Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Procedia Engineering 164 (2016) 98 105

Creative Construction Conference 2016, CCC 2016, 25-28 June 2016

Multi-Criteria Cash Flow Analysis in Construction Projects

Augustin Purnusa,*, Constanta-Nicoleta Bodeab
a
Technical University of Civil Engineering, 122-124, Lacul Tei Blvd., 020396, Bucharest, Romania
b
Bucharest University of Economic Studies, 6, Piata Romana, Bucharest, 010374. Romania

Abstract

The tremendous economic challenges especially due by the persistence of the financial crisis and the continuous decline of public
investments in the last years have increased the financial risks faced by construction companies, which make them very vulnerable.
The financial weakness manifested by the lack of liquidity leads to delays in the project implementation, in penalties for delay and
lost opportunities, with direct effect on the health status of projects and organizations. Infrastructure construction projects are
mainly base on FIDIC Conditions of Contract amended through special conditions by employer. The paper examine the effect of
conditions of contract relating to the financial relationship between the employer and the contractor and the influence that they
have on the financial management exercised by contractor, in order to provide them a practical tool for decision-making.
2016
2016TheTheAuthors.
Authors. Published
Published by Elsevier
by Elsevier Ltd. Ltd.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of the Creative Construction Conference 2016.
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of the Creative Construction Conference 2016
Keywords: Construction Project Cash Flow; FIDIC Conditions of Contract; Multi-Criterial Modelling; Project Financial Management;

1. Introduction

Nowadays, the construction industry continues to face the effects of economic crisis. Even so, the actual funding
systems are not encouraging the companies to improve their practices related to the project finance management. With
high capital expenditures and high level of competition in the market, the construction companies have to accept a
large number of risks, which make them very vulnerable. In order to stay in the market, the construction companies
often participate in tenders with prices increasingly smaller, making them vulnerable to the occurrence of unforeseen
events that are inherent in any construction project. In the last annual report ([1]), the president of FIDIC mentioned
that Unreasonable price competition in the awarding of engineering services is more frequent today than ever before.

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +4-021-22402000; fax: +4-021-22402000.

E-mail address: purnus@utcb.ro

1877-7058 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of the Creative Construction Conference 2016
doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2016.11.597
 Augustin Purnus and Constanta-Nicoleta Bodea / Procedia Engineering 164 (2016) 98 105 99

The type of contract that is the foundation of the relationship between the parties has significant effects on the
strategy that the construction company will adopt to achieve the objectives of cost, duration and profit. The large
investments from EU founds or state budged involved in the infrastructure construction projects requires balanced,
accepted and tested type of contracts In such case, FIDIC Conditions of Contract amended by particular conditions
are the most used contracts. According to the statutes, FIDIC (International Federation of Consulting Engineers) is a
federation of member associations that represent the consulting engineering industry globally ([2]), aiming to enhance
the image of consulting engineers and to be the authority on issues relating to business practice.
Developed over 50 years as global standards, the FIDIC contracts are recognized and applied in many types of
projects. They describes all aspects that govern the relationship between the employer and the contractor: general
provisions and actors of the contract, material, labor, equipment and machinery, execution period, delays and
suspension, taking over and defects notification period, measurement and evaluation, variations, contract price and
payments, termination, force majeure, insurance and claims, disputes and arbitration. The financial aspects are tackle
with in Clause 14 - Contract Price and payments, which sets out the sequence of events typical payments. FIDIC Red
Book Conditions of Contract for Construction of buildings and engineering works designed by the beneficiary [3]
defines the sequence of typical events of payments: at the end of each month or the reporting period, the Contractor
submit the Statement and the supporting documents to the Engineer. After its verification, if the Statement is accepted,
the Engineer will issue in maximum 28 days the Interim Payment Certificate. The Employer shall pay to the Contractor
the amount certified within 56 days after the Engineer receives the Statement and supporting documents. The Employer
will make the final payment within 56 days after the Engineer issue the Final Payment Certificate. If we take into
consideration that the minimum time needed by the Contractor to prepare the Statement and supporting documents is
7 to 10 days, the first Interim Payment Certificate (IPC) will be issue at 65 days after the Date of Commencement.
Considering that issuing the invoice by the Contractor is 7 days, the first payment will be done in 100 days after the
Date of Commencement.
However, this sequence in time may be distort if the employer modifies the related sub-clauses, leading into larger
time intervals of payment. In such case, the contractor will be force to support a greater financial effort in order to
complete the works. There are also other reasons the payment may be delayed: the contractor is not enough well
organized and prepared to submit in time the Statement and supporting documents and the Engineer may issue the
Interim Payment Certificate with delay. Such events will cause an increasing financial pressure for the contractor
reflected in his cash flow, without taking into account the risk events and uncertainties typical for construction projects.
Several studies were run on the construction project financial management practices, in relation to the contracting
clauses, revealing the associated risks. In 2015, KPMG ran a global survey for the construction sector [4] focusing on
the project management practices (planning, risk management, controls and governance, project performance and
collaboration between the owner and contractor). The survey reveals that for 72% of awarding contracts cases, full
competitive tenders took place. Despite some concerns about a lack of flexibility, the traditional design-bid-build
approach remains one of the two most popular project delivery strategies, enabling the owner to work with various
suppliers for different aspects of the project. One of the biggest concerns expressed by the survey participants is the
accuracy of the estimated costs before committing to the project. The contingency model (for example, 10 percent
model) is not useful in many cases to cover the risks. The type of contract which is the base of the relationship between
the parties have significant effects on the strategy the construction company will take in order to achieve it purposes
in terms of cost, duration and profit. The survey also reveals that most of the companies develop financial projections
methods based on the deterministic estimation of project financial performance.
In [5], a practical cash flow analysis model is proposed, that can be applied by the construction companies mainly
when decisions about project portfolio structure are taken. The proposed model allows construction companies to
predict not only when, but mostly what amount of money should be borrowed or obtain from internal or external
sources and when and what amount of money should be return. Due to the high amount of money needed to perform
the projects, it become reasonable to say that construction companies need a specialized bank and not commercial one,
which will supports their financial needs.
100 Augustin Purnus and Constanta-Nicoleta Bodea / Procedia Engineering 164 (2016) 98 105

2. Literature review for multi-criteria decision models for financial management

Most of the construction companies develop financial projections based on estimated financial performance of the
projects, considering some basic assumptions, regarding the time frame (the financial projections cover the project
implementation period plus three-five years after the projects completion), capital outlays and financing costs (they
include any up-front and ongoing capital needs during the reference period), revenues associated with the project,
expenses, capital structure. Net present value (NPV) and internal rate of return (IRR) are two of the most frequently
used indicators for measuring the estimated financial performance of a project. When a project has a positive NPV, it
is financially appealing. If a project has a negative NPV, there is an expected negative cash flow or the project will
not generate enough cash to cover inflation and the targeted return. IRR is the discount rate required to achieve a NPV
of zero. The higher a projects IRR is, the more attractive the project is financially. Other indicators are used to
complement the NPV and IRR, such as payback period, weighted average cost of capital, terminal value. In [6] several
key performance indicators for organizational structures in construction and real estate management were proposed.
The traditional scheduling models were enriched ([7], [8]) in order to serve better the project financial projections in
a probabilistic approach. The semi-probabilistic simulation methods, mainly the Three Scenario Approach ([9], [10])
and the probabilistic ones ([11]) become more popular.
The complexity of the construction projects environment make very difficult to evaluate them using models with
only one single parameter. Most of the models applied for assisting the financial decisions in the construction projects
([12], [13], [14]) are using multiple criteria, like: economical conditions, market share, market prices, type of project,
type of contract, project duration, the time allocated to prepare the tender, the company financial "health", the need to
win the tender, the available resources, the estimated price, the available technologies and so on. These multi-criteria
models are especially applied in the project portfolio management ([15], [16], [17]).
The correlation between time and cost in construction projects and its statistical significance was studied for a long
period of time already ([18]). The first timecost regression model of construction projects, known as Bromilows
timecost model [19], was defined in 1960s. The model is the following equation: ln L = ln K + B ln C, where: L is
the number of working days of the construction project; C is the actual value of works as paid by the client; K is a
constant, expressing the performance level (country/region-specific, and changing in time) and B is the time sensitivity
to cost. Bromilow's model was acknowledge to provide good results for different countries, period of analysis and
projects types. To calculate project duration estimations, different multiple regression models were developed with
construction duration as dependent variable and several independent variables, including cost ([20], [21], [22]). The
project qualities considered as relevant parameters affecting the relationship between construction time and cost
significantly varied in these models, but almost every time the cost is considered as the most important independent
variable. For all these models, the main assumption was that costs are more predictability than time. However, many
studies analyzing large numbers of construction projects ([18], [23] had revealed that about 70% of the projects were
completed with significant differences between estimated and actual costs. Therefore, it is questionable to considered
planned costs as an independent variable for planning the construction time. In addition, the costs need to be made
comparable for any statistical timecost model, considering that the projects are implemented in different locations
and at different times.

3. A proposed approach for multi-criteria project cash flow analysis

Due to the adverse economic conditions, the contractor decisions are base taking into account his financial capacity
to support the project, in direct relation with the incomes. The proposed model consider that different type of
construction projects lead to specific shape patterns of the contract price distributed on time. The aim of analysis is to
quantify the contractor potential financial effort due to the variation of several parameters: project duration, the date
of commencement, the time interval for the invoice payment and the date of issuing of the Statement and supporting
documents.
Three real projects of road construction implemented in Romania, based on FIDIC Red Book Contract clauses were
analyze. The first project represents the rehabilitation of a section of national road length of 38.270 Km, the second
project aimed the construction of a by-pass (7.625 km in length) and the third one dealt with the consolidation of a
 Augustin Purnus and Constanta-Nicoleta Bodea / Procedia Engineering 164 (2016) 98 105 101

section of national road length of 7.200 Km. A number of 174 different cash flow patterns were developed and
analyzed.
The following computation hypotheses were consider in the cash flow analysis:

x The payments will be made considering only the General Conditions of Contract;
x The effect of the advance payment and the guaranty for the advance payment was not taken into account;
x The depreciation, the bank taxes and commissions were not taken into account;
x The Statement and supporting documents are prepared by the Contractor monthly, or for minimum 5% from the
Contract Price.

In the cash flow analysis, the following parameters variation were took into account:

x Construction project duration considering for one project the following durations: 16, 18, 20, 22 and 24 months;
x The date of commencement; the project schedule was develop so that the date of commencement of work to
correspond the months from March to October;
x The time interval for the invoice payment considering the following payment terms: at 30 days, at 60 days and 90
days;
x The date of issuing of the Statement and supporting documents. Two cases were considered for the date of
issuing the Statement: at 10 days and at 35 days after the reporting period

The contract price monthly distribution for each project is presented in Fig. 1 (a, b, c).

a Project 1 b Project 2
3,000,000.00 1,400,000.00

2,500,000.00 1,200,000.00

1,000,000.00
2,000,000.00
800,000.00
1,500,000.00
600,000.00
1,000,000.00
400,000.00
500,000.00 200,000.00
0.00 0.00
July

July
May
June

March
August

October
November

January
February

May
June

August

October
November

January
February
March
April

December

April

December
September

September

July

July
May
June

August

October

May
June

August
November
December
January

March
February

October
November

January

March
February
April

April

December

April
September

September
c Project 3
1,600,000.00
1,400,000.00
1,200,000.00
1,000,000.00
800,000.00
600,000.00
400,000.00
200,000.00
0.00
October

October
July
April
May
June

March

July
April
May
June

March
April
August

November

January
February

August

November

January
February
September

December

December
September

Fig. 1. Contract price monthly distribution for (a) Project 1; (b) Project 2; (c) Project 3.

The project cash flow includes the contractor costs with labor, materials, equipment and transport, other direct costs
and overhead, profit and incomes from the payments, according with contractual clauses.
During the analysis, we established the peak of the cash flow and its weight from the contract price for each
scenario, identifying the best and the worst situation for each type of project.
102 Augustin Purnus and Constanta-Nicoleta Bodea / Procedia Engineering 164 (2016) 98 105

3.1. The influence of project duration

The study of the influence of project duration was made on Project 3 road consolidation of a section of 7.200 km
of a National Road, considering the variation of duration between 16 to 24 months. The project cash flow was develop
taking into account the payment of invoices on 30, 60 and 90 days, and the Statement and supporting documents are
issued at 35 days after the reporting period. Considering that the date of commencement vary from March to October,
there were retained the maximum and minimum weights of the peak of cash flow. As results, we obtained the domain
of cash flow peak weight from the contract price for different project duration (Fig. 2).
Analyzing the results, we can find that for this type of construction project, the minimum weight of cash flow peak
is obtain for 24 months duration, due to the distribution of the contract price on a larger duration. For this duration,
the cash flow peak weight from the contract price vary from 46.5% to 79% depending on the date of commencement
and the interval for payment. The contractors financial effort will be as higher as the delay of payment will be higher.
90%
83.82%
85% 81.89% 81.18%
80.55% 79.14%
80% 79.21% 77.19%
78.01% 77.34% 77.06%
75% 71.46%
75.30% Min (30 days)
72.79%
70% 68.73% 71.28% Max (30 days)

65% 67.63% Min (60 days)

60.08% 63.50% 62.23%
57.63% Max (60 days)
60%
56.13% 58.74% 59.55% Min (90 days)
55% 56.70%
53.60% 53.24% Max (90 days)
50% 46.00% 46.51%
45% 46.51%
44.26%
40%
16 Months 18 Months 20 Months 22 Months 24 Months

Fig. 2. The variation of cash flow peak weight from the contract price for different project durations

3.2. The influence of date of commencement

In order to emphasize the influence of the date of commencement on the contractors financial support, several
hypothesis were took into consideration:

x All three projects have the duration of 24 months;

x The Statements and the supporting documents are submitted at 35 days;
x The payments are made at 30, 60 and 90 days.

In the case of Project 1 - rehabilitation of a section of 38.27 km of a National Road, the cash flow peak weight from
the contract price vary from 41% to 69% depending the date of commencement and the time interval for payment (Fig.
3). The best dates of commencement are in March and April, while the worst are in August, September and October.
69.26%
70% 67.46%
66.56% 65.86%
65%
60.61% 60.34%
59.12% 58.64% 58.61%
60% 58.11%
59.05% 56.48%
54.89%
55% 52.82%
51.93% Payment at 30 days
50.10% 51.06%
49.97%
49.10% 48.76% 48.78%
50% 50.69% Payment at 60 days

45% Payment at 90 days

41.08% 41.51%

40%
March April May June July August September October

Fig. 3. The variation of cash flow peak weight from the contract price for Project 1
 Augustin Purnus and Constanta-Nicoleta Bodea / Procedia Engineering 164 (2016) 98 105 103

For the Project 2 - the construction of a by-pass of 7.625 km, the cash flow peak weight from the contract price
vary from 50% to 70% depending the date of commencement and the time interval for payment (Fig. 4). The best date
of commencement is in July, while the worst is in April.
75%

70.05% 70.42%
70% 68.77% 68.75%

65.89% 66.26%
65.40%
64.45%
65%
62.03% Payment at 30 days
62.94% 60.42% Payment at 60 days
59.04% 59.26%
60% 58.61% Payment at 90 days
57.83%
58.57%
54.60% 57.14% 54.63%
55% 53.55%
53.02%
53.93%
50.29% 52.53%
50%
March April May June July August September October

Fig. 4. The variation of cash flow peak weight from the contract price for Project 2

In the case of Project 3 - the consolidation of a section of 7.200 km of a National Road, the cash flow peak weight
from the contract price vary from 39% to 63% depending on the date of commencement and the time interval for
payment (Fig. 5). The best dates of commencement are in April, May and September, while the worst are in March,
July and October.
65% 63.20%
61.86% 62.10%

60%
56.16%
55% 53.65% 53.32% 53.44%
51.87%
49.59% Payment at 30 days
50%
47.59% Payment at 60 days
45.61% 45.97% Payment at 90 days
45% 44.08% 43.43%
42.95% 44.14%
41.56% 41.95% 41.36% 41.95%
39.71% 39.20% 40.11%
40%

35%
March April May June July August September October

Fig. 5. The variation of cash flow peak weight from the contract price for Project 3

3.3. The influence of the time interval for the invoice payment

Considering the same set of conditions, the contractors financial effort vary for the payment at 30 days between
44% - 71%, between 54% - 77% for the payment at 60 days, and between 64% - 79% for the payment at 90 days,
depending the type of project (Fig. 6).
80% 79.14%
77.06%
75%
71.28%
70% 69.52%
66.32%
65% 63.50%
63.84%
Project 1
60%
Project 2
55% 54.17% Project 3

50%

45% 44.18%
40%
Payment at 30 days Payment at 60 days Payment at 90 days

Fig. 6. The variation of cash flow peak weight with the time interval for the invoice payment
104 Augustin Purnus and Constanta-Nicoleta Bodea / Procedia Engineering 164 (2016) 98 105

As the payment is delayed, the financial effort becomes greater and greater.

3.4. The influence of the date of issuing of the Statement

Although the timely issue of the Statement and supporting documents is in the interest of contractor, in practice it
appears that it is not enough organized and prepared to develop the necessary documents. Issuing as soon as possible
the Statement and supporting documents can reduce the contractors effort between 2% - 12% from the contract price,
depending on the type of project, the date of commencement and time interval for the invoice payment (Fig. 7).
14%
12.78%

12%
10.65%
10.19%
10% 9.07% 9.13% 8.97%
8.53% 8.57%
8.21% 8.02%
8% Project 1
6.84% 6.72% 6.81%
6.25%
Project 2
6%
Project 3
3.96% 4.21%
4% 3.28% 3.27%
2.00% 2.02%
2%

0%
March April May June July August September October

Fig. 7. The variation of cash flow peak weight with the date of issuing of the Statement

If the Statement and supporting documents are issued in maximum 10 days after the reporting period, the cash flow
peak weight from the contract price in the case of project 1 the rehabilitation of a section of national road - vary from
32.5% to 41% for the invoice payment in 30 days, from 44.2% to 53% for the invoice payment in 60 days and from
53% to 61.8% for the invoice payment in 90 days, depending on the date of commencement. In the case of project 2
the construction of a by-pass -, the cash flow peak weight variability is between 45.7% and 57% for the invoice
payment in 30 days, between 45.7% and 63% for the invoice payment in 60 days and between 53.5% and 66% for the
invoice payment in 90 days, depending on the date of commencement. For the project 3 - the consolidation of a section
of national road -, the cash flow peak weight from the contract price vary from 30% to 37.8% for the invoice payment
in 30 days, from 37% to 43.8% for the invoice payment in 60 days and from 41.5% to 55.5% for the invoice payment
in 90 days, depending on the date of commencement.
Due to the large projects size, it is the contractors best interest to keep the records and the documents in order to
submit as soon as possible the Statements and supporting documents.

4. Conclusions

The results of this study suggest that the construction companies should carefully consider different factors that can
influence decisions both in the bid-tender stage, but especially in the implementation phase of infrastructure projects.
The type of the project, the specificity of works and applied technologies, the sequence of activities and resources
involved, all are affecting the contract price distribution and is leading to major imbalances in the share of cash flow
of the contract price. The construction companies have to adapt the terms of the contract by special conditions, along
with the duration of the works, the time for invoice payment, the date of commencement and the time interval of
issuance of Statements. The ideal and homogeneous conditions envisaged by the general contracting clauses required
a significant effort of analyzing and understanding the dynamics problems of financial nature faced by contractors
after signing the contract without accounts but risk events and uncertainties that characterize fully these project
categories. Even the results are based on a deterministic approach they are very useful for contractors in taking decision
on such type of projects. An in deep analyse will take into consideration not only the risk events and uncertainties, but
 Augustin Purnus and Constanta-Nicoleta Bodea / Procedia Engineering 164 (2016) 98 105 105

also the correlation with the other projects from the company project portfolio. For this reason, the application of
multi-criteria decision models can support the construction companies in managing better their projects.

References

[1] FIDIC (2015a). Annual report 2014-2015, available at: http://fidic.org/Annual_Report.

[2] FIDIC (2015b), Statutes and by-laws international federation of consulting engineers, available at:
http://fidic.org/sites/default/files/FIDIC%20Statutes_2015.pdf
[3] FIDIC (1999), Conditions of Contract for Plant and Design-Build for Electrical and Mechanical Plant and for Buildings and Engineering
Works Designed by the Contractor, International Federation of Consulting Engineers (FIDIC), First Edition, 1999
[4] KPMG International (2015), Climbing the curve, Global Construction Survey 2015, KPMG International Cooperative available at:
http://www.kpmg.com/global/en/issuesandinsights/articlespublications/global-construction-survey/pages/global-construction-survey-
2015.aspx (accessed 10 May 2015)
[5] Purnus, A. & Bodea, C. N. (2015). Financial management of the construction projects: a proposed cash flow analysis model at project
portfolio level, Organization, Technology & Management in Construction: An international Journal, Volume 7, Issue 1, 2015, pp. 1217-
1227, ISSN 1847-5450 PRINT / ISSN 1847-6228 ONLINE, DOI 10.5592/otmcj.2015.1.6,
http://www.grad.hr/otmcj/clanci/vol%207_1/OTMC_6.pdf.
[6] Zimmermann, J. & Eber, W. (2014). Development of key performance indicators for organizational structures in construction and real estate
management, Proceedings of the Creative Construction Conference, 21-24 June, 2014, Prague, ISBN: 978-963-269-434-4.
[7] Hajdu, M. (1997). Network Scheduling Techniques for Construction Project Management, Kluwer Academic Publishers
[8] Hajdu, M. (2013) Two Scheduling Models, One Project: Are Models Applicable in Case of Real Projects?, Procedia - Social and Behavioral
Sciences 74: pp. 165-174
[9] Archibald, R., Liberzon, V. & de Souza Mello, B. P. (2008). The Application of Success Probabilities, Success Driven Project
Management/SDPM, and Some Critical Chain Concepts to the Oil & Gas Industry in Brazil, The Annual PMI College of Scheduling
Conference, Chicago
[10] Liberzon, V. & Souza Mello, B. P. (2011). Success Driven Project Management (SDPM) Approach to Project Planning and Performance
Analysis, The 8th Annual PMI College of Scheduling, San Francisco
[11] Kendrick, T. (2003). Identifying and Managing Project Risk, AMACON
[12] Han, S.H., Diekmann, J.E.2; Lee Y. & Ock J., H. (2004). Multicriteria Financial Portfolio Risk Management for International Projects, Journal
of construction engineering and management, May/June.
[13] Chapman, C. & Ward, S. (2002). Managing Project Risk and Uncertainty-A Constructively Simple Approach to Decision Making. Chichester,
John Wiley & Sons Ltd
[14] Orehn, T. (2009). Modeling and simulation: a comprehensive and integrative view, in: Yilmaz L., Oren T. (eds): Agent-based Simulation and
Systems Engineering, Wiley-VCH, GmbH&Co, KgaA, Weinheim, ISBN 978-3-527-40781-1.
[15] Purnu, A., & Bodea, C. N. (2013), Project Prioritization and Portfolio Performance Measurement in Project Oriented Organizations, 27th
IPMA World Congress, Dubrovnik, Croatia.
[16] Sebestyen, Z. & Toth, T. (2015), Industry independent project portfolio selection criteria, In: Hajd Mikls, Miroslaw J. Skibniewski (coord.)
Creative Constructions Conference 2015: Proceedings. Cracow, Poland, ISBN:978-963-269-491-7, pp. 340-344 577
[17] Sebestyen, Z. & Toth, T. (2015), Ranking Projects in Multi-Criteria Environment, Organization Technology and Management in
Construction 7, (2), pp. 1295-1301.
[18] Czarnigowska, A. & Sobotka, A. (2013), Archives of Civil and Mechanical Engineering, Volume 13, Issue 4, December, Pages 518526.
[19] Kaka, A. & Price, A.D.F. (1991), Relationship between value and duration of construction projects, Construction Management and Economics,
9, pp. 383400.
[20] Walker, D.H.T. & Shen, Y.J. (2002), Project understanding, flexibility of management action and construction time performance: two
Australian case studies, Construction Management and Economics 20, pp. 3144.
[21] Hoffman, G. J., Thal, A.E.., Webb T.S, &.Weir, J.D. (2007), Estimating performance time for construction projects, Journal of Management
in Engineering, ASCE23(4), pp. 193199.
[22] Ifran, M., Khursid, M.B., Anastasopoulos, P., Labi, S. & Moavenzadeh, F. (2011), Planning-stage estimation of high way project duration on
the basis of anticipated project cost, project type, and contract type, International Journal of Project Management 29(1)(2011)7892.
[23] Magnussen, O.M. & Olsson, N.O.E. (2006), Comparative analysis of cost estimates of major public investment projects, International Journal
of Project Management, 24, pp. 281288.