Implementing a Not-to-Exceed or “Mini-Max” Approach for General Conditions in Construction Contracts

This article was original posted on LinkedIn. To read the original post, click here.

In construction contracting, managing general conditions costs is crucial for maintaining budget discipline and preventing cost escalation. General Conditions represent indirect costs associated with project management, site supervision, temporary facilities, permits, and other overhead costs necessary for project execution but not tied directly to physical construction work. A “Not-to-Exceed” or “Mini-Max” approach to general conditions can provide owners and developers with a structured method to control these costs. This approach sets a predetermined ceiling on general conditions expenses, ensuring transparency and accountability while maintaining the integrity of the bid process.

The Problem: Unchecked General Conditions Costs

Without a cap on general conditions, General Contractors have the flexibility to allocate resources and internal costs in ways that may not align with the project’s actual needs or the owner’s expectations. This typically occurs in ways:

• Unnecessary Overstaffing: Excess personnel increase overall project expenses without adding real value to the project.
• Understaffing to Inflate Billable Hours: Conversely, some GCs may intentionally force existing employees to work extended hours, stretching employees thin and inflating billable hours.
• Misallocation of Internal Costs: GCs may allocate disproportionate internal overhead costs to projects, deviating from the bid representations and inflating general conditions expenses beyond reasonable expectations.

While these are just three ways that project creep occur, Owners and GCs alike should refer to industry guidelines from groups such as the Associated General Contractors of America (AGC) to foster transparent and fair contracting relationships.

The Mini-Max Solution

A Mini-Max approach establishes a fixed limit on general conditions costs, ensuring predictability and protecting against financial overreach. Key benefits include:

• Cost Containment: Owners gain assurance that general conditions will not exceed a predetermined threshold, preventing unexpected budget overruns.

• Resource Efficiency: Contractors are incentivized to allocate resources effectively rather than inflating staffing levels or manipulating billable hours.

• Bid Consistency: This approach holds GCs accountable to the cost structure outlined in their bid, reducing the risk of post-award cost manipulation.
• Enhanced Transparency: Owners can clearly track costs, ensuring expenses align fairly with actual project requirements.

The Mini-Max Implementation Strategy Overview

Owners may encounter resistance from contractors during implementation, particularly regarding the accuracy of cost ceilings. Clear communication, industry benchmarking, and mutual agreement on definitions and expectations during contract negotiation can mitigate these issues and ensure alignment.

To implement a Mini-Max approach effectively:

• Define a Clear Ceiling: Establish a not-to-exceed threshold based on verifiable data (such as industry benchmarks from RSMeans) and project scope.

• Require Detailed Cost Breakdowns: Mandate that GCs submit detailed breakdowns of their general conditions costs to support transparency.
• Incorporate Audit Rights: Allow owners to audit expenditures and incorporate penalty provisions, such as those found in standard contract clauses recommended by the American Institute of Architects (AIA), to ensure compliance with contractual obligations.
• Implement Penalty Provisions: Introduce consequences for misallocated costs to deter attempts to manipulate billable expenses.
• Allow Change Order Requests for Scope or Timing Changes: If significant owner-driven scope or schedule changes occur, the GC can formally request adjustments to the general conditions cap.

A Not-to-Exceed or Mini-Max approach to general conditions in construction contracts is an effective mechanism for mitigating cost escalation risks. By implementing clear cost ceilings, ensuring bid consistency, and enforcing transparency, owners can protect project budgets and ensure fair allocation of expenses. To further ensure alignment and transparency, consider financial management best practices recommended by organizations like the Construction Financial Management Association (CFMA). Additionally, allowing limited, justified adjustments via change orders for scope or timing changes provides necessary flexibility while maintaining cost control. Adopting this approach leads to clearer budgeting, stronger accountability, and more successful project outcomes.

With our expertise in auditing construction projects, PRGX supports owners and developers in implementing Mini-Max frameworks effectively. Our extensive experience in construction contract management streamlines the oversight of general conditions costs, enhances visibility into spending, and ensures contractual compliance at every project stage. Over the past 3 years, we’ve audited more than 200 projects and $27 billion in construction costs. To learn more about PRGX’s contract management solutions for construction projects, visit our Contract Management page or speak directly with one of our construction project experts.