AMBIGUITY IN BILL OF QUANTITIES DESCRIPTIONS AND PREVENTION STRATEGIES FOR COST DISPUTES BASED ON CASE ANALYSIS
Keywords:
BOQ ambiguity, Cost disputes, Specification ambiguity, BIM-AI integration, Prevention frameworkAbstract
Ambiguity in bill of quantities (BOQ) descriptions triggers 34.2% of construction contract disputes, resulting in cost overruns of 15%-25% with dispute resolution averaging 11.8 months. Cluster analysis of 128 cases reveals four core ambiguity types: item specification ambiguity (38.6%), scope boundary disputes (29.3%), measurement rule violations (21.1%), and provisional price failure (11.0%). Underlying causes stem from technical specification gaps (missing design details in 26% of projects), human resource deficiencies (absence of dual-signature review systems in 34% of projects), and management failures where compressed bidding cycles (60% of standard duration) and 7.2-day change order delays cause version control breakdowns. The proposed prevention framework integrates three operational phases: during compilation, BIM parametric modeling eliminates manual transcription errors through automated specification generation; at tendering stage, notarized site investigation meetings establish binding scope definitions while optimized price adjustment formulas address market volatility; finally, BIM-AI fusion enables real-time response to design changes within ≤0.8 seconds. Pilot implementations demonstrate 61.3% reduction in dispute incidence.References
[1] Xie L. Common Settlement Disputes and Countermeasures in Bill of Quantities. Technology and Development of Enterprises, 2010, (14): 112-113+125.
[2] Zhang J. Policy Analysis of Settlement Disputes under Bill of Quantities Pricing System. China New Technologies and Products, 2015, (07): 183. DOI: 10.13612/j.cnki.cntp.2015.07.162.
[3] Tang H, Yin Y, Hou C, et al. Prevention Measures for Settlement Disputes Caused by Inaccurate Description of Bill of Quantities Item Characteristics. Journal of Engineering Management, 2012, 26(05): 66-69.
[4] Yu J. Major Types of Construction Project Payment Settlement Disputes and Their Resolution (Part 2). Shanghai Chunshen Law Firm, August 9, 2012. https://www.scsdlawyer.com/forumDetail/2111.aspx.
[5] He S. Analysis of Bill of Quantities Pricing, Engineering Bidding, and Contract Management Measures. Technology Makes Rich Guide, 2011, (18). DOI: CNKI:SUN:KJZF.0.2011-18-158.
[6] Wang G, Wang J. Bill of Quantities Pricing Standard and Contractual Risk Prevention. Jiangsu Construction, 2009, (01): 73-74. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1005-6270.2009.01.025.
[7] Liu G. Research on Contractors' Risks and Coping Strategies under Current Bill of Quantities Pricing Model. [Master's thesis]. Tianjin University, 2011.
[8] Martínez-Rojas M, Marín N, Miranda M A V. An Intelligent System for Acquisition and Management of Bill of Quantities Information in Building Projects. Expert Systems with Applications, 2016, 63: 284-294. DOI: 10.1016/j.eswa.2016.07.018.
[9] Lendo-Siwicka M, Pawluk K, Kowalczyk A, et al. Bill of Quantities and Quantity Survey of Construction Works for Renovated Buildings: Case Study. Open Engineering, 2019, 9(1): 350-358. DOI: 10.1515/eng-2019-0041.
[10] Bandi S B, Abdullah F, Amiruddin R. Review on Fundamental Usage of Bills of Quantities (BQ) by Contracting Organisations. Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and Building, 2014, 14(1): 118-131. DOI: 10.5130/ajceb.v14i1.3858.
[11] Yang T, Huang A, Zhang X. Analysis of Enterprise Quota Compilation Method under Bill of Quantities Model. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 2019, 330(2): 022051. DOI: 10.1088/1755-1315/330/2/022051.
[12] Nadeem A, Wong Andy K D, Wong Francis K W. Bill of Quantities with 3D Views Using Building Information Modeling. Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, 2015, 40(9): 2465-2477. DOI: 10.1007/s13369-015-1805-8.
[13] Martínez-Rojas M, Marín N, Vila M A V. An Approach for Automatic Classification of Work Descriptions in Construction Projects. Computer‐Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 2015, 30(12): 919-934. DOI: 10.1111/mice.12166.
[14] Lewandowska A, Dziugaite-Posciute R. Identification and Comparison of LCA-BIM Integration Strategies. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 2019, 323(1): 012101. DOI: 10.1088/1755-1315/323/1/012101.