DEMITONResearch / Rework statistics / No published figure for rework or waste caused by wrong or late procurement and sequencing in Australia
No published figure for rework or waste caused by wrong or late procurement and sequencing in Australia
This figure is outside your filter. Clear the filter.
No published figure for rework or waste caused by wrong or late procurement and sequencing in Australia: no defensible figure has been published (Green Building Council of Australia, 2025; Australia; low confidence).
What it is. None - Australian sources measure material waste in tonnes and name over-ordering as a practice, but none gives a cost of wrong quantity, wrong type, or wrong sequence.
Sample. Searches: "Australian construction material waste over-ordering percent of material purchased cost study", "Australian residential construction site material wastage percent over-ordering study", "National Waste Report 2022 construction and demolition waste", and the Love-group rework searches listed under the scope_change record, read for procurement and sequencing content. Frequencies that exist but are not a cost: wasted material averaged 141 kg per square metre, 22% of material weight, on the GBCA sample; the GBCA methodology note says industry practice is a 10% over-order, with no source; the national construction and demolition diversion rate is about 64%.
What it is not. Recorded as none on purpose. GBCA prices waste at up to about $384 per square metre, but by assuming wasted material costs the same as used material and counting all waste, not only over-ordering, wrong type or rework. That is a valuation of waste, not a cost of this cause. The 10% over-order is an unsourced statement of practice. A vendor blog seen only in search results claims 10 to 15% waste on purchased material; it was not opened and cites no study. No source read measures temporary-works failures or sequencing error cost.
Where it came from
- Green Building Council of Australia (2025), Australia's Waste[d] Opportunity 2025pages 4 and 5 (cost of wasted materials per square metre and per apartment), and the methodology note on over-ordering · source record
Considered and set aside
- Ratnasabapathy, Perera, Alashwal & Lord: 10 Australian residential projects. Waste quantities and diversion rates, no cost and no cause.
- Ratnasabapathy, Alashwal & Perera: National diversion rate of 64% and 12 residential projects. Quantities only.
- Love, Matthews & Mahamivanan: Names processes and methods not followed and defective materials as root causes of non-conformances on infrastructure, with a mean rework cost of 0.30% of contract value, but the abstract does not name the country and does not split cost by cause.
- Before You Dig Australia (prepared by Clear Ridge Consulting): Mentions resumption costs when work stops at an unexpected asset, in words only, with no figure for them.
- Love, Ika, Ahiaga-Dagbui, Locatelli & Sing: Recorded rework of 0.39% of contract value at one Australian contractor, reported as a total per project with no breakdown by cause in the manuscript.
- Love & Edwards: Direct 6.4% and indirect 5.9% rework from 161 Australian projects; no split by cause.
- Love & Li: Two Australian projects, rework 3.15% and 2.40% of contract value; names client change and contract documentation as the main causes, not procurement or sequencing.
- Love: 161 projects. Finds rework did not vary with procurement method, which is the contract route, not wrong or late buying.
- Centre for International Economics (for the Australian Building Codes Board): Defect cost per defect in housing; attributes defects to initial build or to maintenance, with no split for procurement.