| Summary: | 碩士 === 國立交通大學 === 工學院碩士在職專班工程技術與管理組 === 97 === In a Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) construction project, the construction duration usually is very long and construction cost items (or pay items) are numerous. For those pay items that cannot easily quantified or their associated construction methods have not yet defined, they are treated to be “lump-sum-based pay items”. Such lump-sum-base-dpay items in a MRT project are divided into two categories, namey, Class-I and Class-II. Pay items of Class-I category are common for every MRT project and are such as general requirements, safety protention fees, environmental protection fees, and quality control fees. Pay items of Class-II category vary in different MRT projects. For example, pay items of ground treatment, protection of buildings/structures, site clearance, and demolition only appear in certain MRT projects. This study focuses on the lump-sum-based pay items fallen in Category-I.
According to the contractual provisions related to lump-sum-based pay items in current MRT contracts, constractors are required to propose the details and methods for quantifying the lump-sum-based pay items by 30 days before construction. However, without clear specifications or guidelines of the aforementioned quantification method, arguments frequently arise between owners and contractors. Consequently, time and manpower are wasted. If the benefits and disbenefits of using different quantitifcation methods can be investgated, as well as the guidelines are speficed in the MRT contracts, those arguments can be reduced and costs can be saved.
Through case studies, this study was to understand the existing building standards of a lump-sum payments based on the situation, for three cases, using different methods to quantify the comparative (including: the proportion of time, the proportion of progress, the proportion of payments made to contractors, etc.), explore different ways to the situation caused by the difference. after analysis of this study，not the same as the method of the results, the total amount of suppliers to apply for there was no significant difference, payments at different times, will lead to loss of interest, in order to follow a fair and simple, Through expert interviews, In accordance with the provisions of the contract sum of the relevant provisions of the proposed more specific, "the proportion of time" as the basis for quantitative analysis, so that the project follow-up Landmark case on pricing can be followed and the purpose of reaching a win-win situation.
|
|---|
