| dc.description.abstract | Bello and Odusami (2012), Durdyev et al. (2012), Kamala et al. (2019) have postulated that every client or consultant would like to execute a project within the agreed final cost of the project, hence contingency sum is included to avoid cost overruns due to variations and changes in prices especially in developing economies. Hoseini et al. (2020) stated that the inclusion of contingency sum increases the level of project success and the level of confidence to address unforeseen events. But in the construction industry in a developing economy such as Uganda, the determination and administration of contingency sum is associated with challenges, the incidence of construction cost overrun in Uganda has become a source of concern to the consultants and contractors. Quest for some contractors to get jobs reduces contingency percentages so as to be competitive, the monotonous use of the traditional method of determining cost contingency based entirely on past
1|Page experience, the short time for tender submission and high competition do not allow tenderers to assess the different determination methods for estimating contingency sum. It has become so alarming that one keeps on wondering and questioning the reliability of the estimates. Having put these measures in place, one expects that the cost objective of the projects would be achieved. Contrary to expectations, issues of construction cost overruns are still on the increase hence the need to evaluate the effectiveness of contingency sum, it’s management in construction process and determine how it can be improved. | en_US |
