• Korean Journal of Construction Engineering and Management
• /
• v.22 no.3
• /
• pp.79-90
• /
• 2021

In domestic public construction, disputes are increasing due to differences among stakeholders regarding contract price adjustment. In particular, the actual cost-plus fee for overhead costs due to the schedule extension cannot be agreed upon at the administrative phase, and most of them seek judicial judgment. Thus, this study aims to propose a 'sufficiently satisfactory' alternative to reach an agreement before disputes in order to minimize disputes related to the calculation of additional overhead costs. To this end, this study proposes three alternatives based on the rate method. Firstly, when calculating additional overhead costs, it is not calculated as an actual cost-plus-fee method, but as a rate compared to direct labor costs among net direct costs. Secondly, the calculated indirect labor costs are compensated for up to the legal maximum of legal limit costs such as general management costs, profits and so on. Thirdly, it reflects overhead costs increased or decreased due to change orders. Risks were analyzed by collecting expert opinions on the proposed methods and applying actual cases. Finally, as a result of investigating the level of consensus for each stakeholder, it was confirmed that all stakeholders could agree regardless of the size of the company. The result of this study is expected to as a useful tool among stakeholders in the construction fields that can be able to easily agreed upon.

• Korean Journal of Construction Engineering and Management
• /
• v.24 no.2
• /
• pp.79-87
• /
• 2023

Given that most government contracts are based on a fiscal year, long-term continuing construction contracts require appropriate provisions as significant amounts of budget is supposed to be invested for several years. This study drew problems and improvements of the long-term continuing construction contracts by analyzing the contents of FGI and list of construction order. We found that a number of problems, such as the mismatch between laws and enforcement decrees, difference in calculating overheads due to the extension of construction period, many construction orders that are hard to see as budget efficiency and over investment in the final annual contract, were tangled up in the process. To solve the problems mentioned, we suggested several improvements as follows: (1) effect of total construction period and total amount should be guaranteed by a law, (2) it is suggested that the scope of long-term continuing construction contract is determined by a law, and (3) it should be clear about the calculation of overheads concerned with the extension of construction period as well as the estimation of construction period to prevent over investment in the final contract.