IMPACT OF CHANGE ORDERS ON THE COST PERFORMANCE OF MASS TIMBER CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS By Shreya Parameshwar Garad A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Construction Management – Master of Science 2024 ABSTRACT One of the major barriers to the widespread adoption of mass timber as a material is lack of knowledge. This lack of knowledge further promotes issues like high production and construction costs. The construction industry in the United States has been reluctant to accept mass timber as a new technology owing to these higher initial costs. Consequently, the most critical factor affecting the selection of a construction material is its cost performance. A successful construction project is governed by its cost performance. Although, the cost performance of a project can be affected by cost overruns and change orders. These project costs can be optimized by reducing the time. Owing to its prefabricated nature, mass timber construction can cut down time. While change orders negatively affect the time of a project, there is a need to understand their impact on mass timber construction. This study analyzes the impact of change orders on the cost performance of mass timber construction projects. The expected deliverables are to quantify and understand the most common causes of change orders in mass timber projects. The researcher believes that this study is a steppingstone toward the widespread adoption of mass timber as a construction material. Project data was collected for 34 projects from General Contractors around the country. Pearson’s correlation, descriptive statistics, and ANOVAs were used to analyze the data collected. This study observed the relationship between the mass timber scope and the mass timber change orders. Along with that the project delivery methods and their impact on the construction costs were studied. The author believes a more widespread adoption of mass timber is beneficial through project team integration and reduction of change order costs. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This thesis is a direct outcome of the trust, guidance, and opportunity provided by Dr. George H. Berghorn, the committee chair, and my advisor. I am eternally grateful for this opportunity to explore the field of mass timber. Without his constant encouragement and support, this thesis would not have been possible. I would also like to thank my committee member Dr. Syal for his support and nudges in the right direction in my academic as well as professional life. Dr. Berghorn and Dr. Syal have been my guideposts in surviving my master's journey at Michigan State University. I would like to give my special thanks to my third committee member, Ramtin Malek for his advice and valuable input. Working with Ramtin helped me develop my industry skills and shape my professional career. The committee’s constructive feedback and unique expertise in various aspects of my thesis have added a lot of value to my thesis. I have my deepest gratitude towards Sandra Lupien, who has been a friend and supported me in navigating the fascinating world of mass timber construction. I would like to thank all my professors at MSU – Dr. Sinem Mollaoglu, Dr. Mohamed El-Gafy, Mr. Bob Aydukovic, Mr. Harry Shah, Dr. Rex LaMore, and Dr. Dennis Welch who helped me attain the academic knowledge that helped me get here. I would like to thank Aoqi Xie at the MSU Statistical Consulting Center for helping me with statistics for my thesis. My sincere thanks to Bhushan Nankar for introducing me to the field of mass timber and helping me throughout my journey. Lastly, I would like to thank my family and friends for believing in me and supporting me in every step of my life. Without the support of everyone, this would not have been possible. I am forever indebted to everyone for helping me achieve this milestone. My sincere apologies if I missed anyone and express my gratitude for being a vital part of my life. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ....................................................................................... 16 CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ........................................................................... 39 CHAPTER 4 DATA COLLECTION ........................................................................................... 49 CHAPTER 5 DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS .................................................................... 56 CHAPTER 6 DISCUSSION ......................................................................................................... 66 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 73 APPENDIX A: ALL TYPES OF CHANGE ORDERS ............................................................... 80 APPENDIX B: OWNER DRIVEN CHANGE ORDERS ............................................................ 97 iv CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1. Overview 1.1.1. Background The construction sector contributes significantly to the global environmental burden due to its consumption of raw materials and energy (Niu et al. 2021). Mass timber construction has become a viable alternative to conventional structural materials owing to sustainably managed forests and forest products, prefabricated products, speed of installation, and its relative weight (Campbell 2020). Mass timber is a structural product made from dimensional veneer or lumber that is emerging as a sustainable alternative to conventional materials like steel and concrete (Campbell 2019). Despite its growing popularity, a reluctance in the use of mass timber construction over conventional steel and concrete construction has been observed. Figure 1.1 shows the number of mass timber projects in the country until September 2023 that are completed/under construction/in the design phase. Figure 1.1: Mass Timber projects in the United States Source: WoodWorks.com 1 It can be observed from this figure that mass timber construction is being adopted primarily in the Northeast and Southwest regions of the country. To encourage the adoption of mass timber construction projects in other regions of the country, we need to understand the barriers faced by the mass timber industry. 1.1.2. Major Barriers to the Adoption of Mass Timber Knowledge Deficit According to Ahmed and Arocho (2020), one of the major barriers to the widespread adoption of mass timber construction is the lack of knowledge and experience. A study by Mallo and Espinoza (2015) states that more than half of the industry professionals were unaware of mass timber construction. Similarly, Smith et al. (2015) stated that a majority of industry professionals were not familiar with mass timber construction and techniques. While mass timber construction has gained popularity since 2015, the level of awareness among professionals remains an issue (Ahmed and Arocho 2021a). This deficit of knowledge and awareness can also influence the production capacity of mass timber materials. Zelaya (2020) determined that a lack of knowledge can be a barrier to the production capacity of mass timber materials. Material Unavailability Along with a knowledge deficit, the manufacturers are not able to keep up with the ever- increasing demand for mass timber materials. Thus, a bottleneck situation is created in the product manufacturing phase. Although, Zelaya (2020) suggests that the manufacturing companies indicated reduced investment in manufacturing mass timber products due to low demand as a major cause for reduced production. A study conducted by Ahmed and Arocho (2020) suggests that the unavailability of material is a key hurdle in the widespread adoption 2 of mass timber construction. There is a need to break this vicious cycle of supply and demand to increase the adoption of mass timber construction. The unavailability of materials may lead to increased production costs of mass timber material. High Production Costs Mass Timber Costs Compared to Conventional Steel or Concrete Structures References 6% 5% 6.43% -20% -6% Fragiacomo et al. (2009) Ahmed and Arocho (2020) Ahmed and Arocho (2021) Agyekum-Mensah (2021) Kremer & Ritchie (2018) Table 1.1: Variability in Mass Timber Costs The correlation between the deficit of knowledge, design and cost uncertainty, and the unavailability of material leads to an increase in the production cost of mass timber products. Increased production costs impact mass timber products' cost competitiveness compared to conventional construction products like concrete and steel (Ahmed and Arocho 2020). Multiple studies compared the construction costs of mass timber construction with steel and concrete. According to Ahmed and Arocho (2020), mass timber construction costs 5 % more when compared to other types of construction. Fragiacomo et al. (2009), compared the cost of construction for timber with steel and concrete buildings and concluded that timber costs 6 % more compared to steel or concrete options. Another study by Ahmed and Arocho (2021) concluded that mass timber construction is 6.43 % higher than concrete construction. Although, a study conducted by Agyekum-Mensah (2021) reveals that timber frame structures 3 were 20 % cheaper when compared to steel framed structures. Similarly, Kremer and Ritchie (2018) concluded that mass timber construction is 6 % cheaper when compared to concrete construction. The varied results from these studies suggest there is no alignment between the projected costs for mass timber construction. Table 1.2 shows the variability in results from different studies. This inconsistency reinforces the premise that lack of knowledge about mass timber products is a barrier to widespread adoption. Consequently, this dearth of knowledge creates a gap in the literature on the cost performance of mass timber construction. When compared with the abundant information on conventional construction materials like steel and concrete, mass timber lacks sufficient cost performance data (Ahmed and Arocho 2022). There is a need to study this cost performance data to encourage the widespread adoption of mass timber construction. When determining the future success of mass timber products, cost competitiveness is an important factor (Ahmed and Arocho 2021). High Insurance Costs Apart from higher production costs, high insurance premiums can impact mass timber construction projects. Insurance companies have been slow to adopt new technology like mass timber construction (DLR Group 2018). General contractors and developers often observe higher insurance premiums for mass timber construction projects (McLain and Brodahl 2021). The novel nature of mass timber in the United States contributes to a dearth of historical loss data and reference projects (McLain and Brodahl 2021). Consequently, insurance companies are observing a conservative approach by presuming higher risks (Marsh McLennan 2021). Higher risks lead to increased insurance premiums. Due to limited project capacities, multiple insurance companies may be involved to limit risk exposure (Marsh McLennan 2021; Came 4 2022). Furthermore, this could lead to higher insurance premiums. McLain and Brodahl (2021) suggest working with experienced insurers to develop better insurance premiums. 1.1.3. Cost Performance in Construction Projects Cost competitiveness can be affected by cost overruns. Cost overruns tend to impact the cost performance of a project. This impact increases the financial burden on numerous stakeholders (Sinesilassie et al. 2017). The factors affecting the cost performance of a project are the project manager’s lack of knowledge, unclear project scope, inefficient work by the project manager, and conflicts amongst stakeholders (Sinesilassie et al. 2017; Alhammadi and Memon 2020). Additionally, cost overruns have been a major source of concern for all construction projects (Asiedu and Adaku 2019). There is a need to study the effect of cost overruns in mass timber construction projects to determine their cost performance. Asiedu and Adaku (2019) distinguished causes of construction project overruns into four major categories – 1) change orders, 2) inadequate planning and supervision, 3) faulty economic environment, and 4) improper coordination amongst stakeholders. Hanna et al. (2002) suggests that change orders affect the project directly or indirectly resulting in direct cost increases and a labor productivity deficit. The basic aim of a construction project is timely completion within the estimated budget, and change orders are one of the most critical aspects of a project that affect both schedule and cost performance (Shreshtha 2018). 1.1.4. Change Orders and Mass Timber Construction Change orders are unavoidable during the construction phase of most projects (Ahmed and Arocho 2021). Change orders are a document written to the contractor authorizing a change in work entailing the scope of change and its influence on cost/time in a project (Khalifa and Mahamid 2019). Several studies have been conducted on the effect of change orders on 5 conventional construction materials like steel and concrete. However, there is little data available on the effect of change orders on mass timber construction. Apart from cost overruns, change orders also delay the project schedule. A delay is defined as an extension or termination of a part of a project due to unforeseen circumstances (Faridi and El‐Sayegh 2006). Faridi and El-Sayegh (2006) revealed preparation and approval of drawings, changes, slow decision-making process, and insufficient pre-planning as some of the main causes of delays in construction projects. Minimal data is available on the causes or effects of delays in mass timber construction projects. A study conducted in the UK calculated delays in mass timber construction projects. This study determined that only 7% of the projects studied had delays directly related to mass timber construction (Waugh Thistleton Architects 2018). This suggests that the prefabricated nature of mass timber products helps in planning ahead and reducing potential delays in mass timber construction projects. Ahmed and Arocho (2021) discussed the impacts of poor pre planning and collaboration between project stakeholders like designers, consultants, contractors, subcontractors, etc. This study focuses on the change orders in mass timber construction projects and their impact on project’s cost performance. 1.1.5. A Case for Mass Timber Construction The following case study demonstrates the use of mass timber construction and how prefabricated material can save project costs and time.  Project Name: Brock Commons Tallwood House  Location: University of British Columbia, Vancouver  Owner: University of British Columbia, Student Housing and Hospitality Services  Architect: Acton Ostry Architects Inc. 6  General Contractor: Urban One Builders  Mass Timber Supplier: Structurlam  Completion: May 2017 The Brock Commons Tallwood House is an 18-story student residence housing at the University of British Columbia. This is the first mass timber hybrid structure to have 18 stories and one of the tallest mass timber structures at that time. The structure consists of cross-laminated timber (CLT) floor panel assemblies along with glued-laminated timber (GLT) and parallel strand lumber (PSL) columns (figures 1.3 and 1.4). Due to efficient coordination and prefabricated elements, the erection was completed two months ahead of schedule when compared to the original. This led to the project getting completed two months early in May 2017. The learning curve and increased efficiency of the trades acted as vital factors in the early delivery of the project. In order to meet and exceed the rigorous timeline, the contractor adopted strategies like integrative planning, consistent communication, and early involvement of project stakeholders (Designers, consultants, contractors, major trades, and manufacturers). Early completion led to saving project costs. The construction cost for this project was $40.5 million as compared to the approved project budget of $51.5 million. Thus, early completion may have saved $11 million in construction costs compared to budgeted costs. Cost savings of $11 million may have been caused by multiple reasons like 1) over budgeting due to novel nature of mass timber, or 2) reduction in general conditions or general requirements due to reduced time. There can be many different reasons for cost savings, it is assumed that Projects like Brock Commons Tallwood House generate the opportunity for future projects to implement shorter project durations and reduce schedule time. 7 Figure 1.2: GLT columns Source: Thinkwood.com Figure 1.3: Erection of CLT and GLT members Source: Thinkwood.com 8 1.2. Research Need Project costs have always influenced the construction industry. In a 2017 report, BCCA laid out priorities upheld by the construction industry. These were making money to sustain businesses and maximizing the value of capital. Owing to the importance of money, the report listed five barriers to the adoption of mass timber construction: 1. Lack of knowledge 2. Low project costs are prioritized 3. Lack of standardization across the supply chain 4. Lack of experience/ technical expertise 5. Price volatility in bids due to lack of knowledge The major barrier to the adoption of mass timber construction projects is regulated by initial material costs. There is little to no data available on material or construction costs for mass timber construction. Similarly, a singular study has been published on cost performance and the impact of change orders on mass timber construction. This study is essential to enhance the economic knowledge base for mass timber construction. Also, there is a need to determine the cost-effectiveness of mass timber products to encourage widespread adoption. More research and awareness need to be spread to increase the reach of the mass timber knowledge base. The pre-construction planning processes in mass timber projects are not efficient leading to conflicts between all the stakeholders involved like designers, manufacturers, subcontractors, and code officials. These conflicts stem from the lack of knowledge of mass timber as a construction material. This study attempts to determine the value of timber beyond initial cost and schedule savings. This effort is guided by the following questions: 9 RQ #1: What does the project delivery method with some level of integration contribute towards the cost performance of mass timber construction projects? H0: Cost performance of mass timber projects is independent of the level of integration in project delivery methods. H1: Cost performance of mass timber projects is dependent on the level of integration in project delivery methods. RQ #2: How do mass timber-related change orders affect the actual project costs of mass timber construction projects? H0: Mass timber-related change orders have no effect on actual project costs when compared to the scope of mass timber work. H1: Mass timber-related change orders have a negative effect on actual project costs when compared to the scope of mass timber work. RQ #3: What are the tools to develop an efficient project delivery method to reduce conflicts and changes in the latter part of mass timber construction projects? 10 1.3. Goals and Objectives This study focuses on the change orders in mass timber construction projects and their effect on cost overruns to substantiate cost competitiveness for mass timber products. This study aims to develop guidelines for an efficient project delivery method to strengthen the execution of mass timber construction projects. Objective #1: To understand factors affecting the cost performance of mass timber construction projects. Objective #2: To identify the causes of change orders in mass timber construction projects. Objective #3: Develop guidelines to improve the cost performance of mass timber construction projects by implementing project delivery methods. 11 1.4. Methods and Research Activities Figure 1.4: Research Methodology The main goal of this project is to understand and improve the cost performance of mass timber construction projects. Objective #1: To understand factors affecting cost performance of mass timber construction projects. Step 1- Literature Review: This step is intended to explore the previous contributions to the knowledge base and understand the state of mass timber construction through literature. Existing literature on causes and effects of change orders will be studied. This data would be used to understand the most common factors in conventional construction projects and their sources. The acquired data will be applied to mass timber construction and its associated costs. This will help identify the research gaps related to cost performance of mass timber construction. Further 12 expansion on the cost-related data on mass timber construction projects will be provided in Chapter 2. Objective #2: To identify the causes and effects of change orders in mass timber construction projects. Step 2- Determining variables: The literature review was used to identify variables. These variables were used to create a guideline for the data collection process. Factors causing change orders in mass timber construction projects were identified using the collected data. Step 3- Data collection: This step intends to collect change order-related data from mass timber construction companies. To determine the cost impact of these change orders, actual project costs and actual mass timber costs were studied. The costs of change orders will be identified and compared with the mass timber-related change orders to benchmark potential change orders for mass timber. Various independent variables like project type, construction type and project delivery methods were studied. Step 4- Data analysis: Upon retrieving the dataset, the main causes of the mass timber-related change orders were assessed. The change orders were classified into four different sources: owner, architect, contractor, and others. Along with this, the cost performance of mass timber-related change orders was calculated based on actual costs. This helped in determining the monetary impact of change orders. 13 Step 5- Testing of data: The data collected from leading mass timber construction companies will be tested using Descriptive statistics, Pearson’s correlation, and ANOVAs to validate. Objective #3: Develop guidelines to improve cost performance in the preplanning and construction phase of mass timber construction projects. Step 6- Development of cost-performance framework: Understanding the most common mass timber-related changes would help minimize the causes and impacts of such changes. This step includes the preparation of guidelines to help improve the cost performance of mass timber construction projects. 14 1.5. Scope and Limitations This study focuses on mass timber-related change orders collected from mass timber construction companies. The analysis will focus on the United States construction industry only. The geographical diversity of the dataset will be limited due to the novel nature of mass timber construction. The majority of projects are located on the western part of the country due to their widespread adoption and proximity to manufacturing facilities in those regions. The study assumes accurate data was provided by the participants, there is no way for the author to verify the data provided by them. The data is limited to the information provided by the participant, not all the data fields requested by the author were provided by the participants. The data set is made up of 34 projects using mass timber construction. The author is aware that one participant is overrepresented in the dataset due to the dearth of participants working in the field of mass timber construction. The overrepresented participant consists of 25 projects out of the 34 projects. The classification of data is undertaken by the author’s best knowledge and judgment of the construction industry. One of the major limitations of the data is the small sample size. The data collected is field data and was captured from an uncontrolled environment, thus leading to more variability. This small sample size led to fewer degrees of freedom leading to difficulty in multivariate analysis. Thus, forcing the author to use correlation statistical analysis to understand the data. Lastly, collection of cost related data from construction companies is challenging. Companies willing to share the data with the author were selected for this study. Thus, the data collected is not random. 15 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Figure 2.1: Literature Review Outline This chapter intends to comprehensively review the background of the area of study. It will assist in developing the methodology, and data collection and analysis methods. Figure 2.1 depicts an outline for literature review. The literature review is designed to recognize background information on cost performance and its effect on mass timber construction. To harness the vast nature of data available, this chapter is divided into five segments: 1) cost performance of construction projects, 2) change orders, 3) mass timber costs, 4) change orders and mass timber, and 5) integrated project delivery. The first section focuses on factors affecting the cost performance of construction projects. It will compile factors affecting the cost performance of construction projects like flawed planning 16 and supervision, weak economic environment of the industry, poor communication between stakeholders, and change orders. The second section focuses on the meaning of change orders. It also compiles key factors causing change orders. Furthermore, this section focused on the impacts of change orders leading to strategies to reduce change orders. The third section focuses on mass timber and its construction costs. Costs related to mass timber have evolved around the world and this section studies the cost trends for mass timber performance compared to conventional construction around the world. Additionally, cost trends in the United States are studied to understand the performance of mass timber around the country. The fourth section aims to talk about change orders in mass timber construction. It is evident that there is a gap in knowledge in this section and there is a need to fill this gap to provide a better understanding of change orders in mass timber. The fifth section talks about project delivery systems and how to efficiently apply them to achieve desired benefits. Integrated project delivery is the focus of the discussion, and its collaborative nature might help in the reduction of change orders in mass timber construction. 17 2.1. Factors Affecting the Cost Performance of Projects Construction projects contribute majorly to the economic development of a country (Musarat et al. 2021). The delivery of these projects is dependent on two main factors - cost and time. Cost performance is dependent on the timely delivery of the project. According to Garsden (1995), cost and time are correlated. A delay in time/schedule adversely affects the cost and profitability of a construction project. Cost performance is recognized as an important criterion to measure project success (Meeampol and Ogunlana 2006; Knight and Fayek 2000). Many techniques have been developed to reduce project delivery times and costs. However, the construction industry is experiencing inadequate cost performance leading to cost overruns (Alhammadi and Memon 2020). Cost overrun can be defined as the costs beyond the scope of the original estimate (Knight and Fayek 2000). Cost overrun concerns have been observed in projects all around the world for many years (Alhammadi and Memon 2020; Asiedu and Adaku 2019). To understand the causes of cost overruns, identification of their source is important. Cost overruns can be detected through various statistics like labor productivity reports, cost reports, project delays, daily schedules, rise in rework, and interruption in work, etc (Knight and Fayek 2000). To reduce such cost overruns, the recognition of the factors causing cost overruns is crucial. Asiedu and Adaku (2019) classified four key causes of cost overruns. These causes are 1) flawed planning and supervision, 2) weak economic environment of the construction industry, 3) poor communication between responsible stakeholders, and 4) change orders. 2.1.1. Flawed Planning and Supervision Incompetent supervision can affect project planning, costs, and site management which might lead to variations in cost and time (Mansfield et al. 1994; Meeampol and Ogunlana 2006). Mansfield et al. (1994) identified the leading causes of flawed supervision as a deficit in 18 knowledge and experience, incompetent project scheduling, and minimal productivity. Although, a lack of proper supervision on construction projects leads to productivity issues (Dahlin and Pesamaa 2021). Similarly, the study conducted by Durdyev (2020) termed imprecise estimates and project scheduling as significant causes of cost overruns. Thus, the absence of accurate estimates, schedules, monitoring, and control mechanisms can impact project success (Asiedu and Adaku 2019; Durdyev 2020). To prevent flawed planning and supervision, adequate stakeholder expertise can be incorporated in the pre-construction and planning stage (Durdyev 2020). 2.1.2. Weak Economic Environment of the Construction Industry Inflation leads to economic volatility due to unpredictable labor, material, and equipment costs in construction (Musarat et al. 2021). Thus, a construction project may face cost overruns owing to variations in the initial and final budget. To curb the variations in the budgets, the inflation factor should be considered before concluding the estimate (Musarat et al. 2021). Inflation is one of the major causes of a skilled labor shortage in construction (Richardson 2018). 93% of contractors surveyed by AGC (2022) reported having a scarcity of skilled labor. Gomar et al. (2002) contemplated brief work duration, unemployment between jobs, and frequent layoffs as driving factors for the skilled labor shortage. Furthermore, Gomar et al. (2002) and Kim et al. (2020) believe labor shortages can lead to cost overruns and schedule delays. AGC (2022) indicated the issue of a skilled labor shortage is critical which might negatively affect project health. 2.1.3. Poor Communication Between Responsible Stakeholders A lack of proper communication between designers and clients can lead to cost variances or potential change orders due to disparities in knowledge (Asiedu and Adaku 2019). Poor communication is one of the predominant issues that can negatively affect project health 19 (Suleiman 2022). According to a study conducted by Suleiman (2022), the major factors for poor communication are a direct result of a lack in proper communication strategies, efficient project stakeholder representatives, accurate and accessible project information, and mutual understanding between stakeholders. Whereas, a study conducted by Rahman and Gamil (2019), suggested fear of communication as a dominant factor leading to a strained workplace environment. Therefore, to avoid delay in the project duration, a comprehensive design brief, contingency plans, project details, and specifications should be discussed to alleviate discrepancies (Asiedu and Adaku 2019). 2.1.4. Change Orders A change order is created owing to changes in the initial scope of work (Pourrostam and Mansournejad 2011). These changes are followed by a change in scope, methods, cost, or time (Pourrostam and Mansournejad 2011). Most change orders negatively impact the project and may lead to time and cost overruns, disputes between stakeholders, or disruption to construction activities (Khalifa and Mahamid 2019). A contractor has the right to equal adjustment in cost and time to compensate for change orders (Asiedu and Adaku 2019). Change orders are discussed more in the following sections. 2.2. Change Orders in Construction Projects In the construction industry, change orders are unavoidable (Ahmed and Arocho 2021). Verrastro and Baum (2022) define change orders as “an adjustment to the contract written by the Architect and to be signed by the Owner, Architect, and Contractor to agree upon 1) Change in work, 2) Contract sum adjustment, if any, and 3) Contract time adjustment if any.” According to Naji and Naser (2022), change orders negatively affect project performance. Change orders may 20 alter the relationship between the owner, the architect, and the contractor. Change orders can lead to contractual disputes among stakeholders along with legal repercussions (Shrestha and Fathi 2019; Khalifa and Mahamid 2019). The number of changes in a project determines the severity of legal repercussions. If there are fewer or no changes, the likelihood of delay claims or legal repercussions is reduced (Shrestha and Fathi 2019). To save project costs from legal bills, there is a need to prevent such legal disputes/repercussions due to a plethora of change orders. Khalifa and Mahamid (2019) talk about the misinterpretation of modified clauses or loose ends to increase profitability by contractors. Although, a lack of effective change order management techniques is observed. In most projects, a common approach is to include a contingency in the contract budget to prevent cost overruns due to change orders (Khalifa and Mahamid 2019). In order to reduce the number of change orders, it is imperative to understand the factors causing such change orders. 2.2.1. Factors Causing Change Orders Sr no. Factors Causing Change Orders References C/O Driving Source 1 Financial constraints of the Owner Olawale and Sun (2010); Owner Khalifa and Mahamid (2019); Badawy (2021); Sunday (2010) Pourrostam et al. (2011); Sunday 2 Financial constraints of the Contractor Contractor (2010) Table 2.1: Causes of Change Orders 21 Table 2.1 (cont’d) 3 Previous projects delays 4 Acceleration of work 5 Decrease in quality of workmanship Pourrostam et al. (2011); Wu et Other al. (2004) Pourrostam et al. (2011); Badawy (2021) Contractor Khalifa and Mahamid (2019); Pourrostam et al. (2011), Contractor/ Gunduz and Mohammad (2019); Other Sunday (2010) Pourrostam et al. (2011), Olawale and Sun (2010); Hsieh 6 Weather impact beyond prediction Other et al. (2004); Chan and Kumaraswamy (1997) Pourrostam et al. (2011); 7 Change of schedule Alaryan et al. (2014); Sunday Owner (2010) 22 Table 2.1 (cont’d) 8 Change of scope/work Exploitation of contract terms by 9 Contractor Khalifa and Mahamid (2019); Pourrostam et al. (2011); Alaryan et al. (2014); Alnuaimi et al. (2010); Mpofu et al. (2017); Badawy (2021); Sunday (2010); Oyewobi et al. (2016) Pourrostam et al. (2011); Owner Alnuaimi et al. (2010); Olawale Contractor and Sun (2010); Sunday (2010) Pourrostam et al. (2011); Alnuaimi et al. (2010); Olawale and Sun (2010); Mpofu et al. 10 Changes in Design/Specifications (2017); Badawy (2021); Hsieh et Designer/ Owner al. (2004); Chan and Kumaraswamy (1997); Sunday (2010); Oyewobi et al. (2016) 23 Table 2.1 (cont’d) 11 Errors/Omissions in design Khalifa and Mahamid (2019); Alaryan et al. (2014); Hsieh et al. (2004); Alnuaimi et al. (2010); Mpofu et al. (2017); Badawy (2021); Chan and Designer Kumaraswamy (1997); Wu et al. (2004); Sunday (2010); Oyewobi et al. (2016) Khalifa and Mahamid (2019); Alnuaimi et al. (2010); Mpofu et 12 Lack of coordination by contractor al. (2017); Chan and Contractor Kumaraswamy (1997); Sunday (2010); Oyewobi et al. (2016) Khalifa and Mahamid (2019); Alaryan et al. (2014); Badawy 13 Differing/Unforeseen site conditions (2021); Hsieh et al. (2004); Chan Other and Kumaraswamy (1997); Wu et al. (2004); Sunday (2010) 24 Table 2.1 (cont’d) 14 Unrealistic schedule by Contractor and Sun (2010); Mpofu et al. Contractor Alnuaimi et al. (2010); Olawale (2017) Alnuaimi et al. (2010); Chan and 15 Constructability issue Kumaraswamy (1997); Wu et al. Designer 16 Misinterpretation of contract scope/terms (2004); Oyewobi et al. (2016) Olawale and Sun (2010); Designer/ Badawy (2021); Sunday (2010) Contractor 17 Labor productivity/availability issues Other Mpofu et al. (2017); Sunday (2010) Table 2.1 represents various causes of change orders derived from the literature review. The change orders were further classified into four different categories with respect to their driving sources as follows: 1) Owner, 2) Contractor, 3) Designer, 4) Other. While identifying the causes of change orders, the most common factors of change orders were observed. They are enumerated below. 1. Changes in design/specifications, 2. Changes in scope/work, 3. Errors/omissions in design, 4. Lack of coordination by contractor, and 5. Differing/Unforeseen site conditions. 25 2.2.2. Impacts of Change Orders As discussed before, change orders can cause delays in schedule, cost overruns, delays of interdependent activities, and disputes between stakeholders (Pourrostam et al. 2011). The following table 2.2 is used to identify the effect/impact of change orders from the available literature. Sr no. Impacts of Change Orders References 1 Project cost overruns Alaryan et al. (2014); Alnuaimi et al. (2010); Pourrostam et al. (2011); Gunduz and Mohammad (2019); Sunday (2010); Oyewobi et al. (2016); Alzara (2022) 2 Longer duration of individual activities Alaryan et al. (2014) Alaryan et al. (2014); Alnuaimi et al. (2010); 3 Schedule delay Pourrostam et al. (2011); Sunday (2010); Oyewobi et al. (2016); Alzara (2022) Table 2.2: Impacts of Change Orders 26 Table 2.2 (cont’d) 4 Extra expenses for contractor Alaryan et al. (2014); Alnuaimi et al. (2010); Pourrostam et al. (2011); Gunduz and Mohammad (2019); Oyewobi et al. (2016); Alzara (2022) 5 Payment delays Alaryan et al. (2014); Gunduz and Mohammad (2019); Alzara (2022) 6 Inception of Claims/disputes Alnuaimi et al. (2010); Pourrostam et al. (2011); Oyewobi et al. (2016); Alzara (2022) Alnuaimi et al. (2010); Hanna and Iskandar 7 Affect labor productivity (2017); Gunduz and Mohammad (2019); Kermanshachi et al. (2021); Alzara (2022) 8 Affect succeeding activities Pourrostam et al. (2011) 27 Table 2.2 (cont’d) Loss of future projects with the same or Gunduz and Mohammad (2019); Oyewobi et 9 different owner al. (2016) 10 Decrease project quality Gunduz and Mohammad (2019); Alzara (2022) While identifying the impacts of change orders, the most common impacts of change orders were observed: 1. Project cost overruns, 2. Schedule delay, 3. Extra expenses for contractors, 4. Claims/ disputes, and 5. Affect labor productivity. 2.2.3. Minimizing Change Orders Understanding the causes and impacts of change orders can assist in prevention of change orders. Changes in design can be avoided by establishing a detailed design and identifying the risk of potential design changes during the design phase (Olawale and Sun 2010; Pourrostam et al. 2012). Similarly, Kermanshachi et al. (2021) also suggests that detailed and complete designs in the bid documents can help avoid changes. According to Pourrostam et al. 2012, clarity in 28 objectives and scope of work can result in fewer change orders. Olawale and Sun (2010) suggests a holistic approach to the scheduling process incorporating all durations like lead times, detailed site logistics, and integrated collaborations. Furthermore, project schedules are often developed using informal knowledge alone, not including formal knowledge of evidence-based calculations. These schedules should be based on the use of formal and informal knowledgebase of an experienced scheduler to obtain accurate project durations (Olawale and Sun 2010). Timely informing the relevant project stakeholders of a potential change order can help in early mitigation to avoid cost and time overruns (Olawale and Sun 2010). Extensive pre-planning and scheduling processes might not be able to eliminate change orders completely. However, minimizing the number of change orders is plausible. In conclusion, anticipation and planning for change orders before the construction phase might help in the reduction of change orders. Key performance indicators like value engineering, constructability evaluations, and improved designs are essential in minimizing change orders (Ahmed 2021). 2.3. Mass Timber and its Costs Cost competitiveness is essential in determining if a project will succeed in the long run. According to Mallo and Espinoza (2016), the most crucial factors affecting the decision to choose a structural material are its cost and economic performance. DLR (2018) states that construction costs can be decreased by reducing the time to build a structure. Owing to its prefabricated nature, mass timber construction can cut down construction time. A study by Mallo and Espinoza (2016) determined a 61.1% reduction in construction time compared to concrete and steel frame structures. Furthermore, due to the rising labor costs, a reduction in construction time predicts cost savings. However, when compared to other construction materials, the cost of mass timber contributes significantly to the total project costs (Chaggaris et al. 2021b). Scouse et 29 al. (2020) also concluded that mass timber construction costs are significantly higher when compared to conventional concrete construction. Total project costs can be dictated by mass timber costs (Liang et al. 2021; Chaggaris et al. 2021a). In a study conducted by Scouse et al. (2020), mass timber was a significant contributor, 38% of the total project costs. Burback and Pei (2017) observed a 21% increase in the cost of mass timber when compared to light-framed wood structures. A trend of higher mass timber construction costs can be observed in literature. 30 2.3.1. Mass Timber Cost Trends Around the World Market Actual No Project Location Standard Costs ($/SF) ($/SF) Cost Building Variation Type 1 Bridport House London, UK 213.33 198.23 -7% Housing Carlisle Lane 2 Lofts London, UK 213.33 305.28 43% Housing 3 Massive Living Graz, Austria 213.33 182.5 -14% Housing SmartLIFE Cambridge, 4 Centre UK 312.27 257.92 -17% Institutional UBC Earth Systems Science Vancouver, 5 Building Canada 312.27 276.85 -11% Institutional UBC Okanagan Fitness and Kelowna, 6 Wellness Centre Canada 284.25 343.11 21% Institutional Table 2. 3: Conventional Construction vs. Mass Timber Costs in the World Smith et al. (2015) analyzed the economic performance of mass timber construction compared to conventional construction. The study focused on projects around the world in countries like the United Kingdom, Austria, and Canada. Table 2.3 assesses the variation in mass timber construction costs against conventional construction costs. A housing development in London, UK known as ‘Bridport House’ revealed cost savings of 7 % over conventional construction. Likewise, ‘Massive Living’, a housing development in Graz, Austria indicated 14 % cost 31 savings. However, another housing development in London, UK ‘Carlisle Lane Lofts’ showed a cost variation of 43 % when compared to conventional construction. A cost disparity is observed between the two developments in London. This disparity can be due to various reasons like lack of experience, lack of knowledge, supply chain issues, coordination issues, etc. ‘SmartLIFE Centre’ in Cambridge, UK revealed 17 % cost savings compared to conventional construction methods. Similarly, ‘UBC Earth Systems Science Building’ also showed cost savings of 11 % over conventional construction. Although, ‘UBC Okanagan Fitness and Wellness Centre’ showed 21 % cost variation from conventional construction. Amongst all the cases studied, 67 % of cases projected cost savings when compared to conventional construction. These cost savings can be attributed to a reduction in the scheduled time. Smith et al. (2015) indicated that cost savings are directly proportional to the project schedule. Compared to the United States, mass timber is a widely accepted construction material in Europe and Canada (Structurlam 2022). While knowledge and labor barriers persist around the world (Smith et al. 2015), there is a need to study and build more mass timber projects to boost widespread adoption of mass timber. 32 2.3.2. Mass Timber Cost Trends Around the United States No Project Location Standard Costs Market Actual ($/GSF) ($/GSF) 1 2 3 1 De Haro San Francisco, CA 385 The ICE Blocks Sacramento, CA 193 Clay Creative Portland, OR 4 District Office Portland, OR 5 Barracuda Condos Madison, WI 190 210 174 6 Ascent Milwaukee, WI 200 7 8 INTRO Cleveland, OH 212 The Canyons Portland, OR 186 392 205 213 233 202 190 215 210 Cost Building Variation Type 2% 6% 12% 11% 16% -5% 1% Office Office Office Office Housing Housing Housing 13% Housing Table 2. 4: Market Standard vs. Mass Timber Costs in the US A study conducted by WoodWorks (2022) analyzed about mass timber construction costs compared to conventional market standards in the United States. Table 2.4 displays the variation in mass timber construction project costs against conventional market standards in the United States. An office building in San Francisco, CA known as ‘1 De Haro’ observed a 2 % rise in construction costs when compared to the market standard. Similarly, ‘The ICE Blocks’ in Sacramento, CA observed a 6 % variation in the mass timber costs and market standards. Whereas two office buildings in Portland, OR ‘Clay Creative’ and ‘District Office’ surpassed the market standards by 12 % and 11 % respectively. While looking at the housing market in Wisconsin, two contradictory costs were observed. ‘Barracuda Condos’ portrayed 16 % variation. Whereas ‘Ascent’ showed a negative 5 % variation leading to 5 % cost savings when 33 compared to the standard market costs. Comparably, ‘INTRO, Cleveland’ in Cleveland, OH showed mass timber costs to have a minimal variation of 1 % from the conventional costs. However, A housing development in Portland, OR known as ‘The Canyons’ revealed 13 % cost variations when compared to standard market costs (The Wood Products Council 2022). A few schedule delays were observed in the projects studied. Although, these delays were due to unforeseen problems like COVID-19 Pandemic, wildfires, extended lead times, and Suez Canal obstructions. Apart from the unforeseen problems, one project dealt with a misconstrued perception of mass timber impacts by subcontractors. A stronger General Contractor might help prevent change orders/delays (WoodWorks 2022). Variability in the cost performance of mass timber structures was observed in table 2.4. This variability is observed throughout building types and locations. Projects in Oregon still observe a significant percentage increase in costs even after having proximity to manufacturing facilities. This cost uncertainty is dictated by the unavailability of resources and knowledge on mass timber construction. 2.4. Change Orders in Mass Timber Construction There is a dearth of available data for change orders in mass timber construction. Ahmed (2021) studied construction costs and change orders in an 18-story mass timber building in Canada. The study calculated a 6.4 % increase in construction costs for using mass timber as a material. The study also revealed that only 5.85 % of total change orders were related to mass timber as a construction material. The cost of these change orders was $94,000, contributing 4.38 % to the total change order costs. The connection between construction costs and change orders related to mass timber was negligible (Ahmed 2021). This revealed that mass timber-related change orders do not significantly impact mass timber construction costs when compared to procurement and installation costs (Ahmed 2021). The change orders revealed major cause for them was a 34 communication barrier between project stakeholders (Ahmed 2021). Furthermore, the project used integrated project delivery (IPD) as the delivery method. A poor application of IPD can be observed in this project due to a substantial amount of change orders (Ahmed and Arocho 2021). The incorporation of strategies like building information modeling (BIM), integrated project delivery (IPD), and an experienced project management team will aid in minimizing the number of change orders (Ahmed 2021). The study had a few shortcomings due to the nature of the data collected. This data is based on a singular building, and it is difficult to generalize the findings (Ahmed and Arocho 2021). There is a need to expand this study to further evaluate the effect of change orders on the cost performance of mass timber construction projects. This can be achieved by increasing the sample size and evaluating project teams to understand the actual impact of change orders on project health. 2.5. Project Delivery Methods Plugge (2007) discussed that expectations of change orders increase in projects with no level of integration like Design-Bid-Build projects. Whereas there is less risk involved for change orders in projects with some level of integration like design-build, CM at risk, or design-assist project delivery. Projects with some level of integration, costs, and changes can be better identified at the beginning of the project methods (Plugge 2007). The author proposes the use of a higher level of integration of project teams to anticipate and plan for changes in a project. Staub-French et al. (2021) assumes the successful implementation of Integrated Project Delivery, BIM, and VDC and their influence on supporting project teams across project phases. 35 Integrated Project Delivery Figure 2. 2: Integrated Project Delivery Structure As discussed by Ahmed and Arocho (2021), IPD can be used to lower the occurrence or impact of change orders. To increase project efficiency, integrated project delivery focuses on collaboration and communication among major project stakeholders (Liu 2013). Figure 2.2 shows the collaboration of various stakeholders including but not limited to the Owner, Architect, Contractor, Subcontractors, and Engineers. According to AIA and AIA CC (2007), IPD is “a project delivery method that connects people, systems, business structures, and practices into a process that effectively uses the formal and informal knowledge of all stakeholders to enhance project outcomes, boost owner profit, eliminate waste, and optimize across all design, fabrication, and construction stages”. Direct communication to major stakeholders (formerly divided by contractual levels) leaves less room for errors, time overruns, or misinterpretation of documents (Riley et al. 2005). AIA and AIA CC (2007) define the key principles of IPD as: 1) shared respect and faith, 2) shared risks or profits based on project success, 3) collaboration in making decisions, 4) early participation of key stakeholders, 5) 36 setting targets at an early stage, 6) detailed scheduling and planning, 7) unrestricted communication, 8) suitable software and technology like building information modelling (BIM), 9) project direction and team. These principles guide the team toward a successful application of an integrated project delivery system. Schedule, Costs, and Change Orders A collaborative project delivery system like IPD can be utilized to enhance project value and improve owner satisfaction (Ashcraft 2022). Goodland et al. (2019) studied three projects in Canada to analyze their project delivery methods. Project Name Project Delivery Method Gross Floor Area (SF) priMed Mosaic St. Jerome’s Jacobson Hall, Trinity Centre University Western University Full IPD Full IPD Design-Build 32,300 12,310 60,000 Project Start Apr-2014 Oct-2013 Mar-2018 Targeted Completion Aug-2015 Aug-2016 Sep-2018 Actual Completion Mar-2015 May-2016 Sep-2018 Schedule Variation (%) 31 9 0 Targeted Cost ($) 11,355,667 47,000,000 13,100,000 Table 2. 5: IPD and Change Orders 37 Table 2.5 (cont’d) Actual Cost ($) 11,355,667 47,000,000 13,100,000 Cost Variation No. of RFIs No. of Change Orders Mass Timber Structure 0 0 0 Yes 0 Few 0 No 0 N/A 7 Yes Project schedule variances and change orders are discussed in table 2.5 for three projects. It is observed from this table that projects with IPD as delivery methods had fewer change orders. Two of the projects in the study are mass timber projects. It is observed that the project with the delivery method as IPD “priMed Mosaic Centre” had zero change orders. Whereas the project with the delivery method as Design-Build “Jacobson Hall, Trinity Western University” had seven change orders. It can be inferred from this study that IPD can be a solution to reduce or eliminate change orders for mass timber projects. IPD is indicated to be a promising project delivery method to minimize change orders at the source. Although there is a shared risk with IPD project participants, shared rewards can be much more beneficial to all the project participants. 38 CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY Figure 3.1: Research Methods and Outputs This chapter builds on the foundation developed by chapters 1 and 2 to provide the research approach and methodology. It attempts to further elaborate on the three research objectives discussed in section 1.3. The first research objective includes steps to conduct literature and document review which condenses cost performance in construction projects, causes and effects of change orders, and costs associated with mass timber construction projects. This data is further utilized to develop data collection and analysis methods to assess change order costs associated with mass timber projects. The literature review is further elaborated in chapter 2. 39 The second research objective is developed as a direct result of data collected from leading General Contractor’s working on mass timber construction projects. Collection and analysis of mass timber-related change order data is used to identify the causes of change orders in mass timber projects. The third research objective builds on the knowledge collected from the previous steps. The driving sources of change orders, effect of change orders on building and construction typology, correlation of change orders with project delivery methods, and ultimately change order cost impacts will be identified in further steps to develop a framework for the causes and effects of change orders in mass timber projects. This framework will further expand to create guidelines to improve the cost performance of mass timber projects. 40 3.1. Objective 1: To Understand Factors Affecting the Cost Performance of Mass Timber Construction Projects Figure 3.2: Objective 1 Methods and Outputs The primary goal of Objective 1 is to acquire a better understanding of the causes and effects of change orders in mass timber construction projects. To achieve this goal, a comprehensive literature review will be conducted to provide some groundwork and comprehend the current state of the knowledge. The literature review indicated the lack of available knowledge in terms of mass timber, change orders, and its related costs. To understand these missing links, the cost performance of steel/concrete construction projects was studied to help narrow down the common causes of cost overruns. Further, Change Order literature was studied to understand the causes and drivers of change orders in a project. Concurrently, the literature surrounding mass 41 timber construction costs and risks was studied to identify the underlying dearth of data. The focus areas of the literature review were used to develop data collection and analysis strategies to obtain project-related data from leading General Contractors. The literature for change orders and mass timber costs was reviewed to develop a data collection method. The culmination of the literature review and consultation of experts in mass timber industry led to the formation of a refined data collection and analysis methodology. Fig 3.2 represents the methods and expected outputs for objective 1. The deliverables from the first objective served as a direct input to the steps involved in Objective 2 to understand the causes and effects of change orders. 3.2. Objective 2: To Identify the Causes of Change Orders in Mass Timber Construction Projects The primary goal of objective 2 is to analyze field data from mass timber construction projects to understand factors causing change orders. It can be divided into 2 parts: a) Data Collection and, b) Data Analysis. The data from Chapter 2 is used to refine data analysis methods. Figure 3.3 represents methods and outputs for objective 2. 42 Figure 3.3: Objective 2 Methods and Outputs 3.2.1. Data Collection After a rigorous review of the existing literature, gaps in available data led to developing data collection parameters. These parameters were dictated by the conversations with industry professionals working on mass timber construction projects. The parameters were further revised in many iterations upon reviewing the quality of the dataset. The list of variables collected for the mass timber-related change order data is discussed in Table 3.2. These variables were created as a spreadsheet input for data collection. This study was divided into two levels of study – Project level and change order level to recognize project level factors as well as individual change order level factors. The following variables were considered for the data collection process for this study. 43 Dependent Variables Actual Cost: This variable considers the actual total costs for the entire project to understand the cost implications of various changes throughout the duration of a project. This cost gives field data to understand the health of the project. Actual Cost MT: This variable refers to actual total costs for the scope of mass timber. This can help understand any positive or negative impacts on the actual costs for this scope. Total CO Cost: This variable considers the actual cost of all change orders in the project. This will help to understand the scale of all change orders in the project. CO Cost MT: This variable considers the actual cost of all mass timber-related change orders in the project. This will help identify the cost implications of each change order for the overall project. Independent Variables Number of CO: This variable refers to the total number of change orders in the entire project including mass timber-related change orders. Number of MT CO: This variable consists of mass timber-related change orders in the entire project. This helped determine the size of mass timber-related change orders to the total change orders, and scope of mass timber. Location and Year: This variable serves to identify the cost indices of the location of the project compared to the national average. The location factor plays a huge role in determining the cost of any project. Depending on the state, city, and the year, project costs vary tremendously. This variable is used to normalize all the project related costs to the national average for the year 2023. 44 CO Source: This variable helps to identify the source and drivers of change orders. These sources are split into 4 types namely – Owner, Designer, Contractor, and Others. This source will help identify the responsible party for the change orders. Others include change order sources like unforeseen problems, subcontractors, suppliers, and any other sources that were not captured above. Construction Phase: This variable helps identify the construction phase the change order was developed in. These phases are split into 3 categories namely – Pre Construction, Construction and Closeout to understand the phase where most Change orders have been observed. Gross Area: This variable serves to understand the size of the project in terms of square feet. Building Type: This variable helps to identify the various building types of the projects studied. These types are split into 4 categories namely – Office, Multi-Family, Higher Education and Other. Construction Type: This variable helps to understand various construction types for the projects studied. The construction type is split into two types – namely IV and not IV. Type IV construction consists of heavy timber construction including mass timber construction (IBC 2018). All other construction types are grouped into Not IV category to streamline the process. Project Delivery Methods: This variable refers to the project delivery method used for the mass timber construction project. The project delivery is split into two types – namely Some Integration and No Integration. Some integration categories consist of project delivery methods like Design Build, Design Assist, and CM at Risk. Whereas the no integration category consists of Design-Bid-Build project delivery method. 45 Variable Type Levels Actual Cost Continuous N/A Dependent Actual Cost MT Continuous N/A Variables Total CO cost Continuous N/A e v i t a t i t n a u Q e v i t a t i l a u Q s e l b a i r a V t n e d n e p e d n I CO cost MT Continuous N/A Number of CO Continuous N/A Number of MT CO Continuous N/A Location and Year Continuous N/A Gross area Continuous N/A Owner, Contractor, CO Source Categorical Designer, Other Pre Construction, Construction Phase Categorical Construction, Closeout Office, Multi-Family, Higher Building Type Categorical Education, Other Construction Type Categorical IV, Not IV Project Delivery Some Integration, No Method Categorical Integration Table 3. 1: List of Variables 3.2.3. Data Analysis and Results Due to the novel nature of mass timber, there is not enough projects available to obtain information from a wide range of projects. This study attempted to collect data from the leading general contractors (GC’s) from around the country. Due to a small sample size, the collected 46 data was analyzed on two levels. Project level and change order level. On the project level, statistical analysis methods like Pearson’s correlation, ANOVAs, and descriptive statistics were used to understand the data. Whereas, on the change order level the data was further divided into two levels, owner-derived change orders and all types of change orders. Similar to the project- level data, statistical analysis methods like ANOVAs and descriptive statistics were used for these levels to understand the data. The data analysis process is further elaborated in Chapter 5. 3.3. Objective 3: Develop Guidelines to Improve Cost Performance in the Preplanning and Construction Phase of Mass Timber Construction Projects The primary goal of objective 3 is to create a framework to improve the cost performance of mass timber projects. The data obtained in objective 3.2 serves as an input to further develop the guidelines. Figure 3.3: Objective 3 Methods and Outputs 47 Suggestions and guidelines will be construed by this study to help find the root cause of change orders and how to reduce them. This study attempts to fill the gap in cost performance knowledge of mass timber construction to help stakeholders in the construction industry. 48 CHAPTER 4 DATA COLLECTION This chapter intends to discuss the data collection process undertaken to identify variables in change orders in mass timber construction. This chapter further expands on the data collection processes discussed earlier in chapter 3. 4.1. Data Collection Process In order to obtain critical data, general contractors (GC’s) and installers around the country were approached. Due to lack of availability of an abundant sample size, participants willing to contribute to the mass timber knowledge were selected. The participants were approached to obtain required information via email, phone calls, and online meetings. The author shared a data collection spreadsheet with all participants to complete. All participants were given the choice of filling out the spreadsheet or sharing the data for the author to filter out. After the initial spreadsheet was filled out, the author approached the participants multiple times to clarify various doubts in the spreadsheet. Table 4.1 shows a sample spreadsheet shared with the participants. For the projects with the raw data, the author filtered out mass timber-related change orders based on author’s best knowledge. This study relies on the data provided by all participants and considers the data provided to be accurate. Similarly, there is no way for the author to verify the quality or accuracy of the raw data provided. 49 Variables Project no. Budgeted Cost for Entire Project Actual Cost for Entire Project Budgeted Cost for Mass Timber Actual Cost for Mass Timber Budgeted Time for Entire Project Actual Time for Entire Project Budgeted Time for Mass Timber Actual Time for Mass Timber Gross Area Total Mass Timber SF Building Type State City Year of Commencement Year of Completion Construction Type Project Delivery Method Total cost of CO for entire project Total cost of CO for Mass Timber Scope of Mass Timber Change Orders (CO) CO Source CO cost Construction Phase Enter Value Enter Value Enter Value Enter Value Enter Value Enter Value Enter Value Enter Value Enter Value Enter Value Select Building Type Select State Enter Value Enter Value Enter Value Select Construction Type Select Project Delivery Method Enter Value Enter Value Enter Scope 1 Select CO Source Enter Value Select Construction Phase Enter Value 2 Select CO Source Enter Value Select Construction Phase Enter Value 3 Select CO Source Enter Value Select Construction Phase Enter Value CO Reason Table 4. 1: Sample Data Collection Spreadsheet A total of 34 projects were studied to understand the causes and impacts of these change orders. The data collected was confidential and all the projects are referred to as numbers. Out of the 34 projects, 25 projects were collected from the same participant. Having a major contribution of 50 data from one participant is the limitation of this study. Due to its novel nature, there is a dearth of participants working in mass timber construction. As the use of mass timber grows, more participants can be reached out for future expansion of this study. Out of the remaining projects, projects 27 and 28 belonged to the same participant. Similarly, projects 29 and 30 belonged to the same participant. Projects 29 and 30 are currently in construction and data was collected up to the initial data collection date. This assumption was an assumption used for this study. Projects 2, 3, 4, 9, 11, 14, 17, 20, 22, 23, and 24 the participant worked only for the mass timber scope of the project. Although the participating General Contractors (also known as participants) were common for a few projects, the project teams and circumstances were different for every project. Every project and their observations were unique, although the project management techniques might be similar for projects with the same participant. During the data collection process, all the cost data was normalized using the historical cost indexes by RSMeans data. All the cost data was normalized to the national 30 city average for January of 2023. This step ensures that there is no disparity between all projects on the basis of State, City or Year of construction. This is an important step to achieve a consistent dataset due to the varying cost index in every city. For projects based in cities not on the historical cost indexes, the city closest to the location was selected for accurate normalization. The data was collected on two levels, 1. Project level data and 2. Change Order level data. Due to limitations of data, the individual change order level was further bifurcated into two levels – 1. All change order types and 2. Owner driven change orders. During the data collection process, the author was able to identify change orders with the source only as the Owner for 25 projects. This was a direct result of the limitations of the field data in an uncontrolled environment. This led to an additional level of analysis for owner driven change orders. 51 4.2. Project Level Data The data collection process led to cleaning of the data due to limitations of the data. A few variables like time were eliminated to keep the data consistent across all the projects. Table 4.2 represents the project level data collected. Sample size for project level data was 34 projects. Variables like building type, construction type, project delivery method and costs were identified after cleaning the project level data. Total MT CO costs/ gross area variable was developed in an attempt to normalize the change order costs. This normalization metric was used to normalize costs across all the projects due to variability in the scale and cost of projects. This metric was used to identify outliers in the dataset by calculating the upper and lower boundary using turkey method. Three outliers were identified from the 34 projects. These outliers were eliminated while analyzing data using ANOVAS. Sr- No. PROJECT Building Type Construction Type 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Table 4. 2: Collation of Project Level Data Not IV Office Not IV Other IV Multi-Family Not IV Other Higher Education Not IV Not IV Office IV Multi-Family Not IV Other Not IV Office Not IV Other Not IV Other Not IV Other Project Delivery Method Total MT CO Costs/Gross Area -0.244 No Integration 4.405 No Integration 1.111 No Integration 2.019 No Integration 1.640 No Integration No Integration 3.607 Some Integration 0.122 Some Integration 8.217 Some Integration 1.721 Some Integration 0.000 2.949 No Integration 2.538 No Integration 52 Table 4.2 (cont’d) 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Office Not IV Higher Education Not IV Not IV Other Not IV Office Not IV Other Not IV Office Not IV Multi-Family Other Not IV Higher Education Not IV Higher Education Not IV Higher Education IV Other Other Multi-Family Office Other Multi-Family Multi-Family Other Other Higher Education Not IV Higher Education Not IV Not IV Not IV IV IV Not IV Not IV Not IV Not IV IV No Integration 0.711 Some Integration 8.265 Some Integration 105.939 Some Integration 44.915 No Integration 0.464 No Integration -3.853 No Integration 1.023 No Integration 25.980 5.200 No Integration Some Integration 5.504 Some Integration 2.847 Some Integration 8.678 Some Integration 1.407 Some Integration 1.769 Some Integration 4.322 Some Integration 0.000 Some Integration 4.377 Some Integration 3.227 No Integration 0.923 Some Integration 1.264 Some Integration 7.780 Some Integration 0.949 4.3. Change Order Level Data The source of change orders consisted of responsible parties for the change order namely Owner, Contractor, Designer, and others. This would help to determine the major contributor towards mass timber-related change orders. Due to the limitations discussed earlier, this data also reviews only the Owner driven change orders to understand if there is any significance in this dataset. 4.3.1. All Change Order Types Sample size for all change order types level data was 239 change orders. After the data cleaning, variables for “All Change Order Types” were building type, construction type, project delivery method, CO source, construction phase, and costs. This data helped us to understand the source 53 and phase for every change order. This level for data collection was necessary due to the small sample size of the dataset. All the change Orders have been considered independent observations in this level of analysis. Table 4.3 shows a sample data collection table for “All types of Change Orders”. MT CO Cost/ Gross Area variable was developed in an attempt to normalize the Change Order Cost across all the projects due to variability in the scale and cost of projects. This metric was used to identify outliers in the dataset by calculating the upper and lower boundary using turkey method. Thirty-seven outliers were identified from the 239 change orders. These outliers were eliminated while analyzing data using ANOVAS. Sr No Building Type Office 1 Construct ion Type Not IV 2 3 4 IV Office Higher Education Not IV Multi- Family IV CO Source Project Delivery Method No Integration Owner Some Integration Some Integration Some Integration Other Designer Contractor Closeout Pre Construction 0.00 0.07 Construction 0.02 CO Construction Phase Construction MT CO Cost/ Gross Area -0.24 Table 4. 3: Sample Collation of All type of Change Order Data 4.3.2. Owner Driven Change Orders Sample size for owner driven change orders level was 157 change orders. After the data cleaning, variables for “Owner Driven Change Orders” were building type, construction type, project delivery method, construction phase, and costs. This level for data collection was necessary due to the over representation of Owner as a source in the dataset. All the change orders have been considered independent observations in this level of analysis. Table 4.4 shows a sample data collection table for “Owner Driven Change Orders”. MT CO Cost/ Gross Area variable was developed in an attempt to normalize the Change Order Cost across all the projects due to variability in the scale and cost of projects. This metric was used to identify outliers in the 54 dataset by calculating the upper and lower boundary using turkey method. Eighteen outliers were identified from the 157 change orders. These outliers were eliminated while analyzing data using ANOVAS. Building Type Construction Type Project Delivery Method Sr- No. 1 2 3 Multi-Family Office Higher Education IV Not IV Not IV Table 4. 4: Owner Driven Change Orders CO Construction Phase Construction MT CO Cost/ Gross Area 0.16 -0.20 No Integration Some Integration Closeout Some Integration Pre Construction 5.29 55 CHAPTER 5 DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS This chapter intends to discuss the data analysis and results incorporated to assess the variables established in chapter 4. This chapter further expands on the data analysis processes discussed earlier in chapter 3. As established in the data collection process, this data was analyzed on three levels – 1. Project level data, 2.a. all change order types data and, 2.b. owner driven change order data. 5.1. Project Level Data 5.1.1. Descriptive Statistics While looking at the building type for all projects, 21% projects were Higher Education, 18% projects were Multi Family, 21% projects were Office, and 41% projects were Other types of buildings. For construction type variable, 18% of projects were classified as “type IV” and 82% of projects were classified as “not type IV.” This metric shows that there are more projects exploring construction types varied from type IV which has been primarily used for heavy timber construction (IBC 2018). According to IBC (2018), type IV construction required the exterior walls of the project to be non-combustible. Similarly, IBC (2018) considered timber to be combustible and used only for the interior parts. More projects not classified under “type IV” indicate the growth of the mass timber construction industry. The project delivery method variable shows that 56% of projects used some level of integration method for project delivery. Whereas 44% of projects used no level of integration. There was no significant difference observed in the project delivery method. These statistics do not show a quantifiable impact on the projects studied. To understand the impact of mass timber related Change orders on the entire project, the author studied the index 56 values for expected Change Order costs for mass timber. The following formula was used to assess expected Change Order costs for mass timber when compared to the entire project: (Total cost of mass timber change orders/ Actual cost of mass timber scope) ______________________________________________________________ (Total cost of change orders/Actual cost of entire project) Due to limitations of the data, the author was able to acquire total Change Order information for 17 projects for this index. Table 5.1 shows the results of this index for the 17 projects. Sr No PR Total cost of mass timber CO (a) $88,364 6 7 Actual Cost of mass timber scope (b) $1,750,112 Total cost of CO (c) Actual Cost of entire project (d) a/b (e) c/d (f) Inde x (e/f) $113,119 $13,655,135 0.05 0.01 6.09 $8,299 $3,599,890 $1,155,934 $30,637,641 0.00 0.04 0.06 12 $6,346 $11,828 $403,968 $104,854 0.54 3.85 0.14 13 $76,102 $9,543,360 $3,184,867 $107,032,427 0.01 0.03 0.27 14 $399,982 $3,999,206 $444,912 $45,350,596 0.10 0.01 10.19 18 -$84,769 $1,206,396 $50,537 $6,986,875 -0.07 0.01 -9.71 19 $96,123 $4,140,314 $695,334 $4,907,177 0.02 0.14 0.16 21 $156,012 $862,581 $52,337,609 $3,178,435 0.18 16.4 0.01 7 26 $854,020 $14,827,568 $12,808,545 $135,940,304 0.06 0.09 0.61 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 27 $864,406 $10,881,532 $2,346,330 $71,426,903 0.08 0.03 2.42 11 28 $0 $1,496,040 $343,648 $87,894,693 0.00 0.00 0.00 12 29 $88,848 $709,502 $546,135 $5,165,315 0.13 0.11 1.18 13 30 $280,724 $4,287,416 $1,071,854 $22,713,096 0.07 0.05 1.39 14 31 $7,489 $367,395 $584,110 $7,442,589 0.02 0.08 0.26 15 32 $267,952 $8,366,616 $4,796,782 $73,802,088 0.03 0.06 0.49 Table 5. 1: CO Index for expected Change Order costs for mass timber 57 Table 5.1 (cont’d) 16 33 $1,244,735 $9,988,915 $123,013,884 $130,363,083 0.12 0.94 0.13 17 34 $44,609 $2,538,819 $2,768,343 $33,108,484 0.02 0.08 0.21 To interpret the index value, the following rules were pursued. 1. When the index value for the above data is equal to one, the mass timber change orders costs are as expected. 2. When the index value is less than one, the project has less than expected mass timber Change Order costs. 3. When the index value is greater than one, the project has more than expected mass timber Change Order costs. Index Value for expected CO costs e u l a V x e d n I 11.00 10.00 9.00 8.00 7.00 6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 -1.00 -2.00 -3.00 -4.00 -5.00 -6.00 -7.00 -8.00 -9.00 -10.00 -11.00 6 7 12 13 14 18 19 21 27 26 Project No. 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Figure 5.1: Comparing Index Value for 17 projects 58 It is observed in table 5.1 and figure 5.1 that 12 out of the 17 projects have an index value less than one. 71% of the projects observed show less than expected mass timber change order costs. Thus, it can be clearly observed that when compared to the change orders for the entire project, mass timber-related change orders show less than expected costs. Mass timber-related change order costs do not have a significant impact on the entire project. This proves that mass timber- related change orders have no effect on the actual project costs when compared to the scope of mass timber work. To strengthen this hypothesis, future studies can be carried out using a bigger sample size. 5.1.2. Pearson’s Correlation To determine the relationship between the actual costs for mass timber scope and total cost of mass timber related change orders, the author performed the Pearson’s correlation test. Table 5.2 shows the results for the test. Actual Costs MT Total MT CO Costs Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Actual Costs MT 1 34 0.940 <.001 34 Total MT CO Costs 0.940 <.001 34 1 34 Table 5. 2: Result for Pearson’s correlation test This data suggests that actual costs for mass timber scope (Actual Costs MT) and total cost of mass timber related change orders (Total MT CO Costs) have a statistically significant linear relationship. It is observed that r = 0.940 and p < 0.001. The value of p is significant when p < 0.05. Therefore, observation denotes a statistically significant linear relationship. The value of r also represents that actual costs MT and total MT CO costs have a positive direction to their relationship. Thus, actual costs MT and total MT CO costs tend to increase together as they are 59 positively correlated. It can be inferred from this data that the cost for MT change orders increases when the actual costs for mass timber scope increases. 60 5.1.3. One-Way ANOVA In order to understand the relationship between the independent variables and the dependent variable (total CO costs/ gross area), Analysis of Variances (ANOVA) was used. In this statistical analysis, the independent variables were identified as project delivery method, construction type, and building type. Whereas the dependent variable was the $/SF value of total CO costs/ Gross area. This dependent variable was chosen to normalize the variability observed in the Change Order costs across all projects. Outliers were also removed before the test was undertaken to reduce variability in the dependent variable. Table 5.3 depicts the result for the ANOVA test performed. Significance can be established when the value of p < 0.05. Sum Sq 29.166 Project Delivery Method 14.178 Construction Type 26.135 Building Type Residuals 177.617 Table 5. 3: Result for Project Level One-Way ANOVA Df 1 1 3 25 Mean Sq 29.1662 14.1777 8.7118 7.1047 F value 4.1052 1.9956 1.2262 Pr(>F) 0.05355 0.17009 0.32094 This test shows that project delivery method, construction type, and building type did not have a significant effect on the Total MT CO costs (As p > 0.05). This can be due to the small sample size (n=34) at the project level. To expand the study and increase the sample size, the author tested the change order level data. 5.2. Change Order Level Data In order to achieve a larger sample size and a detailed statistical analysis, Change Order level data was observed. This data was further divided into two levels, a. all types of change orders and b. Owner driven change orders. 61 5.2.1. All Change Order Types Descriptive Statistics In order to understand change order sources, the author determined some descriptive statistics. When looking at the change order sources, overrepresentation of owner driven change orders can clearly be seen. In this dataset, projects with no level of integration represent 24% of all the change orders. Whereas projects with some level of integration represent 76% of the change orders. When we look at the construction type for all change orders, 75% of change orders represent not IV construction type. Construction type IV change orders represent 25% of the total change orders. When analyzing projects types higher education displays 23%, multifamily represents 15%, office represents 17%, and other displays the majority of the representation of 45% of all change orders. Owner driven change orders represent 66% of the total dataset. Whereas the next biggest group of designer driven change orders make up to 13% of the total dataset. For such variability in the data all the different groups can be analyzed with each other using ANOVAs. A one-way ANOVA has been discussed in the next paragraph. The construction phase for the change orders reveals 85% of the total change orders are created in the construction phase of the project. Although 11% of the total change orders are created during the preconstruction phase of the project. The remaining 4% of change orders are created during the closeout phase of the project. This indicates that a majority of change orders are created during the construction phase and needs more integration with all the stakeholders to reduce the frequency of change orders. When the variable CO cost/ gross area was studied for all types of change orders, some key data metrics were observed and shown in table 5.4 below. 62 Min Q1 Median Mean Q3 Max $/SF -0.373 0.027 0.125 0.223 0.334 1.796 Table 5. 4: CO cost/ Gross Area data metric One-way ANOVA As discussed in the above paragraph, the overrepresentation of owner change orders led us to use ANOVA to understand the data. All the outliers were removed prior to running the statistical test. Table 5.5. represents the data obtained from the ANOVA test on the dataset. In this statistical analysis test, independent variables were CO source, building type, construction type, project delivery method, and CO construction phase. The CO cost/gross area was the dependent variable to test the data. This variable was used to normalize the huge variance observed in the raw data. CO Source Building Type Construction Type Project Delivery Method CO Construction Phase Residuals Table 5. 5: Result for “all types of Change Order” ANOVA Sum Sq 0.454 0.298 1.536 0.055 0.211 15.891 Df 3 3 1 1 2 189 Mean Sq 0.1512 0.0992 1.5362 0.0546 0.1053 0.0841 F value 1.798 1.180 18.271 0.650 1.253 Pr(>F) 0.149 0.319 3.04E-05 0.421 0.288 This test shows that co source, building type, project delivery method, and CO construction phase did not have a significant effect on the individual MT CO costs (As p>0.05). Although, Construction Type did have a significant effect on the individual MT CO costs (p<0.05). This insignificant data may stem from the availability and huge variability of data. Future studies can help expand this knowledge bank to find quantifiable results. 63 5.2.2. Owner Driven Change Orders As discussed earlier, Owner driven change orders were a major part of the dataset. This led to investigating just the owner driven change orders to understand if they had an individual impact on the cost performance of the project. In an effort to understand their impact the author undertook statistical analysis tests like descriptive statistics and one-way ANOVA. Descriptive Statistics While studying the owner derived change orders, the author studied the CO construction phase variable. In this dataset, projects with no level of integration represent 36% of all the change orders. Whereas projects with some level of integration represent 64% of the change orders. When we look at the construction type for all change orders, 88% of change orders represent not IV construction type. Construction type IV change orders represent 12% of the total change orders. When analyzing project types higher education displays 15%, multifamily represents 10%, office represents 20%, and other displays the majority of the representation of 55% of all change orders. It is observed that construction phase takes up 81% of the total project change orders. While preconstruction and closeout have 15% and 4% respectively. The construction phase has the highest contribution to the owner driven change orders. This observation is consistent with both the datasets. This proves there is a need to implement better planning procedures to incorporate to reduce the change orders in the construction phase. When looking at the dependent variable, some key metrics were observed, shown below in table 5.6. 64 Min Q1 Median Mean Q3 Max Table 5. 6: CO Cost/ Gross area metric One-way ANOVA $/SF -0.902 0.032 0.222 0.367 0.502 2.046 ANOVA statistical test was also performed on this level of the dataset. The independent variables in this test were project delivery method, construction type, building type, and construction phase. The dependent variable was consistent with the previous data set as CO cost/ gross area. The outliers were removed before this test was performed. Table 5.7 represents the data obtained from the ANOVA test on the dataset. Project Delivery Method Construction Type Building Type CO Construction Phase Residuals Table 5. 7: Result for owner driven Change Order ANOVA Sum Sq 0.264 0.379 1.188 1.333 35 Df 1 1 3 2 131 Mean Sq 0.26412 0.37861 0.39603 0.66629 0.26717 F value 0.9886 1.4171 1.4823 2.4938 Pr(>F) 0.32193 0.23604 0.22235 0.08651 This test shows that project delivery method, construction type, building type, and CO construction phase did not have a significant effect on the individual MT CO costs (P < 0.05). No significant result was obtained from performing the statistical ANOVA tests on three different levels. This reiterates the fact that there is not enough information available. The data is obtained from the field and was not performed in any controlled environment. There is a need to study a larger sample size to obtain more significant results. 65 CHAPTER 6 DISCUSSION Variability observed in the collected data in terms of costs, project delivery methods, change order sources, and building types. This was a direct result of collection of field data which is undertaken in uncontrolled environments. These real field projects can have a huge range for costs related to change orders as well as project costs. The Pearson’s correlation test showed a strong positive relationship between actual costs of the mass timber scope in a project with mass timber change order costs. Thus, we can establish that the greater the scope of mass timber, greater the chance of mass timber related change orders. The project level data showed that mass timber related change orders showed less than expected costs. This confirmed the null hypothesis for RQ#2 H0: Mass timber-related change orders have no effect on actual project costs when compared to the scope of mass timber work. While analyzing the effects of project delivery methods, construction type, building type, CO source, and CO Construction phase did not have any effect on the costs of the project. This can be due two reasons, 1. Smaller sample size This can be attributed to the size of projects and change order data collected compared to the variables identified. A larger sample size may lead to a significant result and help understand the cost data better. This limitation is mainly due to the novel nature of mass timber construction projects and their wide adaptability may result in obtaining good quality data. 2. Variability in cost data The cost data had a lot of variability and the costs ranged from $0 to $42 million. The metric established for normalizing the data may not be the preferred method 66 for further research. The metric CO costs/ gross area was developed in an attempt to normalize the available data. The availability of good quality data was a barrier to this study. The null hypothesis for RQ#1 H0: cost performance of mass timber projects is independent of the level of integration in project delivery methods is proven to be true. Although, through qualitative analysis, it is observed that 56% of projects use some level of integration within their projects. Mass timber as a structural material should always have some level of integration if not a higher level of integration. This is due to the prefabricated nature of this material. Prefabrication requires a lot of coordination between the design team, the construction team, and the manufacturing team. More coordination at the beginning of the project can ensure fewer change orders in the construction phase. Thus, some level of integration can play a major role in reducing mass timber-related change orders in a mass timber construction project. 6.1. Guidelines to Help Improve the Cost Performance of Mass Timber Construction Projects Based on the data collected and analyzed, the author suggests a few guidelines to streamline the construction projects and reduce mass timber related change orders. 1. Some or higher level of project team integration: Early involvement provides teams to anticipate the project costs and forthcoming changes and can be well prepared for changes (Plugge 2007). o It is very rare for a given project to not have any change orders, but early involvement can reduce the impact of these change orders. 67 o Owing to its prefabricated nature, mass timber requires some level of integration and coordination between the project teams. o When there is no or low integration within teams, the project team may have to make changes to this prefabricated material in the field. This leads to increasing construction time and labor hours. o It is advised to utilize extra man hours in the pre-construction phase to coordinate the construction details to save material and labor costs in the construction phase of the project. o The project team should work on clash detection and collaborate on expected challenges in terms of construction details, lead times and just in time delivery of mass timber. 2. A collaborative project delivery system like integrated project delivery (IPD) system can be utilized to enhance project value and improve owner satisfaction (Ashcraft 2022). o IPD intends to use the formal and informal knowledge of all major trades and translates it into a successful project. This aspect of IPD is beneficial to utilize in mass timber construction, similar to some level of integration. o IPD contributes to a higher level of integration and has potential to reduce change orders as well as clashes in a mass timber construction project. In IPD, mechanical, plumbing, and electrical trades are involved at the early stages of projects. This leads to coordination and collaboration with the manufacturer in terms of sleeves and penetrations. This leads to less scope for errors and reduced field changes to the mass timber material. 68 3. The quality of data collected should be accurate to help forecast or anticipate changes. o The database of project details should be of good quality and detailed. The project team should ensure all necessary details have been completed. It was observed during this study that data the obtained was incomplete. Bookkeeping is an important aspect of construction projects. Detailed bookkeeping can help project team refer the details of projects to assess challenges, project health or lessons learned. 4. Integration of BIM and VDC along with higher level of integration in projects will help reduce change orders in mass timber projects (Staub-French et al. 2021). o As previously discussed, higher level of integration has a lot of benefits. Although, use of BIM and VDC is an integral part of this process. o BIM and VDC help with clash detection and analyzing potential challenges before the start of the project. o BIM and VDC can also help with trades like mechanical, plumbing, and electrical to integrate with the manufacturing process and reduce field drilling or cutting of penetrations and sleeves. o The tolerances for mass timber a low due to the prefabricated nature. BIM and VDC can help with the precision and placement of connections and joinery. 5. Shifting from construction type IV for mass timber projects is a step further in advancement of mass timber that reduces restrictions and gives project teams more freedom in implementing the project. 69 o Construction type IV imposes some restrictions to the boundaries of the project. Thus, more projects classified under construction types not IV display the growth and acceptance of mass timber in the construction industry. o Less restrictive construction types will help in widespread adoption of mass timber as a material and helps owners and contractors to explore this structural material to its full potential. o Construction type not IV also allows the project to use mass timber in the building envelope and reduce oversized structural elements due to reduced fire restrictions. This will reduce material costs as correct sized structural elements are utilized. 6. An experienced project manager in the field of mass timber can be hired to reduce change orders in a mass timber construction project (Ahmed 2021). o It was observed that project teams with less or no experience tend to face challenges in installing or erecting mass timber elements. These challenges are not common in conventional construction structural elements like concrete or steel. This is owing to the mass and prolonged use of conventional construction elements. o An experienced project manager will be able to identify and take corrective actions based on the lessons learned from their previous mass timber projects. Translation of informal knowledge of previous mass timber projects will be beneficial for the project’s health in avoiding previously faced challenges. 70 6.2. Future Scope and Recommendations Being a novel construction material, mass timber has shown a lot of potential in the last few years. The rapid growth can be observed in the number of projects this study was able to collect. The author believes, a larger sample size will be beneficial to take this study further and receive significant results. A different normalization technique might aid the cost analysis part. The normalization technique used for the index can prove beneficial for future scope of study. This was not done on this project due to unavailability of data. The index to be used is shown below: (Total cost of mass timber change orders/ Actual cost of mass timber scope) ______________________________________________________________ (Total cost of change orders/Actual cost of entire project) More research is needed to reconcile the non-significant findings in this research. The above- mentioned techniques might aid in getting the desired result for a future study. Apart from this, to understand the impact of individual change orders, analysis techniques like failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA) can be utilized. A change order can show lesser impact in terms of dollar value, although it is important to see the impact of the change order on the entire project. FMEA as tool will prove effective to understand this impact. 6.3. Contributions to Knowledge As previously established, the cost-competitiveness of mass timber construction projects needs to be improved to help aid its widespread adoption. The United States has been reluctant to accept Mass Timber as a new technology owing to the higher initial costs. There are multiple gaps in the cost knowledge base of mass timber construction projects. This study is an attempt to fill these gaps by understanding the causes of change orders on Mass timber construction projects. 71 This study hopes to contribute to the vast body of knowledge related to change orders with studies on mass timber construction. 6.3.1. Expected Outputs 1. This study intends to identify and reduce common factors causing changes in mass timber construction projects. 2. The developed guideline can be used by construction companies for more integrated pre- planning techniques. 6.3.2. Expected Outcomes 1. This study will help fill the gap in cost unpredictability in the construction phase of projects. 2. This study intends to help decision-makers understand construction costs better and reduce the cost uncertainty of mass timber construction projects. 3. The study hopes to provide critical knowledge related to project delivery methods that have not been extensively studied before. 4. This study intends to overcome the barrier of construction cost uncertainty and promote the widespread adoption of mass timber construction. 72 REFERENCES Abdul Rahman, I., & Gamil, Y. (2019). Assessment of cause and effect factors of poor communication in construction industry. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 601(1), 012014. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899x/601/1/012014. AGC (Associated General Contractors of America).2022. 2022 Workforce Survey Analysis. Retrieved November 15, 2022, from https://www.agc.org/sites/default/files/users/user22633/2022_AGC_Workforce_Survey_A nalysis.pdf Ahmed Marey Alhammadi, A. S., & Memon, A. H. (2020). Inhibiting factors of cost performance in UAE Construction Projects. International Journal of Sustainable Construction Engineering and Technology, 11(2). https://doi.org/10.30880/ijscet.2020.11.02.014 Ahmed, S. (2021). Evaluating the Feasibility of Mass Timber as a Mainstream Building Material in the Us Construction Market: Industry Perception, Cost Competitiveness, and Environmental Performance Analysis (dissertation). Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR. Ahmed, S., & Arocho, I. (2020). Mass timber building material in the U.S. Construction Industry: Determining the existing awareness level, construction-related challenges, and recommendations to increase its current acceptance level. Cleaner Engineering and Technology, 1, 100007. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clet.2020.100007 Ahmed, S., & Arocho, I. (2021). Analysis of cost comparison and effects of change orders during construction: Study of a mass timber and a concrete building project. Journal of Building Engineering, 33, 101856. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2020.101856. Ahmed, S., & Arocho, I. (2021a). Feasibility assessment of mass timber as a mainstream building material in the US construction industry: Level of involvement, existing challenges, and recommendations. Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction, 26(2). https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)sc.1943-5576.0000574. Ahmed, S., & Arocho, I. (2022). Construction Research Congress 2022. In Cost Analysis of a Mass Timber Building Project: Comparison of Budgeted and Actual Construction Cost (pp. 493–501). ASCE. AIA National, & AIA California Council. (2007). (rep.). Integrated Project Delivery: A guide (Vol. 1). The American Institute of Architects. Retrieved February 20, 2023, from https://zdassets.aiacontracts.org/ctrzdweb02/zdpdfs/ipd_guide.pdf. Alaryan, A., Emadelbeltagi, A. E., & Dawood, M. (2014). Causes and effects of change orders on construction projects in Kuwait. International Journal of Engineering Research and Applications, 4(7), 1-8. 73 Alnuaimi, A. S., Taha, R. A., Al Mohsin, M., & Al-Harthi, A. S. (2010). Causes, effects, benefits, and remedies of change orders on public construction projects in Oman. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 136(5), 615–622. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)co.1943-7862.0000154. Alzara, M. (2022). Exploring the impacts of change orders on performance of construction projects in Saudi Arabia. Advances in Civil Engineering, 2022, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/5775926. Ashcraft, H. (2022). Transforming project delivery: Integrated project delivery. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 38(2), 369–384. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxrep/grac001. Asiedu, R. O., & Adaku, E. (2019). Cost overruns of Public Sector Construction Projects: A developing country perspective. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 13(1), 66–84. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijmpb-09-2018-0177 Badawy, M. (2021). Second-order Confirmatory Factor Analysis Model for estimating the overall risk of change orders in road projects. Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology, 20(5), 1217–1235. https://doi.org/10.1108/jedt-09-2020-0383. Burback, B., & Pei, S. (2017). Cross-laminated timber for single-family residential construction: Comparative cost study. Journal of Architectural Engineering, 23(3). https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)ae.1943-5568.0000267 Came, F. T. (2022). Insurance pricing for mass timber buildings. Pacific Northwest Building Resilience Coalition. Retrieved February 6, 2023, from https://buildingresiliencecoalition.org/insurance-pricing-for-mass-timber-buildings/. Campbell, A. (2019). Mass timber in the circular economy: paradigm in practice? In Proceedings of The Institution of Civil Engineers-Engineering Sustainability (Vol. 172(3), pp. 141–152). ICE Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1680/jensu.17.00069 Chaggaris, R., Pei, S., Kingsley, G., & Feitel, A. (2021a). Carbon impact and cost of mass timber beam–column gravity systems. Sustainability, 13(23), 12966. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132312966. Chaggaris, R., Pei, S., Kingsley, G., & Kinder, E. (2021b). Cost-effectiveness of mass timber beam–column gravity systems. Journal of Architectural Engineering, 27(3). https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)ae.1943-5568.0000494. Chan, D. W. M., & Kumaraswamy, M. M. (1997). A comparative study of causes of time overruns in Hong Kong construction projects. International Journal of Project Management, 15(1), 55–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0263-7863(96)00039-7. 74 Dahlin, P., & Pesämaa, O. (2021). Drivers of cost and time overruns: A client and contractor perspective. Organization, Technology and Management in Construction: an International Journal, 13(1), 2374–2382. https://doi.org/10.2478/otmcj-2021-0006. DLR Group (2018). “Tall With Timber: A Seattle Mass Timber Tower Case Study”, Available at: https://www.woodworks.org/resources/tall-with-timber-a-seattle-mass-timber-tower- case-study/. Accessed on Oct 31, 2022. Durdyev, S. (2020). Review of construction journals on causes of Project Cost Overruns. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 28(4), 1241–1260. https://doi.org/10.1108/ecam-02-2020-0137 Faridi, A. S., & El‐Sayegh, S. M. (2006). Significant factors causing delay in the UAE Construction Industry. Construction Management and Economics, 24(11), 1167–1176. https://doi.org/10.1080/01446190600827033 Fragiacomo, M., Smith, T., and Pampanin, S. (2009). “Construction Time and Cost for Post- Tensioned Timber Buildings”. Construction Materials Gomar, J. E., Haas, C. T., & Morton, D. P. (2002). Assignment and allocation optimization of partially multiskilled workforce. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 128(2), 103–109. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)0733-9364(2002)128:2(103) Goodland, H., Lam, A., Chudasma, D., Staub-French, S., & Zadeh, P. (2019). Strategies for Collaborative Construction: Integrated Project Delivery Case Studies. Burnaby, British Columbia: BC Housing Research Centre. Retrieved February 28, 2023, from https://www.bchousing.org/publications/Strategies-Collaborative-Construction.pdf. Gunduz, M., & Mohammad, K. O. (2019). Assessment of Change Order Impact Factors on construction project performance using Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 26(1), 71–85. https://doi.org/10.3846/tede.2019.11262. Hallowell, M. R., & Gambatese, J. A. (2010). Qualitative research: Application of the Delphi method to CEM Research. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 136(1), 99–107. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)co.1943-7862.0000137. Hanna, A. S., & Iskandar, K. A. (2017). Quantifying and modeling the cumulative impact of change orders. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 143(10). https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)co.1943-7862.0001385. Hsieh, T.-ya, Lu, S.-tong, & Wu, C.-hui. (2004). Statistical analysis of causes for change orders in metropolitan public works. International Journal of Project Management, 22(8), 679– 686. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2004.03.005. 75 Ibbs, W. (2012). Construction change: Likelihood, severity, and impact on productivity. Journal of Legal Affairs and Dispute Resolution in Engineering and Construction, 4(3), 67–73. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)la.1943-4170.0000089 International Building Code (IBC) (2018). International Codes Council. Retrieved November 1, 2023, from https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/IBC2018/chapter-6-types-of-construction. Kermanshachi, S., Rouhanizadeh, B., & Govan, P. (2021). Developing management policies and analyzing impact of change orders on labor productivity in construction projects. Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology, 20(5), 1257–1279. https://doi.org/10.1108/jedt- 10-2020-0428. Khalifa, W. M., & Mahamid, I. (2019). Causes of change orders in construction projects. Engineering, Technology & Applied Science Research, 9(6), 4956–4961. https://doi.org/10.48084/etasr.3168 Kim, S., Chang, S., & Castro-Lacouture, D. (2020). Dynamic modeling for analyzing impacts of skilled labor shortage on construction project management. Journal of Management in Engineering, 36(1). https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)me.1943-5479.0000720 Knight, K., & Fayek, A. R. (2000). A preliminary study of the factors affecting the cost escalation of construction projects. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 27(1), 73–83. https://doi.org/10.1139/l99-057. Kremer, P. D., & Ritchie, L. (2018). Understanding costs and identifying value in mass timber construction: calculating the ‘total cost of project’(TCP). Mass Timber Construction Journal, 1(1), 14-18. Liang, S., Gu, H., & Bergman, R. (2021). Environmental Life-Cycle Assessment and life-cycle cost analysis of a high-rise mass timber building: A case study in pacific northwestern united states. Sustainability, 13(14), 7831. https://doi.org/10.3390/su1314783. Liu, M. (2013). Investigation of the impact of BIM&IPD on change orders using bayesian network method. Applied Mechanics and Materials, 397-400, 2064–2068. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/amm.397-400.2064. Mallo, M. F. L., & Espinoza, O. (2015). Awareness, perceptions and willingness to adopt cross- laminated timber by the architecture community in the United States. Journal of Cleaner Production, 94, 198–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.01.090. Mallo, M. F. L., & Espinoza, O. (2016, August). Cross-laminated timber vs. concrete/steel: Cost comparison using a case study. In Proceedings of the World Conference on Timber Engineering–WCTE, Vienna, Austria (pp. 22-25). 76 Mansfield, N. R., Ugwu, O. O., & Doran, T. (1994). Causes of delay and cost overruns in Nigerian Construction Projects. International Journal of Project Management, 12(4), 254– 260. https://doi.org/10.1016/0263-7863(94)90050-7. Marsh McLennan (2021). Building with Cross Laminated Timber: Insurance Considerations. Retrieved February 2, 2023, from https://www.marsh.com/uk/industries/real- estate/insights/building-cross-laminated-timber-insurance-considerations.html. McDermott, R. E., Mikulak, R. J., & Beauregard, M. R. (2009). The basics of Fmea. Taylor & Francis. McLain, R., & Brodahl, S. G. (2021). (tech.). Insurance for Mass Timber Construction: Assessing Risk and Providing Answers. WoodWorks. Retrieved February 4, 2023, from https://www.woodworks.org/wp-content/uploads/wood_solution_paper- MassTimber_INSURANCE.pdf. Meeampol, S., & Ogunlana, S. O. (2006). Factors affecting cost and time performance on Highway Construction Projects: Evidence from Thailand. Journal of Financial Management of Property and Construction, 11(1), 3–20. https://doi.org/10.1108/13664380680001076 Mpofu, B., Ochieng, E. G., Moobela, C., & Pretorius, A. (2017). Profiling causative factors leading to construction project delays in the United Arab Emirates. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 24(2), 346–376. https://doi.org/10.1108/ecam-05-2015-0072. Musarat, M. A., Alaloul, W. S., & Liew, M. S. (2021). Impact of inflation rate on Construction Projects Budget: A Review. Ain Shams Engineering Journal, 12(1), 407–414. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2020.04.009 Naji, K. K., Gunduz, M., & Naser, A. F. (2022). Construction Change Order Management Project Support System utilizing Delphi Method. JOURNAL OF CIVIL ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT, 28(7), 564–589. https://doi.org/10.3846/jcem.2022.17203 Niu, Y; Rasi, K; Hughes, M; Halme, M; and Fink, G. (2021). Prolonging life cycles of construction materials and combating climate change by cascading: The case of reusing timber in Finland. In Resources Conservation & Recycling. 170 (2021) 105555. Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105555. Olawale, Y. A., & Sun, M. (2010). Cost and time control of construction projects: Inhibiting factors and mitigating measures in practice. Construction Management and Economics, 28(5), 509–526. https://doi.org/10.1080/01446191003674519. Oyewobi, L. O., Jimoh, R., Ganiyu, B. O., & Shittu, A. A. (2016). Analysis of causes and impact of variation order on educational building projects. Journal of Facilities Management, 14(2), 139–164. https://doi.org/10.1108/jfm-01-2015-0001. 77 Plugge, P. W. (2007). An evidence-based comparison of construction project delivery (thesis). Colorado State University. Pourrostam, T., Ismail, A., & Mansournejad, M. (2011). Identification and evaluation of causes and effects of change orders in building construction projects. Applied Mechanics and Materials, 94-96, 2261–2264. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/amm.94-96.2261 Pourrostam, T., Ismail, A., Soleymanzadeh, A., & Gouyounchizad, M. (2012). An investigation of procedures of change orders’ control in Roadway Construction Projects. Advanced Materials Research, 446-449, 3778–3781. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/amr.446-449.3778. Richardson, B. (2018, April 18). Labor shortage is creating challenges to finding qualified contractors for home repairs. The Washington Post (Online). Retrieved November 14, 2022, from http://ezproxy.msu.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/blogs-podcasts- websites/labor-shortage-is-creating-challenges finding/docview/2027450619/se- 2?accountid=12598 Riley, D. R., Diller, B. E., & Kerr, D. (2005). Effects of delivery systems on change order size and frequency in mechanical construction. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 131(9), 953–962. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)0733-9364(2005)131:9(953). Scouse, A., Kelley, S. S., Liang, S., & Bergman, R. (2020). Regional and net economic impacts of high-rise mass timber construction in Oregon. Sustainable Cities and Society, 61, 102154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2020.102154. Shrestha, P. P., & Fathi, M. (2019). Impacts of change orders on cost and schedule performance and the correlation with project size of DB building projects. Journal of Legal Affairs and Dispute Resolution in Engineering and Construction, 11(3). https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)la.1943-4170.0000311 Shrestha, P. P., & Zeleke, H. (2018). Effect of change orders on cost and schedule overruns of school building renovation projects. Journal of Legal Affairs and Dispute Resolution in Engineering and Construction, 10(4). https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)la.1943- 4170.0000271 Sinesilassie, E. G., Tabish, S. Z., & Jha, K. N. (2017). Critical factors affecting cost performance: A case of Ethiopian Public Construction Projects. International Journal of Construction Management, 18(2), 108–119. https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2016.1277058 Smith, R. E., Griffin, G., & Rice, T. (2015). Solid Timber Construction Process, Practice, Performance (V. 1.1). The Integrated Technology in Architecture Center. Retrieved February 4, 2023, from https://thinkwood-wordpress.s3.amazonaws.com/wp- content/uploads/2020/09/22162254/Solid_Timber_Construction_Report_August_2015.pdf. 78 Staub-French, S., Pilon, A., Poirier, E., Fallahi, A., Kasbar, M., Calderon, F., Teshnizi, Z., & Froese, T. (2021). Construction process innovation on Brock Commons Tallwood House. Construction Innovation, 22(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1108/ci-11-2019-0117. Structurlam. (2022). North America's mass timber industry, and its ascent to the global stage. Structurlam Mass Timber Corporation. Retrieved February 19, 2023, from https://www.structurlam.com/whats-new/news/north-americas-mass-timber-industry-and- its-ascent-to-the-global-stage/. Suleiman, A. (2022). Causes and effects of poor communication in the construction industry in the MENA region. JOURNAL OF CIVIL ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT, 28(5), 365–376. https://doi.org/10.3846/jcem.2022.16728 Sunday, O. A. (2010). Impact of variation orders on public construction projects. In 26th Annual ARCOM Conference, Leeds, UK. The Wood Products Council. (2022). (rep.). Mass Timber Business Case Studies. WoodWorks. Retrieved January 20, 2022, from https://www.woodworks.org/resources/mass-timber- business-case-studies/. Verrastro, S., & Baum, M. I. (2022). The Fundamentals of Change Orders in Construction. Retrieved December 10, 2022, from https://learn.aiacontracts.com/articles/6378493-the- fundamentals-of-change-orders-in-construction/. Von der Gracht, H. A. (2012). Consensus measurement in Delphi Studies. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 79(8), 1525–1536. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2012.04.013 Wu, C. H., Hsieh, T. Y., Cheng, W. L., & Lu, S. T. (2004). Grey relation analysis of causes for change orders in highway construction. Construction Management and Economics, 22(5), 509–520. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144619042000202735. Zelaya, A. (2020). Identifying Drivers and Barriers for Investment in Oregon’s Mass Timber Manufacturing Supply Chain. Tallwood Design Institute. 79 APPENDIX A: ALL TYPES OF CHANGE ORDERS Sr No . Pr No . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Actual Cost $75,757, 653.93 $16,204, 676.38 $16,204, 676.38 $16,204, 676.38 $167,158 ,118.61 $167,158 ,118.61 $167,158 ,118.61 $167,158 ,118.61 $60,395, 128.55 $60,395, 128.55 $60,395, 128.55 $60,395, 128.55 $60,395, 128.55 $60,395, 128.55 $60,395, 128.55 $60,395, 128.55 Actua l Cost MT $566,4 04 $1,934 ,062 $1,934 ,062 $1,934 ,062 $14,74 6,460 $14,74 6,460 $14,74 6,460 $14,74 6,460 $2,464 ,942 $2,464 ,942 $2,464 ,942 $2,464 ,942 $2,464 ,942 $2,464 ,942 $2,464 ,942 $2,464 ,942 Gro ss Are a 260 000 18,1 80 18,1 80 18,1 80 310, 000 310, 000 310, 000 310, 000 81,0 00 81,0 00 81,0 00 81,0 00 81,0 00 81,0 00 81,0 00 81,0 00 Table A.1: All types of change orders Buildi ng Type Constr uction Type Office Not IV Other Not IV Other Not IV Other Not IV Multi- Family Multi- Family Multi- Family Multi- Family IV IV IV IV Other Not IV Other Not IV Other Not IV Other Not IV Other Not IV Other Not IV Other Not IV Other Not IV Project Delivery Method Design - Bid- Build Design - Bid- Build Design - Bid- Build Design - Bid- Build Design - Bid- Build Design - Bid- Build Design - Bid- Build Design - Bid- Build Design - Bid- Build Design - Bid- Build Design - Bid- Build Design - Bid- Build Design - Bid- Build Design - Bid- Build Design - Bid- Build Design - Bid- Build CO Sou rce Ow ner Ow ner Ow ner Ow ner Ow ner Ow ner Ow ner Ow ner Ow ner Ow ner Ow ner Ow ner Ow ner Ow ner Ow ner Ow ner CO Cost/ Gross Area -0.24 1.20 2.12 1.09 0.16 0.16 0.29 0.50 0.30 1.36 0.15 0.03 0.11 0.02 0.03 0.02 CO Constr uction Phase Constr uction Constr uction Constr uction Constr uction Constr uction Constr uction Constr uction Constr uction Constr uction Constr uction Constr uction Constr uction Constr uction Constr uction Constr uction Constr uction 80 Table A.1 (cont’d) 17 5 18 5 19 5 20 5 21 6 22 6 23 6 24 6 25 6 26 6 27 7 28 7 29 7 30 8 31 8 32 8 33 8 34 8 35 8 36 8 $15,134, 038.81 $15,134, 038.81 $15,134, 038.81 $15,134, 038.81 $13,655, 134.77 $13,655, 134.77 $13,655, 134.77 $13,655, 134.77 $13,655, 134.77 $13,655, 134.77 $30,637, 641.48 $30,637, 641.48 $30,637, 641.48 $41,791, 650.18 $41,791, 650.18 $41,791, 650.18 $41,791, 650.18 $41,791, 650.18 $41,791, 650.18 $41,791, 650.18 $1,30 3,360 $1,30 3,360 $1,30 3,360 $1,30 3,360 $1,75 0,112 $1,75 0,112 $1,75 0,112 $1,75 0,112 $1,75 0,112 $1,75 0,112 $3,59 9,890 $3,59 9,890 $3,59 9,890 $4,64 0,224 $4,64 0,224 $4,64 0,224 $4,64 0,224 $4,64 0,224 $4,64 0,224 $4,64 0,224 21,8 16 21,8 17 21,8 18 21,8 18 24,5 00 24,5 00 24,5 00 24,5 00 24,5 00 24,5 00 68,0 00 68,0 00 68,0 00 51,0 00 51,0 00 51,0 00 51,0 00 51,0 00 51,0 00 51,0 00 Higher Educati on Higher Educati on Higher Educati on Higher Educati on Not IV Design - Bid- Build Not IV Design - Bid- Build Not IV Design - Bid- Build Not IV Design - Office Not IV Office Not IV Office Not IV Office Not IV Office Not IV Office Not IV Multi- Family Multi- Family Multi- Family IV IV IV Other Not IV Other Not IV Other Not IV Other Not IV Other Not IV Other Not IV Other Not IV Bid- Build Design - Bid- Build Design - Bid- Build Design - Bid- Build Design - Bid- Build Design - Bid- Build Design - Bid- Build Design Assist Design Assist Design Assist Design Assist Design Assist Design Assist Design Assist Design Assist Design Assist Design Assist Ow ner Ow ner Ow ner Ow ner Ow ner Ow ner Ow ner Ow ner Ow ner Ow ner Ow ner Ow ner Ow ner Ow ner Ow ner Ow ner Ow ner Ow ner Ow ner Ow ner 0.10 0.34 -0.02 1.22 1.50 0.26 0.50 0.63 0.48 0.25 0.03 0.01 0.08 4.22 0.83 1.86 0.50 0.40 0.37 0.03 Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction 81 Table A.1 (cont’d) 37 9 38 9 39 9 40 9 41 9 42 9 43 9 44 9 45 10 46 11 47 11 48 11 49 11 50 11 51 12 52 13 53 13 54 13 55 13 56 14 57 14 $1,840,0 56.38 $1,840,0 56.38 $1,840,0 56.38 $1,840,0 56.38 $1,840,0 56.38 $1,840,0 56.38 $1,840,0 56.38 $1,840,0 56.38 $12,105, 585.19 $1,684,1 67.05 $1,684,1 67.05 $1,684,1 67.05 $1,684,1 67.05 $1,684,1 67.05 $104,854 .26 $107,032 ,427.12 $107,032 ,427.12 $107,032 ,427.12 $107,032 ,427.12 $45,350, 595.80 $45,350, 595.80 $1,84 0,056 $1,84 0,056 $1,84 0,056 $1,84 0,056 $1,84 0,056 $1,84 0,056 $1,84 0,056 $1,84 0,056 $733, 767 $1,68 4,167 $1,68 4,167 $1,68 4,167 $1,68 4,167 $1,68 4,167 $11,8 28 $9,54 3,360 $9,54 3,360 $9,54 3,360 $9,54 3,360 $3,99 9,206 $3,99 9,206 51,0 00 51,0 00 51,0 00 51,0 00 51,0 00 51,0 00 51,0 00 51,0 00 18,0 00 18,5 00 18,5 00 18,5 00 18,5 00 18,5 00 2,50 0 107, 000 107, 000 107, 000 107, 000 48,3 95 48,3 95 Office Not IV Office Not IV Office Not IV Office Not IV Office Not IV Office Not IV Office Not IV Office Not IV Other Not IV Other Not IV Other Not IV Other Not IV Other Not IV Other Not IV Other Not IV Office Not IV Office Not IV Office Not IV Office Not IV Design Assist Design Assist Design Assist Design Assist Design Assist Design Assist Design Assist Design Assist Design Assist Design - Bid- Build Design - Bid- Build Design - Bid- Build Design - Bid- Build Design - Bid- Build Design - Bid- Build Design - Bid- Build Design - Bid- Build Design - Bid- Build Design - Bid- Build Higher Educati on Higher Educati on Not IV Design Assist Not IV Design Assist Ow ner Ow ner Ow ner Ow ner Ow ner Ow ner Ow ner Ow ner Ow ner Ow ner Ow ner Ow ner Ow ner Ow ner Ow ner Ow ner Ow ner Ow ner Ow ner Ow ner Ow ner 1.00 0.88 -0.31 -0.19 -0.17 0.24 0.06 0.21 0.00 1.99 0.39 0.40 0.05 0.13 2.54 0.31 0.00 0.02 0.38 5.29 3.16 Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Closeo ut Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Pre Constru ction Constru ction 82 Table A.1 (cont’d) 58 14 59 14 60 14 61 14 62 14 63 15 64 15 65 15 66 15 67 15 68 15 69 15 70 15 71 15 $45,350, 595.80 $45,350, 595.80 $45,350, 595.80 $45,350, 595.80 $45,350, 595.80 $62,236, 840.22 $62,236, 840.22 $62,236, 840.22 $62,236, 840.22 $62,236, 840.22 $62,236, 840.22 $62,236, 840.22 $62,236, 840.22 $62,236, 840.22 48,3 95 48,3 95 48,3 95 48,3 95 48,3 95 400, 000 400, 000 400, 000 400, 000 400, 000 400, 000 400, 000 400, 000 400, 000 $3,99 9,206 $3,99 9,206 $3,99 9,206 $3,99 9,206 $3,99 9,206 $62,2 36,84 0 $62,2 36,84 0 $62,2 36,84 0 $62,2 36,84 0 $62,2 36,84 0 $62,2 36,84 0 $62,2 36,84 0 $62,2 36,84 0 $62,2 36,84 0 Higher Educati on Higher Educati on Higher Educati on Higher Educati on Higher Educati on Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Not IV Design Assist Not IV Design Assist Not IV Design Assist Not IV Design Assist Not IV Design Assist Not IV Design Assist Not IV Design Assist Not IV Design Assist Not IV Design Assist Not IV Design Assist Not IV Design Assist Not IV Design Assist Not IV Design Assist Not IV Design Assist Ow ner Ow ner Ow ner Ow ner Ow ner Ow ner Ow ner Ow ner Ow ner Ow ner Ow ner Ow ner Ow ner Ow ner Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Pre Constru ction Pre Constru ction Pre Constru ction Pre Constru ction Pre Constru ction Pre Constru ction Pre Constru ction Pre Constru ction Pre Constru ction 0.29 0.18 0.24 1.19 -2.08 0.03 0.40 0.04 0.00 9.11 0.04 38.41 0.12 0.22 83 Table A.1 (cont’d) 72 15 73 15 74 15 75 15 76 15 77 15 78 15 79 15 80 15 81 15 82 15 83 15 84 15 85 15 $62,236, 840.22 $62,236, 840.22 $62,236, 840.22 $62,236, 840.22 $62,236, 840.22 $62,236, 840.22 $62,236, 840.22 $62,236, 840.22 $62,236, 840.22 $62,236, 840.22 $62,236, 840.22 $62,236, 840.22 $62,236, 840.22 $62,236, 840.22 $62,2 36,84 0 $62,2 36,84 0 $62,2 36,84 0 $62,2 36,84 0 $62,2 36,84 0 $62,2 36,84 0 $62,2 36,84 0 $62,2 36,84 0 $62,2 36,84 0 $62,2 36,84 0 $62,2 36,84 0 $62,2 36,84 0 $62,2 36,84 0 $62,2 36,84 0 400, 000 400, 000 400, 000 400, 000 400, 000 400, 000 400, 000 400, 000 400, 000 400, 000 400, 000 400, 000 400, 000 400, 000 Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Not IV Design Assist Not IV Design Assist Not IV Design Assist Not IV Design Assist Not IV Design Assist Not IV Design Assist Not IV Design Assist Not IV Design Assist Not IV Design Assist Not IV Design Assist Not IV Design Assist Not IV Design Assist Not IV Design Assist Not IV Design Assist Ow ner Ow ner Ow ner Ow ner Ow ner Ow ner Ow ner Ow ner Ow ner Ow ner Ow ner Ow ner Ow ner Ow ner Pre Constru ction Pre Constru ction Pre Constru ction Pre Constru ction Pre Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction 1.52 45.14 0.91 -0.09 3.76 2.05 0.94 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.51 0.13 84 Table A.1 (cont’d) 86 15 87 15 88 15 89 15 90 15 91 15 92 15 93 15 94 15 95 15 96 15 97 15 98 15 99 15 $62,236, 840.22 $62,236, 840.22 $62,236, 840.22 $62,236, 840.22 $62,236, 840.22 $62,236, 840.22 $62,236, 840.22 $62,236, 840.22 $62,236, 840.22 $62,236, 840.22 $62,236, 840.22 $62,236, 840.22 $62,236, 840.22 $62,236, 840.22 $62,2 36,84 0 $62,2 36,84 0 $62,2 36,84 0 $62,2 36,84 0 $62,2 36,84 0 $62,2 36,84 0 $62,2 36,84 0 $62,2 36,84 0 $62,2 36,84 0 $62,2 36,84 0 $62,2 36,84 0 $62,2 36,84 0 $62,2 36,84 0 $62,2 36,84 0 400, 000 400, 000 400, 000 400, 000 400, 000 400, 000 400, 000 400, 000 400, 000 400, 000 400, 000 400, 000 400, 000 400, 000 Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Not IV Design Assist Not IV Design Assist Not IV Design Assist Not IV Design Assist Not IV Design Assist Not IV Design Assist Not IV Design Assist Not IV Design Assist Not IV Design Assist Not IV Design Assist Not IV Design Assist Not IV Design Assist Not IV Design Assist Not IV Design Assist Ow ner Ow ner Ow ner Ow ner Ow ner Ow ner Ow ner Ow ner Ow ner Ow ner Ow ner Ow ner Ow ner Ow ner 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.36 1.20 0.05 0.13 0.01 0.41 0.03 0.01 0.06 0.01 0.01 Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Pre Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Pre Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction 85 Table A.1 (cont’d) 10 0 10 1 10 2 10 3 10 4 10 5 10 6 10 7 10 8 10 9 11 0 11 1 11 2 11 3 11 4 11 5 11 6 11 7 15 15 15 15 16 16 17 17 17 18 18 18 18 18 18 19 19 19 $62,236, 840.22 $62,236, 840.22 $62,236, 840.22 $62,236, 840.22 $1,668,0 46.76 $1,668,0 46.76 $2,107,0 90.83 $2,107,0 90.83 $2,107,0 90.83 $6,986,8 74.63 $6,986,8 74.63 $6,986,8 74.63 $6,986,8 74.63 $6,986,8 74.63 $6,986,8 74.63 $4,907,1 77.16 $4,907,1 77.16 $4,907,1 77.16 $62,2 36,84 0 $62,2 36,84 0 $62,2 36,84 0 $62,2 36,84 0 $168, 005 $168, 005 $2,10 7,091 $2,10 7,091 $2,10 7,091 $1,20 6,396 $1,20 6,396 $1,20 6,396 $1,20 6,396 $1,20 6,396 $1,20 6,396 $4,14 0,314 $4,14 0,314 $4,14 0,314 400, 000 400, 000 400, 000 400, 000 2,00 0 2,00 0 81,6 96 81,6 96 81,6 96 22,0 00 22,0 00 22,0 00 22,0 00 22,0 00 22,0 00 94,0 00 94,0 00 94,0 00 Other Other Other Other Not IV Design Assist Not IV Design Assist Not IV Design Assist Not IV Design Assist Office Not IV Design Assist Design Assist Office Not IV Other Not IV Design - Other Not IV Other Not IV Bid- Build Design - Bid- Build Design - Bid- Build Office Not IV Design - Office Not IV Office Not IV Office Not IV Office Not IV Office Not IV Multi- Family Multi- Family Multi- Family Not IV Not IV Not IV Bid- Build Design - Bid- Build Design - Bid- Build Design - Bid- Build Design - Bid- Build Design - Bid- Build Design - Bid- Build Design - Bid- Build Design - Bid- Build Ow ner Ow ner Ow ner Ow ner Ow ner Ow ner Ow ner Ow ner Ow ner Ow ner Ow ner Ow ner Ow ner Ow ner Ow ner Ow ner Ow ner Ow ner Closeo ut Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Pre Constru ction Closeo ut Pre Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Pre Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction 0.22 -0.11 0.00 0.01 43.68 1.23 -0.90 0.84 0.52 -0.70 -4.74 1.32 -0.12 0.26 0.13 0.21 0.07 0.04 86 Table A.1 (cont’d) 11 8 11 9 12 0 12 1 12 2 12 3 12 4 12 5 12 6 12 7 12 8 12 9 13 0 13 1 13 2 13 3 19 20 20 21 21 21 21 21 22 22 22 22 23 23 23 24 $4,907,1 77.16 $13,060, 221.22 $13,060, 221.22 $3,178,4 34.84 $3,178,4 34.84 $3,178,4 34.84 $3,178,4 34.84 $3,178,4 34.84 $271,088 ,435.37 $271,088 ,435.37 $271,088 ,435.37 $271,088 ,435.37 $1,115,0 77.78 $1,115,0 77.78 $1,115,0 77.78 $46,050, 350.80 $4,14 0,314 $2,93 8,545 $2,93 8,545 $862, 581 $862, 581 $862, 581 $862, 581 $862, 581 $2,84 7,549 $2,84 7,549 $2,84 7,549 $2,84 7,549 $1,11 5,078 $1,11 5,078 $1,11 5,078 $1,97 7,673 94,0 00 16,1 00 16,1 00 30,0 00 30,0 00 30,0 00 30,0 00 30,0 00 22,0 00 22,0 00 22,0 00 22,0 00 40,9 53 40,9 53 40,9 53 60,4 00 Multi- Family Not IV Other Not IV Other Not IV Design - Bid- Build Design - Bid- Build Design - Bid- Build Higher Educati on Higher Educati on Higher Educati on Higher Educati on Higher Educati on Higher Educati on Higher Educati on Higher Educati on Higher Educati on Higher Educati on Higher Educati on Higher Educati on Not IV Design - Bid- Build Not IV Design - Bid- Build Not IV Design - Bid- Build Not IV Design - Bid- Build Not IV Design - Bid- Build Not IV Design Assist Not IV Design Assist Not IV Design Assist Not IV Design Assist IV IV IV Design Assist Design Assist Design Assist Design Assist Other Not IV Ow ner Ow ner Ow ner Ow ner Ow ner Ow ner Ow ner Ow ner Ow ner Ow ner Ow ner Ow ner Ow ner Ow ner Ow ner Ow ner Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Closeo ut Closeo ut Pre Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction 0.70 14.24 11.74 1.37 1.96 0.67 0.47 0.72 3.45 0.12 0.42 1.52 0.42 2.38 0.05 0.90 87 Table A.1 (cont’d) 13 4 13 5 13 6 13 7 13 8 13 9 14 0 14 1 14 2 14 3 14 4 14 5 14 6 14 7 14 8 14 9 15 0 15 1 15 2 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 25 25 25 25 25 25 26 26 26 26 $46,050, 350.80 $46,050, 350.80 $46,050, 350.80 $46,050, 350.80 $46,050, 350.80 $46,050, 350.80 $46,050, 350.80 $46,050, 350.80 $46,050, 350.80 $43,139, 377.54 $43,139, 377.54 $43,139, 377.54 $43,139, 377.54 $43,139, 377.54 $43,139, 377.54 $135,940 ,304 $135,940 ,304 $135,940 ,304 $135,940 ,304 $1,97 7,673 $1,97 7,673 $1,97 7,673 $1,97 7,673 $1,97 7,673 $1,97 7,673 $1,97 7,673 $1,97 7,673 $1,97 7,673 $1,69 9,415 $1,69 9,415 $1,69 9,415 $1,69 9,415 $1,69 9,415 $1,69 9,415 $14,8 27,56 8 $14,8 27,56 8 $14,8 27,56 8 $14,8 27,56 8 60,4 00 60,4 00 60,4 00 60,4 00 60,4 00 60,4 00 60,4 00 60,4 00 60,4 00 56,5 00 56,5 00 56,5 00 56,5 00 56,5 00 56,5 00 482, 862. 00 482, 862. 00 482, 862. 00 482, 862. 00 Other Not IV Other Not IV Other Not IV Other Not IV Other Not IV Other Not IV Other Not IV Other Not IV Other Not IV Other Not IV Other Not IV Other Not IV Other Not IV Other Not IV Other Not IV Multi- Family Multi- Family Multi- Family Multi- Family IV IV IV IV Design Assist Design Assist Design Assist Design Assist Design Assist Design Assist Design Assist Design Assist Design Assist Design Assist Design Assist Design Assist Design Assist Design Assist Design Assist Design Assist Design Assist Design Assist Design Assist Ow ner Ow ner Ow ner Ow ner Ow ner Ow ner Ow ner Ow ner Ow ner Ow ner Ow ner Ow ner Ow ner Ow ner Ow ner Ow ner Ow ner Con trac tor Con trac tor 2.13 2.62 0.59 0.24 0.29 0.38 0.59 0.43 0.51 0.11 0.30 0.49 0.25 0.05 0.19 -0.25 0.13 0.64 0.13 Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Pre Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction 88 Table A.1 (cont’d) 15 3 15 4 15 5 15 6 15 7 15 8 15 9 16 0 16 1 16 2 26 26 26 26 26 $135,940 ,304 $135,940 ,304 $135,940 ,304 $135,940 ,304 $135,940 ,304 26 $135,940 ,304 26 $135,940 ,304 26 $135,940 ,304 26 $135,940 ,304 26 $135,940 ,304 16 3 26 $135,940 ,304 482, 862. 00 482, 862. 00 482, 862. 00 482, 862. 00 482, 862. 00 482, 862. 00 482, 862. 00 482, 862. 00 482, 862. 00 482, 862. 00 482, 862. 00 $14,8 27,56 8 $14,8 27,56 8 $14,8 27,56 8 $14,8 27,56 8 $14,8 27,56 8 $14,8 27,56 8 $14,8 27,56 8 $14,8 27,56 8 $14,8 27,56 8 $14,8 27,56 8 $14,8 27,56 8 Multi- Family Multi- Family Multi- Family Multi- Family Multi- Family IV IV IV IV IV Multi- Family IV Multi- Family IV Multi- Family IV Multi- Family IV Multi- Family IV Multi- Family IV Design Assist Design Assist Design Assist Design Assist Design Assist Design Assist Design Assist Design Assist Design Assist Design Assist Design Assist Con trac tor Con trac tor Con trac tor Con trac tor Con trac tor Sub cont ract or Sub cont ract or Sub cont ract or Con trac tor Unf ores een Pro ble ms Unf ores een Pro ble ms 0.03 0.05 0.32 0.03 0.04 0.02 0.03 0.14 0.33 0.07 0.08 Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction 89 Table A.1 (cont’d) 16 4 16 5 16 6 16 7 16 8 16 9 17 0 17 1 17 2 17 3 17 4 17 5 26 $135,940 ,304 26 $135,940 ,304 26 $135,940 ,304 26 27 27 27 27 $135,940 ,304 $71,426, 903 $71,426, 903 $71,426, 903 $71,426, 903 27 $71,426, 903 27 27 $71,426, 903 $71,426, 903 27 $71,426, 903 $14,8 27,56 8 $14,8 27,56 8 $14,8 27,56 8 $14,8 27,56 8 $10,8 81,53 2 $10,8 81,53 2 $10,8 81,53 2 $10,8 81,53 2 $10,8 81,53 2 $10,8 81,53 2 $10,8 81,53 2 $10,8 81,53 2 482, 862. 00 482, 862. 00 482, 862. 00 482, 862. 00 200, 000. 00 200, 000. 00 200, 000. 00 200, 000. 00 200, 000. 00 200, 000. 00 200, 000. 00 200, 000. 00 Multi- Family IV Design Assist Multi- Family IV Multi- Family IV Multi- Family IV Office IV Office IV Office IV Office IV Office IV Office IV Office IV Office IV Design Assist Design Assist Design Assist Design Assist Design Assist Design Assist Design Assist Design Assist Design Assist Design Assist Design Assist Des igne r Unf ores een Pro ble ms Unf ores een Pro ble ms Ow ner Con trac tor Ow ner Ow ner Con trac tor Sub cont ract or Con trac tor Con trac tor Sub cont ract or Constru ction 0.04 0.05 0.25 -0.37 1.31 0.07 0.06 0.02 0.09 0.18 0.01 0.05 Constru ction Constru ction Closeo ut Pre Constru ction Pre Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction 90 Table A.1 (cont’d) 17 6 17 7 17 8 17 9 18 0 18 1 18 2 18 3 18 4 18 5 18 6 18 7 27 27 27 27 27 27 28 $71,426, 903 $71,426, 903 $71,426, 903 $71,426, 903 $71,426, 903 $71,426, 903 $87,894, 693 29 $5,165,3 15 29 $5,165,3 15 29 $5,165,3 15 29 $5,165,3 15 29 $5,165,3 15 200, 000. 00 200, 000. 00 200, 000. 00 200, 000. 00 200, 000. 00 200, 000. 00 170, 431. 00 20,3 00.0 0 20,3 00.0 0 20,3 00.0 0 20,3 00.0 0 20,3 00.0 0 $10,8 81,53 2 $10,8 81,53 2 $10,8 81,53 2 $10,8 81,53 2 $10,8 81,53 2 $10,8 81,53 2 $1,49 6,040 $709, 502 $709, 502 $709, 502 $709, 502 $709, 502 Office IV Office IV Office IV Office IV Office IV Office IV Design Assist Design Assist Design Assist Design Assist Design Assist Design Assist Other Not IV Design Assist Multi- Family Not IV Multi- Family Not IV Multi- Family Not IV Design Assist Design Assist Design Assist Multi- Family Not IV Design Assist Multi- Family Not IV Design Assist Ow ner Con trac tor Con trac tor Con trac tor Ow ner Ow ner Unf ores een Pro ble ms Sub cont ract or Sub cont ract or Ow ner Unf ores een Pro ble ms 0.03 0.19 0.02 0.00 1.87 0.43 0.00 0.38 0.31 1.80 0.95 0.93 Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Closeo ut Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction 91 Table A.1 (cont’d) 18 8 30 $22,713, 096 18 9 31 $7,442,5 89 19 0 31 $7,442,5 89 19 1 19 2 19 3 19 4 19 5 19 6 19 7 32 $73,802, 088 32 32 $73,802, 088 $73,802, 088 32 $73,802, 088 32 $73,802, 088 32 $73,802, 088 32 $73,802, 088 87,0 00.0 0 8,11 6.00 8,11 6.00 212, 000. 00 212, 000. 00 212, 000. 00 212, 000. 00 212, 000. 00 212, 000. 00 212, 000. 00 $4,28 7,416 $367, 395 $367, 395 $8,36 6,616 $8,36 6,616 $8,36 6,616 $8,36 6,616 $8,36 6,616 $8,36 6,616 $8,36 6,616 Multi- Family Not IV Design Assist Other Not IV Design - Bid- Build Design - Bid- Build Design Assist Design Assist Design Assist Design Assist Design Assist Design Assist Design Assist Other Not IV Other IV Other IV Other IV Other IV Other IV Other IV Other IV Sub cont ract or Unf ores een Pro ble ms Unf ores een Pro ble ms Sub cont ract or Con trac tor Con trac tor Sub cont ract or Con trac tor Sub cont ract or Sub cont ract or 3.23 0.26 0.66 0.03 0.03 0.14 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.05 Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction 92 Table A.1 (cont’d) 19 8 19 9 20 0 20 1 20 2 20 3 20 4 20 5 20 6 20 7 20 8 32 $73,802, 088 32 $73,802, 088 32 $73,802, 088 32 $73,802, 088 32 $73,802, 088 32 $73,802, 088 32 $73,802, 088 32 $73,802, 088 32 $73,802, 088 32 33 $73,802, 088 $130,363 ,083 212, 000. 00 212, 000. 00 212, 000. 00 212, 000. 00 212, 000. 00 212, 000. 00 212, 000. 00 212, 000. 00 212, 000. 00 212, 000. 00 160, 000. 00 $8,36 6,616 $8,36 6,616 $8,36 6,616 $8,36 6,616 $8,36 6,616 $8,36 6,616 $8,36 6,616 $8,36 6,616 $8,36 6,616 $8,36 6,616 $9,98 8,915 Other IV Other IV Other IV Other IV Other IV Other IV Other IV Other IV Other IV Other IV Design Assist Design Assist Design Assist Design Assist Design Assist Design Assist Design Assist Design Assist Design Assist Design Assist Higher Educati on Not IV Design Assist Sub cont ract or Sub cont ract or Con trac tor Sub cont ract or Des igne r Unf ores een Pro ble ms Sub cont ract or Des igne r Unf ores een Pro ble ms Con trac tor Des igne r 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.00 0.03 0.22 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.13 0.11 Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Closeo ut Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction 93 Table A.1 (cont’d) 20 9 21 0 21 1 21 2 21 3 21 4 21 5 21 6 21 7 21 8 21 9 22 0 22 1 22 2 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 $130,363 ,083 $130,363 ,083 $130,363 ,083 $130,363 ,083 $130,363 ,083 $130,363 ,083 $130,363 ,083 $130,363 ,083 $130,363 ,083 $130,363 ,083 $130,363 ,083 $130,363 ,083 $130,363 ,083 $130,363 ,083 160, 000. 00 160, 000. 00 160, 000. 00 160, 000. 00 160, 000. 00 160, 000. 00 160, 000. 00 160, 000. 00 160, 000. 00 160, 000. 00 160, 000. 00 160, 000. 00 160, 000. 00 160, 000. 00 $9,98 8,915 $9,98 8,915 $9,98 8,915 $9,98 8,915 $9,98 8,915 $9,98 8,915 $9,98 8,915 $9,98 8,915 $9,98 8,915 $9,98 8,915 $9,98 8,915 $9,98 8,915 $9,98 8,915 $9,98 8,915 Higher Educati on Higher Educati on Higher Educati on Higher Educati on Higher Educati on Higher Educati on Higher Educati on Higher Educati on Higher Educati on Higher Educati on Higher Educati on Higher Educati on Higher Educati on Higher Educati on Not IV Design Assist Not IV Design Assist Not IV Design Assist Not IV Design Assist Not IV Design Assist Not IV Design Assist Not IV Design Assist Not IV Design Assist Not IV Design Assist Not IV Design Assist Not IV Design Assist Not IV Design Assist Not IV Design Assist Not IV Design Assist Des igne r Des igne r Oth er Des igne r Des igne r Des igne r Ow ner Des igne r Des igne r Des igne r Des igne r Des igne r Des igne r Des igne r 0.26 0.30 0.06 0.07 0.47 2.15 0.00 0.28 1.93 0.47 0.08 0.03 0.40 0.17 Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Pre Constru ction Closeo ut Pre Constru ction Pre Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction 94 Table A.1 (cont’d) 22 3 22 4 22 5 22 6 22 7 22 8 22 9 23 0 23 1 23 2 23 3 23 4 23 5 23 6 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 $130,363 ,083 $130,363 ,083 $130,363 ,083 $130,363 ,083 $130,363 ,083 $130,363 ,083 $130,363 ,083 $130,363 ,083 $130,363 ,083 $130,363 ,083 $130,363 ,083 $130,363 ,083 $130,363 ,083 $130,363 ,083 160, 000. 00 160, 000. 00 160, 000. 00 160, 000. 00 160, 000. 00 160, 000. 00 160, 000. 00 160, 000. 00 160, 000. 00 160, 000. 00 160, 000. 00 160, 000. 00 160, 000. 00 160, 000. 00 $9,98 8,915 $9,98 8,915 $9,98 8,915 $9,98 8,915 $9,98 8,915 $9,98 8,915 $9,98 8,915 $9,98 8,915 $9,98 8,915 $9,98 8,915 $9,98 8,915 $9,98 8,915 $9,98 8,915 $9,98 8,915 Higher Educati on Higher Educati on Higher Educati on Higher Educati on Higher Educati on Higher Educati on Higher Educati on Higher Educati on Higher Educati on Higher Educati on Higher Educati on Higher Educati on Higher Educati on Higher Educati on Not IV Design Assist Not IV Design Assist Not IV Design Assist Not IV Design Assist Not IV Design Assist Not IV Design Assist Not IV Design Assist Not IV Design Assist Not IV Design Assist Not IV Design Assist Not IV Design Assist Not IV Design Assist Not IV Design Assist Not IV Design Assist Des igne r Des igne r Des igne r Des igne r Des igne r Des igne r Des igne r Des igne r Des igne r Des igne r Des igne r Des igne r Des igne r Des igne r -0.14 0.09 0.02 0.18 0.10 0.04 0.28 0.14 0.05 -0.04 0.04 0.10 0.15 0.01 Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction 95 Table A.1 (cont’d) 23 7 23 8 23 9 33 34 34 $130,363 ,083 $33,108, 484 $33,108, 484 160, 000. 00 47,0 00.0 0 47,0 00.0 0 $9,98 8,915 $2,53 8,819 $2,53 8,819 Higher Educati on Higher Educati on Higher Educati on Not IV Design Assist Not IV Design Assist Not IV Design Assist Des igne r Des igne r Con trac tor 0.02 0.61 0.33 Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction 96 APPENDIX B: OWNER DRIVEN CHANGE ORDERS Sr No . PROJ ECT Actual Cost 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 17 5 $75,757, 653.93 $16,204, 676.38 $16,204, 676.38 $16,204, 676.38 $167,158 ,118.61 $167,158 ,118.61 $167,158 ,118.61 $167,158 ,118.61 $60,395, 128.55 $60,395, 128.55 $60,395, 128.55 $60,395, 128.55 $60,395, 128.55 $60,395, 128.55 $60,395, 128.55 $60,395, 128.55 $15,134, 038.81 Actua l Cost MT $566,4 04 $1,934 ,062 $1,934 ,062 $1,934 ,062 $14,74 6,460 $14,74 6,460 $14,74 6,460 $14,74 6,460 $2,464 ,942 $2,464 ,942 $2,464 ,942 $2,464 ,942 $2,464 ,942 $2,464 ,942 $2,464 ,942 $2,464 ,942 $1,303 ,360 Gro ss Are a 260 000 18,1 80 18,1 80 18,1 80 310, 000 310, 000 310, 000 310, 000 81,0 00 81,0 00 81,0 00 81,0 00 81,0 00 81,0 00 81,0 00 81,0 00 21,8 16 Building Type Constr uction Type Project Delivery Method Office Not IV Other Not IV Other Not IV Other Not IV Multi- Family Multi- Family Multi- Family Multi- Family IV IV IV IV Other Not IV Other Not IV Other Not IV Other Not IV Other Not IV Other Not IV Other Not IV Other Not IV Design - Bid- Build Design - Bid- Build Design - Bid- Build Design - Bid- Build Design - Bid- Build Design - Bid- Build Design - Bid- Build Design - Bid- Build Design - Bid- Build Design - Bid- Build Design - Bid- Build Design - Bid- Build Design - Bid- Build Design - Bid- Build Design - Bid- Build Design - Bid- Build CO Cost/ Gross Area -0.24 1.20 2.12 1.09 0.16 0.16 0.29 0.50 0.30 1.36 0.15 0.03 0.11 0.02 0.03 0.02 Higher Educatio n Not IV Design - 0.10 Bid- Build CO Constr uction Phase Constr uction Constr uction Constr uction Constr uction Constr uction Constr uction Constr uction Constr uction Constr uction Constr uction Constr uction Constr uction Constr uction Constr uction Constr uction Constr uction Constr uction Table B.1: Owner driven change orders 97 Table B.1 (cont’d) 18 5 19 5 20 5 21 6 22 6 23 6 24 6 25 6 26 6 27 7 28 7 29 7 30 8 31 8 32 8 33 8 34 8 35 8 36 8 37 9 $15,134, 038.81 $15,134, 038.81 $15,134, 038.81 $13,655, 134.77 $13,655, 134.77 $13,655, 134.77 $13,655, 134.77 $13,655, 134.77 $13,655, 134.77 $30,637, 641.48 $30,637, 641.48 $30,637, 641.48 $41,791, 650.18 $41,791, 650.18 $41,791, 650.18 $41,791, 650.18 $41,791, 650.18 $41,791, 650.18 $41,791, 650.18 $1,840,0 56.38 $1,303 ,360 $1,303 ,360 $1,303 ,360 $1,750 ,112 $1,750 ,112 $1,750 ,112 $1,750 ,112 $1,750 ,112 $1,750 ,112 $3,599 ,890 $3,599 ,890 $3,599 ,890 $4,640 ,224 $4,640 ,224 $4,640 ,224 $4,640 ,224 $4,640 ,224 $4,640 ,224 $4,640 ,224 $1,840 ,056 21, 817 21, 818 21, 818 24, 500 24, 500 24, 500 24, 500 24, 500 24, 500 68, 000 68, 000 68, 000 51, 000 51, 000 51, 000 51, 000 51, 000 51, 000 51, 000 51, 000 Higher Educatio n Higher Educatio n Higher Educatio n Not IV Design - 0.34 Bid- Build Not IV Design - -0.02 Bid- Build Not IV Design - 1.22 Office Not IV Office Not IV Office Not IV Office Not IV Office Not IV Office Not IV Multi- Family Multi- Family Multi- Family IV IV IV Other Not IV Other Not IV Other Not IV Other Not IV Other Not IV Other Not IV Other Not IV Office Not IV Bid- Build Design - Bid- Build Design - Bid- Build Design - Bid- Build Design - Bid- Build Design - Bid- Build Design - Bid- Build Design Assist Design Assist Design Assist Design Assist Design Assist Design Assist Design Assist Design Assist Design Assist Design Assist Design Assist 1.50 0.26 0.50 0.63 0.48 0.25 0.03 0.01 0.08 4.22 0.83 1.86 0.50 0.40 0.37 0.03 1.07 Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction 98 Table B.1 (cont’d) 38 9 39 9 40 9 41 9 42 9 43 9 44 9 46 11 47 11 48 11 49 11 50 11 51 12 52 13 53 13 54 13 55 13 56 14 57 14 $1,840,0 56.38 $1,840,0 56.38 $1,840,0 56.38 $1,840,0 56.38 $1,840,0 56.38 $1,840,0 56.38 $1,840,0 56.38 $1,684,1 67.05 $1,684,1 67.05 $1,684,1 67.05 $1,684,1 67.05 $1,684,1 67.05 $104,854 .26 $107,032 ,427.12 $107,032 ,427.12 $107,032 ,427.12 $107,032 ,427.12 $45,350, 595.80 $45,350, 595.80 $1,840 ,056 $1,840 ,056 $1,840 ,056 $1,840 ,056 $1,840 ,056 $1,840 ,056 $1,840 ,056 $1,684 ,167 $1,684 ,167 $1,684 ,167 $1,684 ,167 $1,684 ,167 $11,82 8 $9,543 ,360 $9,543 ,360 $9,543 ,360 $9,543 ,360 $3,999 ,206 $3,999 ,206 51, 000 51, 000 51, 000 51, 000 51, 000 51, 000 51, 000 18, 500 18, 500 18, 500 18, 500 18, 500 2,5 00 107 ,00 0 107 ,00 0 107 ,00 0 107 ,00 0 48, 395 48, 395 Office Not IV Office Not IV Office Not IV Office Not IV Office Not IV Office Not IV Office Not IV Other Not IV Other Not IV Other Not IV Other Not IV Other Not IV Other Not IV Design Assist Design Assist Design Assist Design Assist Design Assist Design Assist Design Assist Design - Bid- Build Design - Bid- Build Design - Bid- Build Design - Bid- Build Design - Bid- Build Design - Bid- Build 0.95 -0.33 -0.20 -0.18 0.26 0.06 0.22 1.99 0.39 0.40 0.05 0.13 2.54 Office Not IV Design - 0.31 Bid- Build Office Not IV Design - 0.00 Bid- Build Office Not IV Design - 0.02 Bid- Build Office Not IV Design - 0.38 Bid- Build Higher Educatio n Higher Educatio n Not IV Design Assist Not IV Design Assist 5.29 3.16 Constru ction Constru ction Closeo ut Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Pre Constru ction Constru ction 99 Table B.1 (cont’d) 58 14 59 14 60 14 61 14 62 14 63 15 64 15 65 15 66 15 67 15 68 15 69 15 70 15 71 15 $45,350, 595.80 $45,350, 595.80 $45,350, 595.80 $45,350, 595.80 $45,350, 595.80 $62,236, 840.22 $62,236, 840.22 $62,236, 840.22 $62,236, 840.22 $62,236, 840.22 $62,236, 840.22 $62,236, 840.22 $62,236, 840.22 $62,236, 840.22 $3,999 ,206 $3,999 ,206 $3,999 ,206 $3,999 ,206 $3,999 ,206 $62,23 6,840 $62,23 6,840 $62,23 6,840 $62,23 6,840 $62,23 6,840 $62,23 6,840 $62,23 6,840 $62,23 6,840 $62,23 6,840 Higher Educatio n Higher Educatio n Higher Educatio n Higher Educatio n Higher Educatio n Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other 48, 395 48, 395 48, 395 48, 395 48, 395 400 ,00 0 400 ,00 0 400 ,00 0 400 ,00 0 400 ,00 0 400 ,00 0 400 ,00 0 400 ,00 0 400 ,00 0 Not IV Design Assist Not IV Design Assist Not IV Design Assist Not IV Design Assist 0.29 0.18 0.24 1.19 Not IV Design Assist -2.08 Not IV Design Assist Not IV Design Assist Not IV Design Assist Not IV Design Assist Not IV Design Assist Not IV Design Assist 0.03 0.40 0.04 0.00 9.11 0.04 Not IV Design Assist 38.41 Not IV Design Assist Not IV Design Assist 0.12 0.22 Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Pre Constru ction Pre Constru ction Pre Constru ction Pre Constru ction Pre Constru ction Pre Constru ction Pre Constru ction Pre Constru ction Pre Constru ction 100 Table B.1 (cont’d) 72 15 73 15 74 15 75 15 76 15 77 15 78 15 79 15 80 15 81 15 82 15 83 15 84 15 85 15 $62,236, 840.22 $62,236, 840.22 $62,236, 840.22 $62,236, 840.22 $62,236, 840.22 $62,236, 840.22 $62,236, 840.22 $62,236, 840.22 $62,236, 840.22 $62,236, 840.22 $62,236, 840.22 $62,236, 840.22 $62,236, 840.22 $62,236, 840.22 $62,23 6,840 $62,23 6,840 $62,23 6,840 $62,23 6,840 $62,23 6,840 $62,23 6,840 $62,23 6,840 $62,23 6,840 $62,23 6,840 $62,23 6,840 $62,23 6,840 $62,23 6,840 $62,23 6,840 $62,23 6,840 400 ,00 0 400 ,00 0 400 ,00 0 400 ,00 0 400 ,00 0 400 ,00 0 400 ,00 0 400 ,00 0 400 ,00 0 400 ,00 0 400 ,00 0 400 ,00 0 400 ,00 0 400 ,00 0 Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Not IV Design Assist Not IV Design Assist Not IV Design Assist Not IV Design Assist Not IV Design Assist Not IV Design Assist Not IV Design Assist Not IV Design Assist Not IV Design Assist Not IV Design Assist Not IV Design Assist Not IV Design Assist Not IV Design Assist Not IV Design Assist 1.52 45.14 0.91 -0.09 3.76 2.05 0.94 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.51 0.13 Pre Constru ction Pre Constru ction Pre Constru ction Pre Constru ction Pre Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction 101 Table B.1 (cont’d) 86 15 87 15 88 15 89 15 90 15 91 15 92 15 93 15 94 15 95 15 96 15 97 15 98 15 99 15 $62,236, 840.22 $62,236, 840.22 $62,236, 840.22 $62,236, 840.22 $62,236, 840.22 $62,236, 840.22 $62,236, 840.22 $62,236, 840.22 $62,236, 840.22 $62,236, 840.22 $62,236, 840.22 $62,236, 840.22 $62,236, 840.22 $62,236, 840.22 $62,23 6,840 $62,23 6,840 $62,23 6,840 $62,23 6,840 $62,23 6,840 $62,23 6,840 $62,23 6,840 $62,23 6,840 $62,23 6,840 $62,23 6,840 $62,23 6,840 $62,23 6,840 $62,23 6,840 $62,23 6,840 400 ,00 0 400 ,00 0 400 ,00 0 400 ,00 0 400 ,00 0 400 ,00 0 400 ,00 0 400 ,00 0 400 ,00 0 400 ,00 0 400 ,00 0 400 ,00 0 400 ,00 0 400 ,00 0 Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Not IV Design Assist Not IV Design Assist Not IV Design Assist Not IV Design Assist Not IV Design Assist Not IV Design Assist Not IV Design Assist Not IV Design Assist Not IV Design Assist Not IV Design Assist Not IV Design Assist Not IV Design Assist Not IV Design Assist Not IV Design Assist 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.36 1.20 0.05 0.13 0.01 0.41 0.03 0.01 0.06 0.01 0.01 Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Pre Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Pre Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction 102 Table B.1 (cont’d) 10 0 10 1 10 2 10 3 10 4 10 5 10 6 10 7 10 8 10 9 11 0 11 1 11 2 11 3 11 4 11 5 11 6 11 7 15 15 15 15 16 16 17 17 17 18 18 18 18 18 18 19 19 19 $62,236, 840.22 $62,236, 840.22 $62,236, 840.22 $62,236, 840.22 $1,668,0 46.76 $1,668,0 46.76 $2,107,0 90.83 $2,107,0 90.83 $2,107,0 90.83 $6,986,8 74.63 $6,986,8 74.63 $6,986,8 74.63 $6,986,8 74.63 $6,986,8 74.63 $6,986,8 74.63 $4,907,1 77.16 $4,907,1 77.16 $4,907,1 77.16 $62,23 6,840 $62,23 6,840 $62,23 6,840 $62,23 6,840 $168,0 05 $168,0 05 $2,107 ,091 $2,107 ,091 $2,107 ,091 $1,206 ,396 $1,206 ,396 $1,206 ,396 $1,206 ,396 $1,206 ,396 $1,206 ,396 $4,140 ,314 $4,140 ,314 $4,140 ,314 400 ,00 0 400 ,00 0 400 ,00 0 400 ,00 0 2,0 00 2,0 00 81, 696 81, 696 81, 696 22, 000 22, 000 22, 000 22, 000 22, 000 22, 000 94, 000 94, 000 94, 000 Other Other Other Other Not IV Design Assist Not IV Design Assist Not IV Design Assist Not IV Design Assist Office Not IV Office Not IV Design Assist Design Assist 0.22 -0.11 0.00 0.01 43.68 1.23 Other Not IV Design - -0.90 Other Not IV Other Not IV Bid- Build Design - Bid- Build Design - Bid- Build 0.84 0.52 Office Not IV Design - -0.70 Office Not IV Office Not IV Office Not IV Office Not IV Office Not IV Multi- Family Multi- Family Multi- Family Not IV Not IV Not IV Bid- Build Design - Bid- Build Design - Bid- Build Design - Bid- Build Design - Bid- Build Design - Bid- Build Design - Bid- Build Design - Bid- Build Design - Bid- Build -4.74 1.32 -0.12 0.26 0.13 0.21 0.07 0.04 Closeo ut Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Pre Constru ction Closeo ut Pre Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Pre Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction 103 Table B.1 (cont’d) 11 8 11 9 12 0 12 1 12 2 12 3 12 4 12 5 12 6 12 7 12 8 12 9 13 0 13 1 13 2 13 3 19 20 20 21 21 21 21 21 22 22 22 22 23 23 23 24 $4,907,1 77.16 $13,060, 221.22 $13,060, 221.22 $3,178,4 34.84 $3,178,4 34.84 $3,178,4 34.84 $3,178,4 34.84 $3,178,4 34.84 $271,088 ,435.37 $271,088 ,435.37 $271,088 ,435.37 $271,088 ,435.37 $1,115,0 77.78 $1,115,0 77.78 $1,115,0 77.78 $46,050, 350.80 $4,140 ,314 $2,938 ,545 $2,938 ,545 $862,5 81 $862,5 81 $862,5 81 $862,5 81 $862,5 81 $2,847 ,549 $2,847 ,549 $2,847 ,549 $2,847 ,549 $1,115 ,078 $1,115 ,078 $1,115 ,078 $1,977 ,673 94, 000 16, 100 16, 100 30, 000 30, 000 30, 000 30, 000 30, 000 22, 000 22, 000 22, 000 22, 000 40, 953 40, 953 40, 953 60, 400 Multi- Family Not IV Other Not IV Other Not IV Design - Bid- Build Design - Bid- Build Design - Bid- Build 0.70 14.24 11.74 Higher Educatio n Higher Educatio n Higher Educatio n Higher Educatio n Higher Educatio n Higher Educatio n Higher Educatio n Higher Educatio n Higher Educatio n Higher Educatio n Higher Educatio n Higher Educatio n Not IV Design - 1.37 Bid- Build Not IV Design - 1.96 Bid- Build Not IV Design - 0.67 Bid- Build Not IV Design - 0.47 Bid- Build Not IV Design - 0.72 Bid- Build Not IV Design Assist Not IV Design Assist Not IV Design Assist Not IV Design Assist IV IV IV Design Assist Design Assist Design Assist Design Assist 3.45 0.12 0.42 1.52 0.42 2.38 0.05 0.90 Other Not IV Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Closeo ut Closeo ut Pre Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction 104 Table B.1 (cont’d) 13 4 13 5 13 6 13 7 13 8 13 9 14 0 14 1 14 2 14 3 14 4 14 5 14 6 14 7 14 8 14 9 15 0 15 1 15 2 15 3 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 25 25 25 25 25 25 26 26 26 27 27 $46,050, 350.80 $46,050, 350.80 $46,050, 350.80 $46,050, 350.80 $46,050, 350.80 $46,050, 350.80 $46,050, 350.80 $46,050, 350.80 $46,050, 350.80 $43,139, 377.54 $43,139, 377.54 $43,139, 377.54 $43,139, 377.54 $43,139, 377.54 $43,139, 377.54 $135,940 ,304.40 $135,940 ,304.40 $135,940 ,304.40 $71,426, 902.56 $71,426, 902.56 $1,977 ,673 $1,977 ,673 $1,977 ,673 $1,977 ,673 $1,977 ,673 $1,977 ,673 $1,977 ,673 $1,977 ,673 $1,977 ,673 $1,699 ,415 $1,699 ,415 $1,699 ,415 $1,699 ,415 $1,699 ,415 $1,699 ,415 $12,26 9,487. 00 $12,26 9,487. 00 $12,26 9,487. 00 71951 91 71951 91 Other Not IV Other Not IV Other Not IV Other Not IV Other Not IV Other Not IV Other Not IV Other Not IV Other Not IV Other Not IV Other Not IV Other Not IV Other Not IV Other Not IV Other Not IV 60, 400 60, 400 60, 400 60, 400 60, 400 60, 400 60, 400 60, 400 60, 400 56, 500 56, 500 56, 500 56, 500 56, 500 56, 500 482 862 Multi- Family 482 862 Multi- Family 482 862 Multi- Family IV IV IV 200 000 200 000 Office IV Office IV Design Assist Design Assist Design Assist Design Assist Design Assist Design Assist Design Assist Design Assist Design Assist Design Assist Design Assist Design Assist Design Assist Design Assist Design Assist Design Assist Design Assist Design Assist Design Assist Design Assist 2.13 2.62 0.59 0.24 0.29 0.38 0.59 0.43 0.51 0.11 0.30 0.49 0.25 0.05 0.19 -0.25 0.13 Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Pre Constru ction Constru ction -0.36 Closeo 0.07 0.06 ut Pre Constru ction Constru ction 105 Table B.1 (cont’d) 15 4 15 5 15 6 15 7 15 8 27 27 27 29 33 $71,426, 902.56 $71,426, 902.56 $71,426, 902.56 $5,165,3 15.40 $130,363 ,082.81 71951 91 71951 91 71951 91 69503 6 70373 60 200 000 200 000 200 000 203 00 160 000 Office IV Office IV Office IV Multi- Family Higher Educatio n Not IV Not IV Design Assist Design Assist Design Assist Design Assist Design Assist 0.03 1.87 0.43 0.95 0.00 Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Constru ction Pre Constru ction 106