Construction
Infrastructure Contract Overruns
Tracks cost and time overruns on capital construction contracts against original tender values.
Why capital overruns demand close control
Capital construction contracts carry the largest single risks to public budgets, and cost and time overruns against the original tender value are where value for money and service delivery are most often lost. The Construction Industry Development Board framework, the MFMA and SIPDM expect overruns to be controlled and properly authorised through variations. AuditPro Core tracks cost and time overruns against original tender values so escalation is challenged and authorised, not absorbed.
The Numbers
AuditPro Core renders this view from your tenant's live, tamper-evident records. The figures below are illustrative sample data.
Active Projects
63
capital works
Over Budget
31
49% of projects
Avg Cost Overrun
21%
▲ 4%
Behind Schedule
27
projects
Project Cost: Award vs Overrun by Type (R'm)
Largest Cost Overruns
| Project | Contractor | Overrun % | Forecast (R'000) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bulk water pipeline | Contr 014 | 47 | 86400 |
| District road P21 | Contr 038 | 38 | 62100 |
| Clinic upgrade | Contr 062 | 29 | 41800 |
| WWTW expansion | Contr 089 | 24 | 33600 |
| Community hall | Contr 117 | 19 | 18900 |
Figures shown are illustrative sample data for demonstration. AuditPro Core renders these views from your own tenant's live, tamper-evident records.
Baseline against original tender
The original awarded value and programme are the baseline for accountability. Measuring overruns against the baseline, not the latest revised figure, prevents creeping escalation from being normalised.
Variation orders and authority
Legitimate change is handled through authorised variation orders within defined limits. Overruns implemented without proper variation approval are irregular and contestable.
Time overruns and penalties
Delayed completion defers service delivery and can trigger or forgo penalties. Time slippage often accompanies and signals underlying cost problems.
Scope creep versus genuine change
Distinguishing unavoidable site conditions from avoidable scope creep is central to judging whether an overrun was reasonable or a control failure.
How AuditPro Core Bridges the Gap
- Reconciliation: AuditPro Core compares current contract cost and programme against the original tender baseline.
- Exception workflow: Overruns beyond approved variation limits raise cases for authorisation review.
- Traceability to source: Each overrun links to variation orders, approvals and the original award.
- Audit-ready export: Overrun analyses export for project oversight and the audit file.
Key Takeaways
- Measure overruns against the original tender, not the latest revision.
- Require authorised variation orders for every cost or scope change.
- Time overruns defer delivery and often signal cost trouble.
- Separate unavoidable site change from avoidable scope creep.
See This on Your Own Data
AuditPro Core renders this dashboard from your tenant's live, tamper-evident records — every figure traceable to source.