|
|
|
|
|
by JumpCrisscross
3163 days ago
|
|
> Which...I don't think it is major reason for cost overruns It's commonly called out as one of the driving reasons behind the horrible economics of American civil engineering [1]. > They haven't requested an increase, they have found out that to satisfy the engineering requirements of the project that more work has to be done It's both. The change may be merited. If so, it should win--again--in a temporary re-auction. But refusing to market test an 82% cost increase is game theoretically begging to get screwed on pricing. Given American taxpayers get screwed on pricing for public-sector civil engineering (after accounting for land, labour and materials cost differences), I think it's a fair discussion to have. [1] http://marroninstitute.nyu.edu/content/blog/is-u.s.-infrastr... |
|
I just don't think your incentives would produce better outcomes, from my perspective it would make things worse.