No published New Zealand figure for variations done and not paid, or time-barred, as a share of contract value or of claims

What it is. None - New Zealand sources say contractors go unpaid for variations because of time bars and name variations as a dispute cause, but none measures how often or how much.

Sample. Search terms: New Zealand construction variations unpaid study; variation claims time bar New Zealand; Waka Kotahi state highway contract variations percentage; contractors not paid for variations New Zealand; NZS 3910 variations survey; Auditor-General Transport Agency claims variations; Transmission Gully claims. A frequency exists: Advisian 2019 reports an industry view that contractors are not being paid for variations because of time bars (often 10 working days), and 13% of Russell McVeagh 2020 respondents expect variations to cause disputes; neither is a cost. Transmission Gully payments to the builder were seen in press only and are one project, so they were not opened as sources. The Treasury report is the source of record because it is the national New Zealand source that deals directly with variation time bars.

What it is not. Recorded as none on purpose. The time-bar complaint is the view of contractors and industry bodies reported in a government-commissioned review, which also gives the public sector's reason for time bars; it is not a measurement. Not read: the Waka Kotahi final account data (an Official Information Act request would be needed), NZS 3910 commentary, and court decisions on time-barred claims.

Where it came from

• Advisian for the New Zealand Treasury Infrastructure Transactions Unit (2019), An examination of issues associated with the use of NZS Conditions of Contract
  executive summary (PDF p.3); "Time bars" (section 6, PDF p.24); "Risk transfer by stealth" (PDF p.30); NZIQS survey cited at PDF p.29 · source record

Considered and set aside

• Russell McVeagh: Perception survey: employer variations are the leading cause of delay and 13% of respondents expect variations to cause disputes. Shares of respondents; no money or count of unpaid variations.
• Building Disputes Tribunal (Te Taraipiunara Tautohe Hanga Whare): Names claims for variations among the common issues in adjudication but says it has not collected statistics on issue types, so no count or value of variation claims.
• Atapattu, Massey University (PhD thesis): Rates variations and extra works 64% on a severity index (21st of 53). A rating of importance; the 19.5% mean overrun on 106 road projects is not split into variations or time-barred claims.
• Adafin, Rotimi and Wilkinson: Survey of 64 project managers on the gap between cost plan and tender sum (23.86% drift across 36 commercial projects). Pre-award estimating, not variations claimed or missed during a contract.
• Ramachandra and Rotimi, Auckland University of Technology: Of 40 High Court payment disputes 2008 to 2010, some concern variation claims, but the paper gives no split by issue and no value of variations unpaid.
• Raina, Auckland University of Technology (PhD thesis): Retention thesis; one subcontractor comment in Table 5.16 says negotiation losses on variations are a larger burden than retention, a single unquantified remark.
• Office of the Auditor-General: National audit of state highway maintenance contracts; does not report variations or claims.
• New Zealand Infrastructure Commission / Te Waihanga: Cites a California study that bids rise when scope later varies; no New Zealand variation data.
• Mbachu and Taylor: Full text read (36 usable responses, mostly Wellington): ranks contractual risks by mean significance. No money and no variation measure.

forfeited_entitlements/unclaimed_variations_none_nz · NZ · F ·the record ·link to this figure ·dispute this figure(or email support@demiton.io)