active 2.89, Defensive 2.41)
(Active 2.81, (Active 2.75, Defensive N.A.)
Passive 2.56)
(Active 2.50, (Active 2.96, Passive 2.57)
Passive 2.57)
(Active 2.93, Passive 2.68)
respondents rated their abilities to negotiate the
employers’ claims against them better than
those against the employers.
5. Conclusion
This research work presented the
impacts of construction claims on the project
success and the importance of having efficient
claim management within the contractors’
organizations.
Thai contractors, in average, should
improve their inefficient claim management
sub-processes - active notification of the
change, active negotiation of the claim of
change, and defensive recognition and
identification of the change - while maintaining
their efficient ones (active recognition and
identification of the change, systematic and
accurate documentation of the change, and
analysis of time and cost impacts of the
change)
Globalization forces every organization
to improve itself in order to be viable in
international competition. The result from this
research can help the contractors improve their
viabilities. In the authors’ opinions, this is the
time for contractors to improve their
organizational potentials not only in their claim
management, but also in entirety of their
business processes.
References
[1] J. J. Adrian, “Construction Claims: A
Quantitative Approach”, Prentice-Hall,
New Jersey, 1988.
[2] S. Alkass, and F. Harris, “Expert Systems:
Construction Contractor’s Claims Analysis:
An Integrated System Approach”, Building
Research and Information, Vol.19, No.1,
1991, pp.56-64.
[3] H. Al-Saggaf, “The Five Commandments
of Construction Project Delay Analysis”,
Cost Engineering. Vol.40, No.4, 1998,
pp.37-41.
[4] P. L. Booen, “FIDIC’s Conditions of
Contract for the Next Century: 1998 Test
Editions”, International Construction Law
Review, Vol.16, 1999, pp.5-26.
[5] K. Bu-Bshait and I. Manzanera, “Claim
Management”, Project Management, Vol.8,
No.4, 1990, pp. 222-228.
[6] J. T. Callahan, “Managing Transit
Construction Contract Claims”, Synthesis
of Transit Practice 28, National Academic
Press, Washington, 1998.
[7] D. Chappell, Contractor’s Claim: An
Architect’s Guide, The Architectural Press,
London, 1984.
[8] R. K. Cox, “Managing Change Orders and
Claims”. Journal of Management in
Engineering, January/ February, 1997, pp.
24-29.
[9] H. Elnagar and J. K. Yates, “Construction
Documentation Used as Indicators of
Delays”, Cost Engineering, Vol.39, No.8,
1997, pp.31-37.
[10] Federation Internationale des Ingenieurs-
Conseils, “Conditions of Contract for
Construction”, First Edition, FIDIC,
Lausanne, 1999.
[11] A. S. Hornby, “Oxford Advanced
Learner’s Dictionary of Current English”,
Fifth Edition. Oxford University Press,
New York, 1995.
[12] G. A. Hughes and J. N. Barber, “Building
and Civil Engineering Claims in
Perspective”, Longman Scientific &
Technical, London, 1992.
[13] G. F. Jergeas and F. T. Hartman,
“Contractor’s Construction - Claims
Avoidance”, ASCE Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management, Vol.120,
No.3, 1994, pp.553-60.
[14] S. Khanchitvorakul, “Development of
Construction Claim Supporting System”,
Master Thesis Department of Civil
Engineering King Mongkut University of
Technology Thonburi [KMUTT], Bangkok,
2000.
[15] G. K. Kululanga, “Construction
Contractors’ Claim Process Framework”,
ASCE Journal of Construction Engineering
and Management, Vol.127, No.4, 2001,
pp.309-14.
[16] M. M. Kumaraswamy, “Conflicts,
Claims and Disputes in Construction”,
Engineering, Construction and
Architectural Management, Vol.4, No.2,
1997, pp. 95-111.
[17] P. Levin, “Construction Contract Claims,
Changes & Dispute Resolution”, Second
Edition, ASCE Press, Boston, 1998.
[18] S. L. Lohr, “Sampling: Design and
Analysis”, Duxbury Press, Pacific Grove,
CA, 1999.
[19] J. P. McIver and E. G. Carmines,
“Unidimensional Scaling”, Sage, Beverly
Hills, 1981.
[20] J. Murdoch and W. Hughes, “Construction
Contract: Law and management”, Second
Edition. E & FN SPON, London, 1996.
[21] National Statistical Office, “Important
Data of the Construction Companies,
Classified by their Location”, National
Statistical Office. <URL:
http://www.nso.go.th/thai/stat/stat_23/toc_2
1/21.1-12.xls>, (21 July 2004)
[22] Pogorilich, “The Daily Report as a Job
Management Tool”, Cost Engineering,
Vol.34, No.2, 1992, pp.23-25.
[23] S. Scott and S. Assadi, “A survey of the
site records kept by construction
supervisors”, Construction Management
and Economics, Vol.17, 1999, pp.375-382.
[24] C. Semple et al., “Construction Claims
and Disputes: Clauses and Cost/ Time
Overruns”, ASCE Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management, Vol.120,
No.4, 1994, pp.785-795.
[25] P. Surawongsin, “The Implementation of
Construction Claims Management in the
Thai Construction Industry”, Master Thesis
School of Civil Engineering Asian Institute
of Technology[AIT], Pathumthani, 2002.
