Technical Papers
May 8, 2023

Statistical Analysis and Representation Models of Working-Days Liquidated Damages

Publication: Journal of Construction Engineering and Management
Volume 149, Issue 7

Abstract

Contractors tend to challenge the enforceability of liquidated damages (LDs), claiming they are unreasonable, excessive, penalty statements, or concurrently caused. States customarily assert that the LD rates are a genuine reflection of the expenses expected to be suffered when a project gets delayed due to noncompletion. While there are common practices among the states for articulating LD specifications, which generally follow the Federal Code of Regulations, there are no published studies that assist states in comparing their LD rates to those of other states so that the LD rates might be defended. Further, there are no studies that offer models that would uncover the relationship between the LD rates and the contract sizes so that the LD rates might be justified. This work addresses such gaps in the body of knowledge (BOK) in LDs. With emphasis on the working-days (WD) LD rate schedules, the objectives of this work are to characterize the LD rate schedules across the states and to model a formula(s) that would represent the relationship between the WD LD rates and the contract amounts. The data set for the work represents the LD schedules in the standard specifications of all departments of transportation in the United States. Descriptive and cluster statistical analyses were used for the LD rate characterization. For model development, several linear and nonlinear regression models were employed. The results highlighted considerable LDs variability in the smaller contract sizes and exceptional LD rates stability in the larger sizes. Despite the economic differences among the states, it is found that the LD rate is, on average, 0.02 ¢/$ for projects $20 million or above. Below that, the rate increases between 0.03 ¢/$ and 0.18 ¢/$ until the contracts reach $750,000. LD rates tend to decrease sharply with the increase in contract sizes, forming an L or reverse J shape. This pattern proved complex, and only nonlinear regression with transformed variables successfully modeled it. Credible models were obtained after satisfying the least-squares regression assumptions. The work contributes to the BOK by adding a new statistical dimension to understanding LDs and developing regression model(s) that explain the relationships between the LD rates and the contract sizes. The work should help SHAs create, evaluate, and justify their LD rates.

Get full access to this article

View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.

Data Availability Statement

All data, models, and code generated or used during the study appear in the published article.

References

Abdel Aziz, A. M. 2007. “Cost prediction of highway projects using regression.” In Proc., Construction Research Congress. Ottawa: International Council for Research and Innovation in Building and Construction.
Abdel Aziz, A. M. 2008. “Minimum performance bounds for evaluating contractors performance during construction of highway pavement projects.” J. Construct. Manage. Econ. 26 (5): 507–529. https://doi.org/10.1080/01446190801918748.
Abdel Aziz, A. M. 2009. “Time prediction for highway pavement projects using regression analysis.” In Proc., Construction Research Congress: Building a Sustainable Future. Reston, VA: ASCE. https://doi.org/10.1061/41020(339)91.
Abdel Aziz, A. M., and K. Muiruri. Forthcoming. “The articulation and current practices of liquidated damages in highways standard specifications.” J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr. https://doi.org/10.1061/JLADAH/LADR-959.
AKDOT (Alaska DOT and Public Facilities). 2020. Standard specifications for highway construction. Juneau, AK: AKDOT.
ALDOT (Alabama DOT). 2018. Standard specifications for highway construction. Montgomery, AL: ALDOT.
ARDOT (Arkansas DOT). 2014. Standard specifications for highway construction. Little Rock, AR: ARDOT.
Assaad, R., and M. Abdul-Malak. 2020a. “Legal perspective on treatment of delay liquidated damages and penalty clauses by different jurisdictions: Comparative analysis.” J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr. 12 (2): 04520013. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)LA.1943-4170.0000387.
Assaad, R., and M. Abdul-Malak. 2020b. “Timing of liquidated damages recovery and related liability issues.” J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr. 12 (2): 04520015. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)LA.1943-4170.0000390.
AZDOT (Arizona DOT). 2021. Standard specifications for road and bridge construction. Phoenix: AZDOT.
Box, G. E. P., and D. R. Cox. 1964. “An analysis of transformations.” J. R. Stat. Soc. 26 (2): 211–253.
Brizzee, D. 1991. “Liquidated damages and the penalty rule: A reassessment.” BYU Law Rev. 1991 (4): 1613.
Caltrans. 2018. Standard specifications. Sacramento, CA: Caltrans.
Carlos, S., P. Edara, and A. Mackley. 2013. “Refocusing on liquidated damages in incentive/disincentive contracts.” J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr. 5 (3): 383–390. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)LA.1943-4170.0000122.
CFR (Code of Federal Regulations). 2022. “Agreement provisions regarding overruns in contract time.” Accessed April 9, 2022. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-23/chapter-I/subchapter-G/part-635/subpart-A/section-635.127.
CODOT (Colorado DOT). 2019. Standard specifications for road and bridge construction. Denver: CODOT.
Crowley, L. G., W. C. Zech, C. Bailey, and P. Gujar. 2008. “Liquidated damages: Review of current state of the practice.” J. Civ. Eng. Educ. 134 (4): 383–390. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1052-3928(2008)134:4(383).
DCDOT (District of Columbia DOT). 2013. Standard specifications for highways and structures. Washington, DC: DCDOT.
DEDOT (Delaware DOT). 2020. Standard specifications for road and bridge construction. Dover, DE: DEDOT.
Dielman, T. E. 2005. Applied regression analysis—A second course in business and economic statistics. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole, Thomson Learning.
FAR (Federal Acquisition Regulations). 2022. “Federal acquisition regulations—Subpart 11.5—Liquidated damages.” Accessed April 10, 2022. https://www.acquisition.gov/far/subpart-11.5#FAR_11_502.
FLDOT (Florida DOT). 2020. Standard specifications for road and bridge construction. Tallahassee, FL: FLDOT.
GADOT (Georgia DOT). 2021. Standard specifications for transportation systems. Atlanta: GADOT.
Green, S. B. 1991. “How many subjects does it take to do a regression analysis?” Multivar. Behav. Res. 26 (3): 499–510. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr2603_7.
Harris, R. J. 1985. A primer of multivariate statistics. 2nd ed. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
ILDOT (Illinois DOT). 2022. Standard specifications for road and bridge construction. Chicago: ILDOT.
INDOT (Indiana DOT). 2022. Standard specifications. Indianapolis: INDOT.
KSDOT (Kansas DOT. 2015. Standard specifications. Topeka, KS: KSDOT.
Kuhn, M., and K. Johnson. 2013. Applied predictive modeling. New York: Springer.
Kutner, M., C. Nachtsheim, J. Neter, and W. Li. 2005. Applied linear statistical models. 5th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
KYDOT (Kentucky DOT). 2019. Standard specifications for road and bridge construction. Frankfort, KY: KYDOT.
LADOT (Louisiana DOT). 2016. Standard specifications for roads and bridges. Baton Rouge, LA: LADOT.
Levenberg, K. 1944. “A method for the solution of certain non-linear problems in least squares.” Q. Appl. Math. 2 (2): 164–168. https://doi.org/10.1090/qam/10666.
Long, R. J. 2017. “Analysis of concurrent delay on construction claims.” Accessed April 9, 2022. http://www.long-intl.com/articles/Long_Intl_Analysis_of_Concurrent_Delay_on_Construction_Claims.pdf.
Loulakis, M. C., and L. P. McLaughlin. 2011. “Federal court OKs government calculation of liquidated damages.” Civ. Eng. Mag. Arch. 81 (11): 92. https://doi.org/10.1061/ciegag.0000704.
MADOT (Massachusetts DOT). 2021. Standard specifications for highways and bridges. Boston: MADOT.
Makridakis, S., S. Wheelwright, and R. Hyndman. 1998. Forecasting methods and applications. New York: Wiley.
Marquardt, D. W. 1963. “An algorithm for least-squares estimation of non-linear parameters.” J. Soc. Ind. Appl. Math. 11 (2): 431–441. https://doi.org/10.1137/0111030.
MEDOT (Maine DOT). 2020. Standard specifications. Augusta, ME: MEDOT.
MIDOT (Michigan DOT). 2020. Standard specifications for construction. Lansing, MI: MIDOT.
MNDOT (Minnesota DOT). 2020. Standard specifications for construction. St Paul, MN: MNDOT.
MSDOT (Mississippi DOT). 2017. Standard specifications for road and bridge construction. Jackson, MS: MSDOT.
MTDOT (Montana DOT). 2020. Standard and supplemental specifications for road and bridge construction. Helena, MT: MTDOT.
Myers, R., D. Montgomery, G. Vining, and T. Robinson. 2010. Generalized linear models: With applications in engineering and the sciences. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
NDDOT (North Dakota DOT). 2020. Standard specifications for road and bridge construction. Bismarck, ND: NDDOT.
NHDOT (New Hampshire DOT). 2016. Standard specifications for road and bridge construction. Concord, NH: NHDOT.
NIST. 2022. “Engineering statistics handbook.” Accessed August 31, 2022. http://www.itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/.
NMDOT (New Mexico DOT). 2019. Standard specifications for highway and bridge construction. Las Vegas, NM: NMDOT.
NYDOT (New York DOT). 2022. Standard specifications. Albany, NY: NYDOT.
OHDOT (Ohio DOT). 2019. Construction and Material specifications. Columbus, OH: OHDOT.
OKDOT (Oklahoma DOT). 2019. Standard specifications for highway construction. Oklahoma City, OK: OKDOT.
PADOT (Pennsylvania DOT). 2020. Specifications. Harrisburg, PA: PADOT.
RIDOT (Rhode Island DOT). 2010. Standard specifications for road and bridge construction. Providence, RI: RIDOT.
Ritz, C., and J. C. Streibig. 2008. Nonlinear regression with R. New York: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-09616-2.
Rogers, T. M., W. C. Zech, J. O. Shambley, W. N. Donald, and J. A. Rueda-Benavides. 2019. “State-of-the-practice for liquidated damages, incentive/disincentive, and road user cost provisions on high-value transportation projects.” J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr. AI11 (2): 04519001. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)LA.1943-4170.0000286.
SCDOT (South Carolina DOT). 2007. Standard specifications for highway construction. Columbia, SC: SCDOT.
SDDOT (South Dakota DOT). 2015. Standard specifications for roads and bridges. Mitchell, SD: SDDOT.
Statistica. 2022. “TIBCO statistica Enterprise.” Accessed February 01, 2022. https://www.tibco.com/.
TNDOT (Tennessee DOT). 2020. Standard specifications for road and bridge construction. Nashville, TN: TNDOT.
Twyford, J. 2007. “Liquidated damages: A comparative study of the law in England, Australia, New Zealand, and Singapore.” J. Civ. Eng. Educ. 133 (3): 210–217. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1052-3928(2007)133:3(210).
UTDOT (Utah DOT). 2022. Standard specifications for road and bridge construction. Taylorsville, UT: UTDOT.
VADOT (Virginia DOT). 2020. Road and bridge specifications. Fredericksburg, VA: VADOT.
VTDOT (Vermont DOT). 2018. Standard specifications for construction. Montpelier, VT: VTDOT.
WIDOT (Wisconsin DOT). 2021. Standard specifications for highway and structure construction. Green Bay, WI: WIDOT.
WVDOT (West Virginia DOT). 2020. Supplemental specifications to accompany the 2017 edition of the standard specifications for roads and bridges. Charleston, WV: WVDOT.
WYDOT (Wyoming DOT). 2021. Standard specifications for road and bridge construction. Cheyenne, WY: WYDOT.

Information & Authors

Information

Published In

Go to Journal of Construction Engineering and Management
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management
Volume 149Issue 7July 2023

History

Received: Nov 12, 2022
Accepted: Feb 23, 2023
Published online: May 8, 2023
Published in print: Jul 1, 2023
Discussion open until: Oct 8, 2023

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Authors

Affiliations

Associate Professor, Dept. of Construction Management, Univ. of Washington, 120F Architecture Hall, P.O. Box 351610, Seattle, WA 98195. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3487-8992. Email: [email protected]

Metrics & Citations

Metrics

Citations

Download citation

If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.

Cited by

  • Statistical Analysis and Representation Models of Calendar-Day Liquidated Damages, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 10.1061/JCEMD4.COENG-14506, 150, 6, (2024).
  • The Articulation and Current Practices of Liquidated Damages in Standard Specifications for Highways, Journal of Legal Affairs and Dispute Resolution in Engineering and Construction, 10.1061/JLADAH.LADR-959, 15, 4, (2023).

View Options

Get Access

Access content

Please select your options to get access

Log in/Register Log in via your institution (Shibboleth)
ASCE Members: Please log in to see member pricing

Purchase

Save for later Information on ASCE Library Cards
ASCE Library Cards let you download journal articles, proceedings papers, and available book chapters across the entire ASCE Library platform. ASCE Library Cards remain active for 24 months or until all downloads are used. Note: This content will be debited as one download at time of checkout.

Terms of Use: ASCE Library Cards are for individual, personal use only. Reselling, republishing, or forwarding the materials to libraries or reading rooms is prohibited.
ASCE Library Card (5 downloads)
$105.00
Add to cart
ASCE Library Card (20 downloads)
$280.00
Add to cart
Buy Single Article
$35.00
Add to cart

Get Access

Access content

Please select your options to get access

Log in/Register Log in via your institution (Shibboleth)
ASCE Members: Please log in to see member pricing

Purchase

Save for later Information on ASCE Library Cards
ASCE Library Cards let you download journal articles, proceedings papers, and available book chapters across the entire ASCE Library platform. ASCE Library Cards remain active for 24 months or until all downloads are used. Note: This content will be debited as one download at time of checkout.

Terms of Use: ASCE Library Cards are for individual, personal use only. Reselling, republishing, or forwarding the materials to libraries or reading rooms is prohibited.
ASCE Library Card (5 downloads)
$105.00
Add to cart
ASCE Library Card (20 downloads)
$280.00
Add to cart
Buy Single Article
$35.00
Add to cart

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Copy the content Link

Share with email

Email a colleague

Share