Subcontracting and rework cost sharing in engineering-procurement-construction projects

Infrastructure development projects are overwhelmingly managed through engineering–procurement–construction (EPC) contracts, which allow a project end user to shift all project risks to a contractor. Accordingly, the International Federation of Consulting Engineers recommended a contract template ba...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: CHEN, Zhenzhen, ZHU, Wanshan, CRAMA, Pascale
Format: text
Language:English
Published: Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University 2023
Subjects:
Online Access:https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/lkcsb_research/7449
https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/context/lkcsb_research/article/8448/viewcontent/SSRN_id4280240.pdf
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Institution: Singapore Management University
Language: English
id sg-smu-ink.lkcsb_research-8448
record_format dspace
spelling sg-smu-ink.lkcsb_research-84482024-02-08T08:49:41Z Subcontracting and rework cost sharing in engineering-procurement-construction projects CHEN, Zhenzhen ZHU, Wanshan CRAMA, Pascale Infrastructure development projects are overwhelmingly managed through engineering–procurement–construction (EPC) contracts, which allow a project end user to shift all project risks to a contractor. Accordingly, the International Federation of Consulting Engineers recommended a contract template based on a lump-sum contract between the end user and main contractor. However, EPC projects often suffer from quality issues due to moral hazard, which is aggravated by the involvement of subcontractors hired by the main contractor to perform parts of the project. Besides, costly rework is frequently needed to achieve the contractually mandated quality. When the main contractor must share some of the subcontractor’s rework cost, an externality might arise. In this study, we model an EPC contract with three parties: the end user, the main contractor, and a representative subcontractor. We compare the end user’s cost and quality trade-off for the recommended lump-sum contract and the proposed incentive contracts. We find that the lump-sum contract can achieve the first-best trade-off under limited circumstances, whereas the appropriate incentive contract can do so for a wider range of circumstances. Rework cost sharing can cause under- or over-investment in efforts and reduce system welfare compared to the first-best outcome by weakening the incentive contract’s ability to overcome moral hazard. However, for a subcontractor with limited liability, rework cost sharing can improve project outcomes by allowing the main contractor to reduce the subcontractor’s risk exposure. 2023-08-01T07:00:00Z text application/pdf https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/lkcsb_research/7449 info:doi/10.1016/j.ijpe.2023.108901 https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/context/lkcsb_research/article/8448/viewcontent/SSRN_id4280240.pdf http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Research Collection Lee Kong Chian School Of Business eng Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University incentive contract moral hazard project management rework subcontracting Operations and Supply Chain Management
institution Singapore Management University
building SMU Libraries
continent Asia
country Singapore
Singapore
content_provider SMU Libraries
collection InK@SMU
language English
topic incentive contract
moral hazard
project management
rework
subcontracting
Operations and Supply Chain Management
spellingShingle incentive contract
moral hazard
project management
rework
subcontracting
Operations and Supply Chain Management
CHEN, Zhenzhen
ZHU, Wanshan
CRAMA, Pascale
Subcontracting and rework cost sharing in engineering-procurement-construction projects
description Infrastructure development projects are overwhelmingly managed through engineering–procurement–construction (EPC) contracts, which allow a project end user to shift all project risks to a contractor. Accordingly, the International Federation of Consulting Engineers recommended a contract template based on a lump-sum contract between the end user and main contractor. However, EPC projects often suffer from quality issues due to moral hazard, which is aggravated by the involvement of subcontractors hired by the main contractor to perform parts of the project. Besides, costly rework is frequently needed to achieve the contractually mandated quality. When the main contractor must share some of the subcontractor’s rework cost, an externality might arise. In this study, we model an EPC contract with three parties: the end user, the main contractor, and a representative subcontractor. We compare the end user’s cost and quality trade-off for the recommended lump-sum contract and the proposed incentive contracts. We find that the lump-sum contract can achieve the first-best trade-off under limited circumstances, whereas the appropriate incentive contract can do so for a wider range of circumstances. Rework cost sharing can cause under- or over-investment in efforts and reduce system welfare compared to the first-best outcome by weakening the incentive contract’s ability to overcome moral hazard. However, for a subcontractor with limited liability, rework cost sharing can improve project outcomes by allowing the main contractor to reduce the subcontractor’s risk exposure.
format text
author CHEN, Zhenzhen
ZHU, Wanshan
CRAMA, Pascale
author_facet CHEN, Zhenzhen
ZHU, Wanshan
CRAMA, Pascale
author_sort CHEN, Zhenzhen
title Subcontracting and rework cost sharing in engineering-procurement-construction projects
title_short Subcontracting and rework cost sharing in engineering-procurement-construction projects
title_full Subcontracting and rework cost sharing in engineering-procurement-construction projects
title_fullStr Subcontracting and rework cost sharing in engineering-procurement-construction projects
title_full_unstemmed Subcontracting and rework cost sharing in engineering-procurement-construction projects
title_sort subcontracting and rework cost sharing in engineering-procurement-construction projects
publisher Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University
publishDate 2023
url https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/lkcsb_research/7449
https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/context/lkcsb_research/article/8448/viewcontent/SSRN_id4280240.pdf
_version_ 1794549512154382336