Document Type
Article
Publication Date
7-2016
Abstract
The United States has spent more than $23 billion on construction in Afghanistan since 2001. The dynamic security situation created substantial project uncertainty, and many construction projects used cost-plus-fixed-fee contracts (CPFF) instead of the firm-fixed-price (FFP) norm. Using a dataset of 25 wartime construction projects managed by the Air Force Civil Engineer Center, the authors sought to confirm that both contract types yield project outcomes consistent with the established literature. As expected, they found CPFF contracts had greater cost and schedule growth than FFP. However, they did not find differences regarding as-built quality. Additionally, the authors sought to determine whether CPFF contracts exhibited greater construction risks than FFP contracts. They found no significant differences between contract types in terms of security incidents or other environmental factors. This research may be particularly relevant to military owners who contract projects in wartime environments.
Source Publication
Defense Acquisition Research Journal
Recommended Citation
Hoff, R., Hammond, G., Feng, P., & White, E. (2016). Wartime Construction Project Outcome as a Function of Contract Type. Defense Acquisition Research Journal: A Publication of the Defense Acquisition University. 23 (3). 331-358.
Included in
Categorical Data Analysis Commons, Construction Engineering and Management Commons, Defense and Security Studies Commons, Government Contracts Commons, Meteorology Commons, Risk Analysis Commons
Comments
The Defense Acquisition Research Journal (Defense ARJ, or ARJ) is a scholarly peer-reviewed journal published by Defense Acquisition University (DAU). The archive of Defense ARJ is available to readers here.