Danish researchers blame cost increases in public projects on budget "bait-and-switch" by public officials (ENR 7/15 p. 11). But that reasoning depends on the unlikely presupposition that such officials know the final cost of a design yet-to-be. Projects actually increase in cost because we force them to. There are several important factors to consider.

Parkinson’s Law says that "the project will expand to spend the available budget." Budgets for a next project are generally taken from a previous project. Cost escalation is caused by the synergy of many participants. Once projects are created, opportunists expand their focus beyond "needs" into the realm of "wants." Separating the two is a matter of perspective. This leads to a corollary of Parkinson’s Law: "Projects will grow to the maximum attainable budget."

Growth in the scope of public works–from the time of project inception to the time of delivery–is driven by our process of delivery, especially the public process. The variance in cost overruns, once a project is defined, is a matter of the competence of those designing and building the project. Bent Flyvbjerg, the Danish researcher, suggests that the competence issue should self-correct over time. In fact, it does not because it is a talent and resource issue unaffected by history.

The public works system in the U.S. is based on seeking the low bidder for construction. It is arguable whether forecasting with low-bid results is deceptive as opposed to goal-oriented. It is hard to appreciate the public good in driving up the price of public works with private risk capital or ballooned estimates, only to be able to say that the project was on budget. Constrained budgets and aggressive pricing are the public’s defense against the excesses of Parkinson’s Law.

Flyvbjerg’s "lying" theory allows the profession to remain in denial about performance issues that can be addressed, but generally are swept under the rug. The real risk is that we rationalize results like Boston's Central Artery as "normal" rather than apply lessons learned for getting better value.

DAVID GOODYEAR, P.E., S.E.
T.Y. Lin International
Olympia, Wash.

Working Together

Your recent article, "Steel: Still Struggling With Imports" (ENR 6/24 p. 27), may have led people to believe that Canadian fabricators compete unfairly. The people quoted have ignored the findings of the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) where these same allegations about Canadian fabricators were aired, the facts determined and examined in detail. ITC has determined by unanimous vote (6-0), based on the facts, that these allegations are false.

A strong U.S. dollar helps American fabricators buy beams from offshore at competitive prices. North America is an integrated market, as envisaged by NAFTA, in which Canadians buy beams made by Americans and partner with American firms on projects on both sides of the border.

Fabricated structural steel is not a commodity for which price alone is the sole determining factor. Service, delivery, engineering, detailing and erection to meet the quality standards of the purchasers are equally important.

Trade is now a multi-lane highway for all of us and our best defense is an offense to take back market from competing framing materials. Concentrating our time and resources on increasing market for steel structures would benefit all fabricators in both the U. S. and Canada.

M.I. GILMOR, P.E.
President
Canadian Institute of Steel Construction
Willowdale, Ontario