Rework: what it costs a contractor
Work done twice: poured to the wrong level, built off the wrong drawing, redone after a failed test.
The record holds 5 figures on rework from 5 sources. No Queensland-specific figure yet; the Australian figures apply.
Rework statistics: the table, questions and answers
No figurenobody has published a defensible oneContractor bore rework cost directly on 93% of projects; 23% of yearly profit lostAustraliaModerate confidenceContractor loss
What it is. Incidence and profit impact, not a share of contract value.
Sample. 98 projects with complete cost data (of 346 projects and 19,605 rework events), one contractor, six years of ledger data, public and private clients, building and infrastructure.
What it is not. Recorded rework was only 0.39% of contract value - the ledgers undercount. Margins were 6-9%, which is why 0.39% wiped out roughly a quarter of yearly profit. The 2018 paper on the same data reports 28%; cite one and say which.
Where it came from
- Love, Ika, Ahiaga-Dagbui, Locatelli & Sing (2019), Make-or-break during production: the costs of reworkabstract; results p.11 of the accepted manuscript · source record
12.3%of contract valueDirect 6.4% plus indirect 5.9% rework cost, 161 Australian professionalsAustraliaModerate confidenceContractor loss
What it is. 12.3% of total contract value, direct plus indirect.
Sample. National survey of 161 construction professionals about recently completed Australian projects. Mixed sectors.
What it is not. A perception survey. Design consultants' and project managers' estimates differed significantly. A 'total of 10%' appeared only in a search snippet, not the abstract, so it is not cited from this paper.
Our arithmetic. 6.4% direct + 5.9% indirect = 12.3% (both from the abstract; the sum is ours)
Where it came from
- Love & Edwards (2005), Calculating total rework costs in Australian construction projectsabstract · source record
10%of contract valueMean total rework cost, 115 Australian civil infrastructure projectsAustraliaModerate confidenceContractor loss
What it is. 10% of contract value, including indirect costs.
Sample. Questionnaire survey covering 115 Australian civil infrastructure projects. The only peer-reviewed figure specific to civil work.
What it is not. Respondents' estimates, not measured cost records. Rework amount correlated significantly with cost and schedule growth (p<0.01).
Where it came from
- Love, Edwards, Watson & Davis (2010), Rework in Civil Infrastructure Projects: Determination of Cost Predictorsabstract · source record
5%of construction costDirect rework 'often' 5% of construction cost (framing in a US study of 359 projects)USLow confidenceMoney at stake
What it is. 5% of total construction cost, direct rework only.
Sample. The paper analyses 359 projects in the CII database, mostly US industrial and commercial.
What it is not. The 5% is the abstract's opening framing, not the paper's own measured result, and who bears the cost is not measured.
Where it came from
- Hwang, Thomas, Haas & Caldas (2009), Measuring the Impact of Rework on Construction Cost Performanceabstract, read on TRID: https://trid.trb.org/view/884832 · source record
0.38%of contract valueRework as recorded in one contractor's books, 0.38% rising to 0.76%Place unknownLow confidenceContractor lossSecond-hand
What it is. 0.38% of contract value, direct cost only, as recorded pre-completion.
Sample. One contractor's project data, collected by its quality managers. Adding post-completion corrections raises the average to 0.76%.
What it is not. SECONDARY - the paper itself returned 403 and was read through ASCE's news write-up. The article gives no sample size, country or sector. The same study found actual costs underreported by around 300%, which is the number that matters here: most rework is never written down as rework.
Where it came from
- Love (2026), Quantifying the Costs of Field Rework in Construction second-handabstract, as reported · source recordRead via: ASCE Civil Engineering Source, 22 Jan 2026: https://www.asce.org/publications-and-news/civil-engineering-source/article/2026/01/22/how-much-does-field-rework-in-construction-actually-cost (the paper itself returned 403)
3%of construction costMean field rework above 3% of construction-phase cost, 150+ US heavy industrial projectsUSLow confidenceMoney at stakeSecond-handWithdrawn
Withdrawn. The figure cannot be traced to the source it cites. On 2026-09-25 two agents read CII's page for RS153-1 independently and neither found "above 3%" or "more than 150 projects" on it; the page carries no figure or sample size at all. Other write-ups attribute conflicting numbers to CII's field-rework research (a 5% mean, 144 projects, 4.6% for buildings) without page references. The full report is paywalled and was not read. The figure can return when someone reads the report and cites the page.
What it is. 3% of construction-phase cost, field rework; the mean is above this figure.
Sample. More than 150 heavy industrial projects, US, 2001.
What it is not. Seen on CII's summary page only; the report was not read. Industrial, not civil, and 25 years old. Who bears the cost is not measured.
Where it came from
- Construction Industry Institute (2001), The Field Rework Index: Early Warning for Field Rework and Cost Growth (RS153-1) second-handproduct page summary · source recordRead via: CII's product page for the report; the report itself was not read
No rework figures match this filter.
Cost drift: what it costs a contractor
The job costing more than it was priced at, and how much of that the contractor carries.
The record holds 6 figures on cost drift from 6 sources. Queensland: 1 figure, including 13.8% of the year's capital budget (Queensland Government capital spending against budget, 2023-24).
Cost drift statistics: the table, questions and answers
13.8%of the year's capital budgetQueensland Government capital spending against budget, 2023-24QLDModerate confidenceOwner's money
What it is. 13.8% of the state's budgeted capital expenditure for the year, all portfolios.
Sample. The whole Queensland Government capital program, compiled by the Queensland Audit Office from state capital statements. 16.4% in 2022-23; about 15% a year on average since.
What it is not. The state's money, not a contractor's, and a spending variance for the year, not the cost growth of any project: spending can run ahead of budget because work is brought forward as well as because it costs more. The QAO restated the 2022-23 figure between reports (14% in 2023, 16.4% in 2024).
Where it came from
- Queensland Audit Office (2025), Major projects 2024 (Report 9: 2024-25) · free copy'Report on a page'; Chapter 2, commentary on Figure 2B, p.5 · source record
23%of contract valueMean overrun from contract award, 16 Australian rail projectsAustraliaModerate confidenceMoney at stake
What it is. 23% of original contract value, final versus original.
Sample. 16 rail projects by a single contractor, AU$0.5b+, mostly WA, 2011-2014. Scope changes accounted for 99% of the cost increase; lump-sum projects that overran averaged 12.83%.
What it is not. Mostly scope variations the owner paid, not contractor losses. Median 12.3% against a mean of 23%, so a few projects dominate. Recorded as money_at_stake for that reason.
Where it came from
- Love, Zhou, Edwards, Irani & Sing (2017), Off the rails: The cost performance of infrastructure rail projectsabstract, p.1 and Table 2 of the open-access preprint · source record
7%of contract valueFinal loss on 28 completed Australian infrastructure megaprojects, largest contractorsAustraliaModerate confidenceContractor loss
What it is. 7% of contract value, final profit at completion: the 9% tendered margin plus a further 7% (a 16-point swing).
Sample. 28 completed mega projects over A$500m, Australia, commenced 2000 to 2015, road, rail, water and social infrastructure, PPP and design-and-construct, from Tier 1 contractors' open-book project data.
What it is not. Megaprojects only: the paper excluded projects under A$500m because most of them made money, so this is not the loss on a typical civil job. The sample is selected for risk (PPP and D&C, alliances excluded). Grattan 2021, which cited it, doubts it: 'The study does not explain why shareholders would tolerate such a pattern of losses.'
Our arithmetic. Table 1, Total row: tendered profit A$3,328m at 9%, so contract value about A$37.0b; final profit A$(2,681)m, about (7.2%). The paper states the same result as "its original 9% profit margin plus a further deterioration of 7%" (abstract). Its "net profit (16%)" is final minus tendered, by its own definition on p.12, so it is not the loss as a share of contract value.
Where it came from
- Ryan & Duffield (2017), Contractor Performance on Mega Projects - Avoiding the Pitfalls · free copyTable 1, Total row (pp.12-13); definition of net profit (p.12); abstract (p.1) · source record
History
- 2026-09-25 Read at source for the first time (previously second-hand via Grattan 2021). The paper gives the final result as a share of contract value, so the figure moves from an unquantified margin swing to a 7% loss; the grade moves from low (second-hand) to moderate (a sample selected for risk).
24%of the first promised costFinal cost over the first promised cost, 836 Australian transport projectsAustraliaModerate confidenceOwner's money
What it is. 24% of the first publicly promised cost, final versus promised.
Sample. 836 Australian transport projects of $20m or more, 2001-2016; $28 billion over in total; 34% of projects went over.
What it is not. Measured from the first promise, mostly before any contractor is signed, and paid by the owner (the taxpayer). The median overrun is 0%: a few projects dominate the mean.
Where it came from
- Terrill & Danks (Grattan Institute) (2016), Cost overruns in transport infrastructurePDF pp.9, 29 · source record
20%of the budget at the decision to buildAverage cost escalation on roads, 258 transport projects in 20 countriesGlobalHigh confidenceOwner's money
What it is. 20% of budget, decision to build versus actual cost, real terms.
Sample. Roads average 20% (N=167, sd=30); all project types average 28% (N=258, sd=39). Rail, bridge, tunnel and road projects across five continents.
What it is not. Measured from the decision to build, so most of it arises BEFORE a contractor is signed, and much of it is paid by the client. This is NOT a figure for what a contractor loses, which is why it is recorded as owner_side and excluded from the headline.
Where it came from
- Flyvbjerg, Holm & Buhl (2004), What Causes Cost Overrun in Transport Infrastructure Projects?p.5 · source record
No cost drift figures match this filter.
Missed claims: what it costs a contractor
Variations, extensions of time, delay costs and retention the contract allowed and nobody claimed in time. Includes weather.
The record holds 6 figures on missed claims from 6 sources. Queensland: 2 figures, including 36.9% of the amount claimed (Share of the amount claimed in Queensland adjudication dismissed for no jurisdiction (246 decisions, 2022-23)).
Missed claims statistics: the table, questions and answers
36.9%of the amount claimedShare of the amount claimed in Queensland adjudication dismissed for no jurisdiction (246 decisions, 2022-23)QLDModerate confidenceMoney at stake
What it is. 36.9% of the total amount claimed across 246 adjudication decisions: claims the adjudicator could not decide at all.
Sample. 246 published Queensland adjudication decisions, March 2022 to August 2023; 66 (26.8%) were no-jurisdiction decisions.
What it is not. A nominating authority's own count of published decisions, not the regulator's statistics. A no-jurisdiction decision means the claim failed on procedure, such as timing or form, not on its merits, and the claimant may have other routes to recover, so this is money put at risk by procedure rather than a proven loss.
Our arithmetic. $70,119,333.18 claimed in no-jurisdiction decisions / $189,905,327.50 claimed across all 246 decisions = 0.3692 (the author calls it 'almost 37%').
Where it came from
- Adjudicate Today (2023), What is happening under the Building Industry Fairness (Security of Payment) Act 2017 QLD?article body, the author's tally of 246 Queensland decisions · source record
9%of construction costContract variations as a share of project cost, Queensland public infrastructure (QAO audit)QLDModerate confidenceMoney at stake
What it is. 9% of the cost of the projects examined: over A$127 million in contract variations.
Sample. The Queensland Government infrastructure projects (mostly schools and public buildings) examined in QAO Report 16: 2021-22. One project, Fortitude Valley State Secondary College, reached 21.5% of its original contract value.
What it is not. A handful of audited building projects, not a sample of Queensland civil work. The denominator is total project cost, not the original contract value. Variations are money the client agreed to pay, the size of the pot, not a contractor loss. Corroborates the 10.6% change-order figure (67 Australian projects) from a Queensland regulator.
Where it came from
- Queensland Audit Office (2022), Contract management for new infrastructure (Report 16: 2021-22) · free copy'Audit conclusions'; definition of contract variation under 'Are contract variations effectively managed?' · source record
10.6%of contract valueClient-approved change orders, 67 Australian public infrastructure projectsAustraliaModerate confidenceMoney at stake
What it is. 10.6% of original contract value, client-approved change orders.
Sample. 67 completed public infrastructure projects from one contractor, Australia, civil. Mean change orders were about AU$5.1m and made up 11% of work value 2011-2014.
What it is not. SIZE OF THE POT, NOT A LOSS. No study measures how much of it a typical contractor fails to claim. Change orders were linked to HIGHER contractor margins, which is the opposite of a loss.
Where it came from
- Love, Irani, Smith, Regan & Liu (2017), Cost Performance of Public Infrastructure Projects: The Nemesis and Nirvana of Change-Orders · free copyTable 2; accepted manuscript, Change-Orders section · source record
A$2,010per wet day (2025 AUD)Time-related site overhead per working day, Australian estimatorsAustraliaLow confidenceContractor loss
What it is. AUD per working day at the high end (AU$870 at the low end), 20 wet days is AU$17,400 to AU$40,300.
Range A$870 to A$2,010 (scenario)
Sample. 30 senior Australian estimators put about 45.49% of preliminaries as time-related for the whole job; preliminaries are 10-20% of the contract sum. On a $5M job that is AU$870 to AU$2,010 per working day, depending on the overhead rate and the working days in the year.
What it is not. A WORKED EXAMPLE, NOT A MEASUREMENT. Both inputs are weaker than we would like: the 10-20% preliminaries figure is a UK 2002 number cited second-hand, and the estimators' survey was mostly building work. No open Australian civil source gives either number. Use your own rates if you have them. The unit is per wet day, so this figure is never multiplied by a contract value. Price year taken from the source's data year; not yet confirmed against the source's tables.
Our arithmetic. Worked on a $5M contract. High end: 5,000,000 x 20% preliminaries x 45.49% time-related = 454,900 a year, / 226 working days = 2,013, shown as 2,010. Low end: 5,000,000 x 10% x 45.49% = 227,450 a year, / 261 working days = 871, shown as 870. The 45.49% is table 6; the 10% to 20% is the introduction, citing Chan & Pasquire 2002.
Where it came from
- O'Leary & Vaz-Serra (2025), Challenges in pricing preliminaries costs for contractors: An Australian case studyintroduction citing Chan & Pasquire 2002; table 6 (30 Australian estimators) · source record
4.9%of contract valueAverage retention held, 419 clients and 508 contractors (UK)UKModerate confidenceMoney at stake
What it is. 4.9% of contract value, held until the defects liability period ends.
Sample. 419 clients and 508 contractors surveyed, UK, all construction. Retention was not received back at all after the defects liability period on 5% of tier-1, 10.8% of tier-2 and 13.1% of tier-3 contracts.
What it is not. The money is held, not lost, until it is not returned. UK data from 2017 with no comparable Australian study; the authors say some tier differences are not statistically robust.
Where it came from
- Pye Tait Consulting for BEIS (2017), Retentions in the Construction Industryexecutive summary; table p.92 · source record
No figurenobody has published a defensible oneNo published figure for weather cost as a share of contract valueUKLow confidenceContractor loss
What it is. None - the only share-of-cost figures found are a single residential project and a perception survey.
Sample. UK national weather data and standard building activities; a model with a worked example, not observed projects. Found UK weather extends durations by an average of 21%.
What it is not. Recorded as `none` on purpose. The research pass found only two cost-as-percent figures: 4% on one Sydney apartment project (sponsored content, residential) and 23.8% from a Pakistani perception survey the pass called implausible. Neither is a benchmark, so this register holds no ratio rather than a convenient one. See weather_wet_day_overhead for what IS measured.
Where it came from
- Ballesteros-Perez, Smith, Lloyd-Papworth & Cooke (2018), Incorporating the effect of weather in construction scheduling and management with sine wave curvesabstract · source record
No missed claims figures match this filter.
Disputes: what it costs a contractor
Money fought over, what it costs to fight, and how much is recovered.
The record holds 9 figures on disputes from 12 sources. Queensland: 4 figures, including 8.56% of the amount claimed (Adjudication awards against amounts claimed, Queensland 2024-25).
Disputes statistics: the table, questions and answers
8.56%of the amount claimedAdjudication awards against amounts claimed, Queensland 2024-25QLDModerate confidenceMoney at stake
What it is. 8.56% of the amount claimed, awarded across 214 decisions.
Sample. AU$81.9m awarded against AU$957.0m claimed across 214 decisions. Queensland only, security-of-payment disputes, all construction sectors.
What it is not. One A$634m claim dominates the total; without it the award rate is at most about 25%. The ratio is the research pass's own calculation, not the QBCC's. Do not use it as a typical loss rate.
Our arithmetic. AU$81.9m awarded / AU$957.0m claimed = 0.0856 (Table 23; the ratio is ours, not the QBCC's)
Where it came from
- Queensland Building and Construction Commission (2025), QBCC Annual Report 2024-2025, Table 23Table 23, p.23 · source record
14.9%of the amount claimedAdjudication awards against amounts claimed, Queensland 2020-21 to 2024-25 (decisions released)QLDModerate confidenceMoney at stake
What it is. 14.9% of the amount claimed in adjudication decisions released, pooled over five financial years.
Range 8.56% to 45.6% (reported min max)
Sample. Every decision released by the QBCC Adjudication Registry under the Building Industry Fairness (Security of Payment) Act 2017, 2020-21 to 2024-25: 983 decisions. By year: 2020-21 45.6%, 2021-22 30.6%, 2022-23 14.3%, 2023-24 27.3%, 2024-25 8.6%.
What it is not. Pooled dollars, so the largest claims dominate: 2024-25 alone is 65% of the amount claimed, and one A$634m claim sits inside it. The annual rate swings from 8.6% to 45.6%. It counts only disputes that reached a released decision, not every payment claim.
Our arithmetic. Awarded / claimed on decisions released, by year: 2020-21 $37,503,111 / $82,254,751 = 0.456; 2021-22 $15,854,534 / $51,816,751 = 0.306; 2022-23 $21,858,656 / $152,408,699 = 0.143; 2023-24 $61,524,294 / $225,306,009 = 0.273; 2024-25 $81,873,482 / $956,966,294 = 0.086. Pooled over five years: $218,614,077 / $1,468,752,504 = 0.1488.
Where it came from
- Queensland Building and Construction Commission (2021), QBCC Annual Report 2020-21Table 6, decisions released · source record
- Queensland Building and Construction Commission (2022), QBCC Annual Report 2021-22Table 6, decisions released · source record
- Queensland Building and Construction Commission (2023), QBCC Annual Report 2022-23Table 6, decisions released · source record
- Queensland Building and Construction Commission (2024), QBCC Annual Report 2023-24Table 6, decisions released · source record
- Queensland Building and Construction Commission (2025), QBCC Annual Report 2024-2025, Table 23Table 23, p.23 · source record
12%of the amount claimedAmount determined against amount claimed in adjudication applications, NSW 12% / QLD 18% / VIC 35%, 2018-2023NSW, QLD, VICModerate confidenceMoney at stake
What it is. 12% of the amount claimed in all adjudication applications, including those that never reached a determination; NSW figure, with QLD and VIC as the range.
Range 12% to 35% (reported min max)
Sample. State regulators' adjudication statistics, NSW, QLD and VIC, 2018-2023: 9,784 applications, 5,657 determinations. NSW is 12%, QLD 18%, VIC 35%.
What it is not. The denominator includes the roughly 40% of applications that never reached a determination (withdrawn, settled or paid), so this understates what claimants recover on decided disputes: NSW 2011-12 on decided disputes only was 50.9%. A consultancy's analysis, with internal inconsistencies: Victoria's totals differ between the December 2023 and February 2024 editions, and the NSW prose total ($5.5bn) disagrees with its own table ($6.28bn).
Where it came from
- Liu (DGA Australia) (2023), Review of Adjudication Outcomes Across Australian States (NSW, Vic and Qld): Are the regimes effective?Table A, p.25; definition of the Success Ratio, p.26 · source record
A$288,000per case (2019 AUD)Average loss per unpaid subcontractor, Queensland (146 submissions to the 2019 taskforce)QLDModerate confidenceContractor loss
What it is. Australian dollars lost per subcontractor reporting non-payment, excluding submissions about multiple creditors.
Sample. 146 submissions to a Queensland Government taskforce in 2019, mostly from South Queensland and from small contractors (90% under $12m revenue). Losses ranged from $1,500 to $6 million per individual.
What it is not. Self-reported and self-selected: the subcontractors who wrote in, not a sample of all subcontractors, and their own statement of what they were owed. The $112m multi-creditor submission is excluded from the average. Per case, not a share of contract value, so it is never multiplied by one.
Where it came from
- Special Joint Taskforce (Byrne; Queensland Police Service, QBCC and ODPP) (2019), Special Joint Taskforce: Investigating subcontractor non-payment in the Queensland building and construction industrySection 1.4.3 'Nature of submissions', p.16 · source record
50.9%of the amount claimedAdjudication awards against amounts claimed, NSW 2011-12 (determinations released)NSWHigh confidenceMoney at stake
What it is. 50.9% of the amount claimed, across the 779 applications whose determination was released.
Sample. All 1,112 NSW adjudication applications in 2011-12, of which 779 reached a released determination. Claims under $100,000 (74% of determinations) were awarded about 84% of the amount claimed.
What it is not. One financial year, fourteen years old. It covers only disputes that reached a decision: the 333 applications withdrawn, settled or dismissed are outside it, so it is the recovery rate once adjudicated, not on every claim. Larger claims recovered a smaller share. Not comparable with the Queensland 2024-25 figure or the 2018-2023 success ratios, which divide by different populations.
Our arithmetic. $77,903,361 adjudicated / $153,143,608 claimed = 0.509 (Fig. 4, p.4). The report states the same result as 'about half of the aggregate amount claimed'.
Where it came from
- NSW Department of Finance & Services (statistics by the UNSW Adjudication Research + Reporting Unit) (2012), Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 - Adjudication Activity in New South Wales, Annual Report 2011/12Fig. 4 'Total claimed and adjudicated amounts 2011/12', p.4; Table 1, p.4; Table A, p.6 · source record
19.2%of the amount claimedClaimant's own cost of statutory adjudication as a share of the claim, New Zealand 2003-2023New ZealandModerate confidenceContractor loss
What it is. 19.2% of the amount claimed: the claimant's own costs of taking a payment dispute to adjudication, averaged over all claims.
Sample. All statutory adjudications administered by the Building Disputes Tribunal, 2003-2023 (43 to 152 cases a year). Respondents' costs average 17.64% and the adjudicator's fee 16.37% of the claim.
What it is not. One tribunal's own caseload, not every New Zealand adjudication. An average of per-claim percentages, so small claims dominate: under $30,000 the claimant's costs are 21.6%, over $10 million 1.74%. The claimant is usually, not always, the contractor or subcontractor seeking payment.
Where it came from
- Building Disputes Tribunal (Te Taraipiunara Tautohe Hanga Whare) (2023), Tracking the Trends: A report on statutory adjudication in Aotearoa New Zealand 2003-2023'Costs - How much does it cost?', 'Average costs all claims' table, pp.31-32 · source record
33.4%of contract valueSums in dispute across 2,200+ projects in 114 countriesGlobalModerate confidenceMoney at stake
What it is. 33.4% of contract budget.
Sample. 2,200+ projects in 114 countries, US$2.433tn of capex, average US$1.25bn. Time extensions sought averaged 65.8% of planned schedules.
What it is not. CEILING, NOT TYPICAL CASE. These are HKA's own engagements - mostly disputed megaprojects that reached expert investigation. Read it as the top of the range for a job already in trouble, not the exposure on an ordinary civil contract.
Where it came from
- HKA (2025), From Insight to Foresightreport summary (full report requires a sign-up) · source record
US$60.1mper case (2024 USD)Average value of a construction dispute, North America 2024Canada, USModerate confidenceMoney at stake
What it is. US dollars per dispute: the claimed value of the additional work or event as asserted by the contractor.
Sample. Arcadis North America survey, 2024 data year, published June 2025. Average dispute length 12.5 months. The number of respondents is not stated.
What it is not. A consultancy's view of the disputes it sees, in North America only, and the value claimed by the contractor, not the amount won. A mean dragged up by a few very large disputes: 80% of claims are US$25 million or less and almost half under US$5 million. Not a share of contract value, so it is never multiplied by one.
Where it came from
- Arcadis (2025), Construction Disputes in Motion: Speed, Agility, and Adapting to Change (15th Annual Construction Disputes Report, North America)'Overall Findings', PDF p.5-6 (average dispute value and length charts); definition, p.2 sidebar; methodology, p.23 · source record
No disputes figures match this filter.
Lapsed compliance: what it costs a contractor
Accidents, lapsed licences and insurance, and the cost of breaching the obligations that come with the job.
The record holds 3 figures on lapsed compliance from 3 sources. No Queensland-specific figure yet; the Australian figures apply.
Lapsed compliance statistics: the table, questions and answers
A$97,408per case (2013 AUD)Employer cost per construction accident, from a short absence to a fatalityAustraliaModerate confidenceContractor loss
What it is. AUD per incident to the employer, ranging AU$1,200 (short absence) to AU$97,408 (fatality).
Range A$1,200 to A$97,408 (reported min max)
Sample. Built from the Safe Work Australia 2012-13 dataset plus three Tier-two contractor case studies, Australia. Employer-borne: AU$1,200 (58.82%) for a short absence, AU$6,211 for a long absence, AU$50,175 for full incapacity, AU$97,408 for a fatality (2.23% of that accident's total cost).
What it is not. Not independent - it re-cuts the same Safe Work Australia data and is checked against only three case studies, with no averaged employer cost per accident. Severity-specific, so the high end is a fatality and not a typical incident. Penalties are separate and can reach AU$17.0m (Category 1, Commonwealth) or AU$20m (industrial manslaughter, NSW). Price year taken from the source's data year; not yet confirmed against the source's tables.
Where it came from
- Allison, Hon & Xia (2019), Construction accidents in Australia: Evaluating the true costs · free copytables 6 and 7 · source record
0.25%of contract valueAccident cost as a share of contract sum (Singapore building contractors)SingaporeModerate confidenceContractor loss
What it is. 0.25% of contract sum, insured (0.15%) plus uninsured (0.1%) accident cost.
Sample. A questionnaire survey of Singapore building contractors, 2011. Read from the paper's own abstract; the sample size is not stated there.
What it is not. Singapore building work, not Australian civil, and contractors' own survey estimates rather than cost records. The full paper has not been read, so the sample size is unconfirmed. A weak Indian study found about 0.48% accident loss; the often-quoted '7.9% to 15%' comes from 1990s US data that could not be verified and is excluded.
Where it came from
- Teo & Feng (2011), Costs of Construction Accidents to Singapore Contractorsabstract, as reproduced on the co-author's institutional research portal: https://researchers.westernsydney.edu.au/en/publications/costs-of-construction-accidents-to-singapore-contractors (the publisher page and full text returned 403) · source record
History
- 2026-09-25 Previously read only as a search snippet (secondary, unverified). Now read from the paper's own abstract, which confirms the 0.25% and adds the insured and uninsured split. A survey of contractors' own estimates grades moderate under METHOD.md Section 4. The title and industry (building, F41) are corrected from the abstract.
No lapsed compliance figures match this filter.
Context
Figures that frame a disease rather than measure it, such as a typical planned margin. Never a headline.
9.89%of contract valuePlanned gross margin on Australian civil and transport workAustraliaModerate confidenceContext
What it is. Mean margin excluding overheads, of contract value.
Range 6% to 9.89% (across studies)
Sample. 67 projects from one Australian contractor (9.89%); 8 Australian transport projects (almost 9%); six years of one contractor's ledgers (6% to 9%).
What it is not. Two of the three sources are one contractor's data each, and all three are the same research group. The docs page rounds this to 9%.
Where it came from
- Love, Irani, Smith, Regan & Liu (2017), Cost Performance of Public Infrastructure Projects: The Nemesis and Nirvana of Change-Orders · free copyaccepted manuscript, p.25 · source record
- Love & Ika (2021), The 'context' of transport project cost performance: Insights from contract award to final construction costsabstract, via IDEAS/RePEc (the full text returned 403) · source record
- Love, Ika, Ahiaga-Dagbui, Locatelli & Sing (2019), Make-or-break during production: the costs of reworkabstract (margins of 6% to 9%) · source record
1.98%of contract valueHead office overhead as a share of the contractAustraliaLow confidenceContext
What it is. 1.98% of contract value, head office overhead.
Range 0.99% to 1.98% (scenario)
Sample. 30 senior Australian estimators, mostly building work.
What it is not. Our multiplication of two figures, one of them a UK 2002 number cited second-hand. Use your own rate if you have it.
Our arithmetic. Head office is 9.9% of preliminaries (table 4); preliminaries are 10% to 20% of the contract sum (introduction, citing Chan & Pasquire 2002). 9.9% x 10% = 0.99%; 9.9% x 20% = 1.98%.
Where it came from
- O'Leary & Vaz-Serra (2025), Challenges in pricing preliminaries costs for contractors: An Australian case studytable 4; introduction · source record
No context figures match this filter.
Sources
Every paper, report and data release the figures come from. Sources read second-hand are marked.
- Adjudicate Today (2023), What is happening under the Building Industry Fairness (Security of Payment) Act 2017 QLD? AU-QLD · record
- Allison, Hon & Xia (2019), Construction accidents in Australia: Evaluating the true costs AU · record
- Arcadis (2025), Construction Disputes in Motion: Speed, Agility, and Adapting to Change (15th Annual Construction Disputes Report, North America) US, CA · record
- Ballesteros-Perez, Smith, Lloyd-Papworth & Cooke (2018), Incorporating the effect of weather in construction scheduling and management with sine wave curves GB · record
- Building Disputes Tribunal (Te Taraipiunara Tautohe Hanga Whare) (2023), Tracking the Trends: A report on statutory adjudication in Aotearoa New Zealand 2003-2023 NZ · record
- Construction Industry Institute (2001), The Field Rework Index: Early Warning for Field Rework and Cost Growth (RS153-1) second-hand US · record
- Flyvbjerg, Holm & Buhl (2004), What Causes Cost Overrun in Transport Infrastructure Projects? GLOBAL · record
- HKA (2025), From Insight to Foresight GLOBAL · record
- Hwang, Thomas, Haas & Caldas (2009), Measuring the Impact of Rework on Construction Cost Performance US · record
- ICC Commission (2015), Decisions on Costs in International Arbitration GLOBAL · record
- Liu (DGA Australia) (2023), Review of Adjudication Outcomes Across Australian States (NSW, Vic and Qld): Are the regimes effective? AU-NSW, AU-QLD, AU-VIC · record
- Love (2026), Quantifying the Costs of Field Rework in Construction second-hand unknown · record
- Love & Edwards (2005), Calculating total rework costs in Australian construction projects AU · record
- Love & Ika (2021), The 'context' of transport project cost performance: Insights from contract award to final construction costs AU · record
- Love, Edwards, Watson & Davis (2010), Rework in Civil Infrastructure Projects: Determination of Cost Predictors AU · record
- Love, Ika, Ahiaga-Dagbui, Locatelli & Sing (2019), Make-or-break during production: the costs of rework AU · record
- Love, Irani, Smith, Regan & Liu (2017), Cost Performance of Public Infrastructure Projects: The Nemesis and Nirvana of Change-Orders AU · record
- Love, Zhou, Edwards, Irani & Sing (2017), Off the rails: The cost performance of infrastructure rail projects AU · record
- Molinari, Haezendonck, Van Rompay, Mabillard & Dooms (2025), Persisting Cost Overruns in Public Infrastructure Projects: Lessons From the Belgian Case BE · record
- NSW Department of Finance & Services (statistics by the UNSW Adjudication Research + Reporting Unit) (2012), Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 - Adjudication Activity in New South Wales, Annual Report 2011/12 AU-NSW · record
- O'Leary & Vaz-Serra (2025), Challenges in pricing preliminaries costs for contractors: An Australian case study AU · record
- Pye Tait Consulting for BEIS (2017), Retentions in the Construction Industry GB · record
- Queensland Audit Office (2022), Contract management for new infrastructure (Report 16: 2021-22) AU-QLD · record
- Queensland Audit Office (2025), Major projects 2024 (Report 9: 2024-25) AU-QLD · record
- Queensland Building and Construction Commission (2021), QBCC Annual Report 2020-21 AU-QLD · record
- Queensland Building and Construction Commission (2022), QBCC Annual Report 2021-22 AU-QLD · record
- Queensland Building and Construction Commission (2023), QBCC Annual Report 2022-23 AU-QLD · record
- Queensland Building and Construction Commission (2024), QBCC Annual Report 2023-24 AU-QLD · record
- Queensland Building and Construction Commission (2025), QBCC Annual Report 2024-2025, Table 23 AU-QLD · record
- Ryan & Duffield (2017), Contractor Performance on Mega Projects - Avoiding the Pitfalls AU · record
- Safe Work Australia (2015), The Cost of Work-related Injury and Illness for Australian Employers, Workers and the Community: 2012-13 AU · record
- Special Joint Taskforce (Byrne; Queensland Police Service, QBCC and ODPP) (2019), Special Joint Taskforce: Investigating subcontractor non-payment in the Queensland building and construction industry AU-QLD · record
- Teo & Feng (2011), Costs of Construction Accidents to Singapore Contractors SG · record
- Terrill & Danks (Grattan Institute) (2016), Cost overruns in transport infrastructure AU · record