Towards the Efficiency of Infrastructure Building in the Slovak Republic—Methodological Apparatus of Change Management

Abstract

This paper focuses on the analysis of change procedures in the Slovak Republic, the identification of the critical steps of the process, the possible impacts on the project, and the proposal of a methodological approach to change procedures. It emphasises the contribution of quality transport data for the decision-making of responsible public administration entities in the implementation of changes in transport infrastructure projects and the evaluation of their adequacy in terms of the effectiveness of the spent funds in the context of Value for Money. The proposed methodological approach was provided to the infrastructure manager as guidance in the process of handling effective change management and applied by the authority responsible for the construction and management of transport infrastructure in a specific transport construction project implemented in the Slovak Republic. This has led to the definition of change characteristics and, in terms of budget and schedule implications, has provided quantification of the interval nature of the cost and time requirements and the relative demand in relation to the benchmark. Finally, a recommendation was formulated regarding the change processing method and the selection of the change implementer from the companies approached in terms of the objective preferences of the managing authority and the impacts on the key aspects of the project.

1. Introduction

A specific feature in a contractual relationship relating to the construction of an infrastructure project is the signing of a contract based on the available project documentation. Thus, at the time of signing the contract, the investor does not have the opportunity to inspect the final product (work) and check its technical and qualitative parameters. If the work is carried out according to internationally recognised conditions (in the Slovak Republic—SR; mainly red or yellow FIDIC), it does not have to be designed at the time of signing the contract.

According to Winch [1], this factual situation can be described as the “management of construction projects is a problem of information, or rather, a problem in the lack of information required for decision-making”. Since, in most cases, complete and accurate information about the conditions at the project site is not available at the preparation stage, the project documentation designer is always working with a certain degree of uncertainty. As information becomes available during the construction phase of the project, it can lead to various changes, which can in turn affect productivity, planned schedules, deadlines, work methodology, resource procurement, and budget, all of which could result in the project objectives not being achieved [2]. Project changes have obvious impacts on the construction process, not only on the project’s schedule and cost but also on the project’s performance, e.g., labour efficiency [3]. Ref [4] state that no matter the size of the change, each alteration to the works has a cost, time, and risk implication. As proposed by P.C. Bueno et al. [5], “…the primary purpose of sustainability assessment should start with the appraisal and decision-making, because, at this point, decision-makers have great influence on the future sustainability performance of the project”.

In light of the above, change management needs to be applied particularly in the preparation and construction phases, given the potential impact of project changes on the operational effects of the work. The need for the effective management of change procedures is all the more urgent in the conditions of the SR, as the construction and modernisation of infrastructure is financed in substantial part by European Union resources—in the period of 2016–2020, it was more than 42%; in the period of 2021–2023, the plan was almost 53% [6]. The eligibility of co-financing is conditional on the material and schedule relevance to the programming period. Therefore, in the event that a change needs to be implemented, the management of the whole process is crucial to ensure that the co-financing of part of the construction is not forfeited (ineligible) due to non-compliance with a material or time condition.

The main objective of this study is to propose a methodological approach to change procedures, as there is no basic guidance for dealing with this process in SR at the ministerial or supra-ministerial level. The research has developed a unified methodological approach to the procedural apparatus for the assessment of changes in infrastructure projects, which provides a basis for the possible creation of specific methodological guidelines or manuals for the mentioned area.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Change Management—Origin and Types

Change management is a separate area within the construction life cycle, which by its nature can have a significant impact on a number of key aspects of infrastructure project implementation. Changes in projects can occur for a variety of reasons. The authors of the paper [7] describe the possible causes of changes in the project during the planning phase (changes such as clients’ inadequate strategic planning, insufficient information, etc.), during the design and engineering phase (changes such as a lack of design ability, design team lacking integration with implementation teams, etc.), and causes of changes in the execution phase (causes such as unexpected changes—in soil texture, impact of climate change, etc.). The paper [8] focuses on change management in projects, which is quite common. The article defines some possible causes that require changes in a project (such as suppliers, materials, unexpected events, etc.) All changes affect the progress of the project and the stakeholders in it. According to the authors, changes in the project can occur at any stage of the project and can cause changes in the original scope of work and affect the project in different spectrums.

2.2. Change Management—Approaches and Tools

It is therefore very important that changes in project management are systematic and properly managed and applied. In their papers, the authors [9] describe change management in construction projects. They identify changes at a later stage of the project as necessary. Hence, in their paper, they have created a Management Toolkit through which they provide a framework and tool for change management that helps to prevent unnecessary changes in projects. The toolkit created addresses two very important aspects, which are anticipating change and responding to change by rescheduling workflows. The proposed toolkit defines some procedural links and information flows for the change procedure, but it does not take into account the specifics brought by the legislative and customary conditions of the Slovak Republic in the field of valuation methods and tools, defining the participating authorities of the state administration and their competences in the change procedure.

In another paper [10], the authors focus on change management in projects, describing the possible use of a comprehensive project management system, which consists of five basic steps (promote a balanced change culture; recognise change; evaluate change; implement change; continuously improve from lessons learned). Such systematic change management can help to manage project change effectively and to better apply change in projects. The authors propose a methodological framework applying a systematic approach to the process of change procedures; however, the reduction in or cumulation of some procedural phases/steps are appropriate for the design of a clear apparatus to be specified and isolated so that the participating authorities, the necessary steps, as well as the appropriate tools in the conditions of the Slovak Republic for a smooth course of the change procedure are described.

Avoiding delays in the delivery of the project in its final form and cost overruns in the project is possible, according to the authors of the next paper, by using the change prediction system proposed by the authors. Using this system, it is possible to predict changes (by modelling the processes in the project). The authors describe the proposed system in detail, and it is a useful tool for project management in change management [3]. This study aims to develop an algorithm to model information flows existing in the construction process. This tool can be used to identify the occurrence of change and predict its impacts, but it is not aimed at providing a comprehensive overview of the change process, the characterisation of its parameters, and the necessary actions by the responsible authorities.

Improving the availability of real information for dynamic change management was proposed by Chen et al. [11] through a construction project management system called the web project-based change management (WPCM) system. The WPCM system responds to changes in information efficiently in order to facilitate change management among project participants (e.g., general contractor, suppliers, and subcontractors) in a construction project environment. Capable of increasing information sharing in construction change management, web-based technology can also provide cost savings via the Internet. This study is the most detailed in terms of defining the different procedural steps of the change procedure and the parties involved. However, it does not describe the specific steps of the individual phases, the tools, and the necessary interventions on the part of the investor for effective change management, which would provide the authorities with a coherent, clear methodological apparatus that would allow easy orientation, competences, and responsibilities of all participants.

According to the authors of the next paper, it is also very important to consider the technical uniqueness of each infrastructure project, which requires “tailored” solutions when properly managing project changes. It is the authors of the article who describe the importance of knowing the relationships between project characteristics and the implementation of project change management best practises [11].

The implementation of changes in the project inevitably brings with it effects in the final effects of the work, which should be taken into account during the decision-making process. The assessment of construction changes requires an analysis for the project characteristics that lead to change and also an analysis of the relationship between the change causes and effects. [12]. The analysed study presents a comprehensive overview of the steps and decisions for the change process. It presents the inputs that are needed for change assessment in general, without focusing on transport infrastructure projects, which have their own specificities with respect to the assessment tool used specifically in the Slovak Republic.

The literature review shows a consensus among the authors on the importance of the change management in construction (transport infrastructure) projects as part of project management in order to mitigate or partially reduce the impacts on key project aspects such as investment and operating costs, construction schedule, operational functionality, the service life of the work, and its residual value. Effective planning and risk management as well as the timely availability of information and documents for competent decision-making on project changes are crucial factors.

From the analysed studies, the authors were inspired to create a unified apparatus providing infrastructure managers (responsible authorities) with an overview of all the steps of the change procedure, their characteristics, the parties involved, the responsibility and competence of the parties and the tools and practises used in the conditions of the Slovak Republic. This paper further focuses on the analysis of the change management process and the definition of the methodological apparatus of change management, especially in view of the uniqueness of each infrastructure transport project, the differences in the legislative normative framework for project preparation and construction, and regional practises in the approach to the construction and modernization of transport infrastructure, the specificity of contractor relations, the weak digitisation of public administration in terms of the process of the preparation and implementation of works (EIA, zoning decisions, and construction permits) and the mechanisms of financing these types of projects, which in the conditions of the Slovak Republic are implemented almost exclusively through non-repayable financial contributions from the EU and co-financing of the state budget.

2.3. Assessment of Infrastructure Projects

The evaluation of investment projects is an important part of the project cycle and provides important information for the selection of appropriate solutions for successful transport systems. Current approaches for project appraisal can be broadly grouped into three main categories—traditional decision-making techniques (CBA, MCDA, LCA, SLCA, and others), sustainability rating systems and sustainability appraisal, and evaluating infrastructure assets [5].

CBA calculations are most predominantly made as the base for national infrastructure investments, where most countries require a CBA to be made before making any investments and applying different modelling systems as a part of the analysis [13]). In many countries, the evaluation and assessment of transport infrastructure projects are primarily based on Cost–Benefit Analysis (CBA), which forms the basis for decision support and decision-making [14]. CBA is also widely used in the Slovak Republic, as its processing is a prerequisite for obtaining project co-financing from EU financial instruments (ESIF, CEF), which finance all major transport infrastructure projects as well as the vast majority of national projects included in the TEN-T network in the Slovak Republic.

Among various CBA inputs, construction costs and demand forecasts were proven to be affected by a substantial degree of uncertainty [15]. This uncertainty results from the need to process the traffic forecast over the time horizon of the reference period (usually 30 to 40 years in the Slovak Republic), where the risk of variability of the estimated deterministic demand is relatively high. It is therefore of great importance to be able to validate and assess the uncertainties present in the current CBA approach [5].

A key input in the evaluation of infrastructure transport projects is a demand analysis, which provides baseline traffic data on the project’s use and the impact of its implementation on the redistribution of congestion flows on the transport network under evaluation. The ideal tool for demand analysis is a traffic model, which provides outputs in the form of data on actual and expected demand once the investment is completed. In addition to specific direct economic and safety-related impacts, a socio-economic analysis of economic costs/benefits as per Jasper’s rules also takes into account costs associated with the emission of pollutants, climate change, and noise [16]. This requires a modelling setting incorporating a sufficiently behaviourally rich suite of travel demand and location models, integrated with appropriate feedback and equilibrating mechanisms. Alongside this is the additional need to link the outputs of this to a modelling system that has a framework to identify the wider economic impacts of the specific transport investment under consideration [17]. Another important input is also the cost of implementing the change, which can be performed in different ways depending on the phase the project is in and the category of the change.

The assessment of the above impacts then provides the basis for conducting an Alternatives Analysis, which allows for the identification of the most appropriate alternative among all realistic options for solving the identified transport problem (technical, capacity, safety, or other deficiency), based on technical, environmental, and economic criteria.

The literature review shows that the authors agree on the frequent use of the CBA method in the process of assessing the feasibility of transport infrastructure projects and selecting the optimal variant solution for the transport problem. As also recommended in the Methodological Guide to the Construction of Transport Models and Transport Forecasts [18]: “The creation of a transport model for a specific project is recommended in one or more stages of the process of preparing a pre-feasibility feasibility study, technical study, environmental impact assessment, and the preparation of project documentation”.

Within the framework of the presented paper, the CBA tool is recommended on the basis of wide applicability and established and prescribed procedures for the evaluation of transport projects in the Slovak Republic. The individual socio-economic benefits that must be quantified for a relevant assessment of the evaluated change are described, as well as the methods and possible tools for the correct quantification of the costs of relational change in conditions of SR.

2.4. Background

The reason for the creation of the methodological apparatus was the legitimate need to streamline the process of change procedures in the conditions of the Slovak Republic, especially for reasons of adherence to the project implementation schedule, the momentum of positive impacts in the operational phase, saving additional financial costs, and maximising the use of EU funds, which are the majority sources of financing transport infrastructure projects in the conditions of the Slovak Republic.

Based on the experience from the catching up programming period for the absorption of ESF 2014–2020 (the n + 3 rule is applied to the Slovak Republic, allowing the absorption of funds until the end of 2023), under which transport infrastructure projects were included in the Operational Programme Integrated Infrastructure, change procedures are a real critical factor in the implementation process of projects with a major impact on the timetable for the implementation of construction and the financial costs of the projects. The necessity to implement changes in large infrastructure projects had impacts on the schedule of construction work implementation, the amount of investment costs, and potentially the risk of non-compliance with the final deadline for project co-financing (2023), which could lead to the subsequent ineligibility of expenditure and the need to cover them from the state budget, or the necessity of the phasing of projects and the inclusion of their parts in the programming period of 2021–2027.

The goal was to facilitate the investor’s orientation in the change procedure and to establish the logical and procedural sequence of the individual steps from the identification of a potential change to its final rejection/approval and to determine the extent of the necessary scrutiny of its details. Given the normative regulation of the project preparation area and the similarity of the nature of the constructions, the methodological apparatus is generally applicable to all transport infrastructure projects implemented by the public sector in the conditions of the Slovak Republic.

In terms of efficiency evaluation tools, the most commonly used evaluation tool for managerial decision-making in the Slovak Republic is the aforementioned CBA method, the basic input of which is transport data and forecasts, ideally from a processed transport model in the subject area, including the project under consideration. This, according to P.C. Bueno et al. [5], involves “…including modelling data and forecasting, variable demand models, and transport assignment models”. The outputs of the transport model in the variant solution for the considered scenario’s technical solutions (potential changes in the project) will allow, in the decision-making process, the implementation of the change and its optimal variant solution in the process of the preparation or implementation of the transport infrastructure project by using the proposed methodology to select the optimal change in the project, taking into account technical, financial, socio-economic, and environmental aspects.

3. Methodology

The defined basic flowchart of the change process (Figure 1), which is presented in the figure below, can be generally divided into a number of chronologically, substantively, and procedurally interrelated steps. The entire change management process starts with the initial identification of the need to address a potential change through the definition of its nature, the categorisation and quantification of the impacts on the project as a whole, and the final managerial decision by the responsible authority.

3.1. Recognition of Potential Change in the Project

Recognition of the potential need for change in a project may come from a variety of sources, depending on what stage of the project life cycle the work is in at the time, the nature of the potential change, whether the need for change could only be identified at the stage of implementation of the work, or whether deficiencies in the activities already carried out in the preparatory, design, or implementation work, etc., have been observed on the part of the investor, the designer, the contractor, or the construction supervisor. Kartam [19] has suggested that conflict will be minimised when a problem has been studied as early as possible, since the problems can be identified and beneficial changes can be made. The benefit of early identification of the need for change in terms of the investment costs of implementing it at each stage of the project is illustrated in the Figure 2.

3.2. Initiation of a Potential Change Procedure

The initiator of the change procedure within this process is the entity (person) who has recognised the need for the implementation of a potential change, initiated the steps leading to the definition of the nature of the change and its impacts on the project and started the preparation of the necessary documents for the proper initiation of the change procedure. In terms of early recognition of the change and the minimisation of impacts, the initiator is the key actor who opens the whole change procedure process.

3.3. Defining the Nature and Extent of Potential Change

In the next steps, the initiator must define the nature of the change according to whether it is a change of a technical or technological nature, in the project documentation, in the whole or part of the construction object, or in the operational set (CO/OS), identify the specific construction objects and/or operational sets concerned, and determine the framework scope of the potential change. Outlining the basic characteristics of the change is particularly important in relation to other stakeholders in the change procedure who do not have the same range of information and documentation as the initiator; a well-formulated and defined object of change can contribute significantly to a more efficient process of assessing the justification for a change to the project.

3.4. Forced/Initiated Change

In defining the nature and scope of the change, the initiator of the potential change procedure should identify whether it is a forced change—it is necessary to implement it for the further continuation of the process of preparation and/or the construction of the project and for the successful completion of the construction, ensuring the required functionality, quality, and safety of the work, or an initiated change, which is based on the objective requirements of the initiator, and there are adequate arguments to support its justification in the context of the optimisation of the financial or time demands, appropriateness, and usefulness of the project.

3.5. Justification of the Rationale for the Potential Change and Determination of Its Impacts on the Project

In this step, the initiator of the change processes all the necessary documents: the justification of the legitimacy of the proposed change, the definition of the subject and material content of the change (categorization, nature, scope of the change, concretization in the form of CO/OS, and project documentation), technical justification (technical solution, drawings, photo documentation, etc.), documents for the valuation of the change and its impact on the financial area of the project, and additional related documentation.

The initiator should elaborate the possible proposed solutions to the situation so that it is possible to select the optimal variant in the implementation of the change on the basis of different combinations of benefits and impacts affecting the parameters of the project, which are impacts on finance, time, process impacts, and technical–technological impacts.

It is at this procedural step that, in order to demonstrate the impacts of the change and to select the optimal alternative solution, it is useful to assess the impact of the project change on the change in the volume or the routing of traffic flows in the affected project area in order to verify the sufficiency of the proposed changed technical solution and to update the socio-economic benefits of the project after the implementation of the change. For this purpose, either a new transport model could be developed to account for the new technical design of the project and to determine the impact of the change on the redistribution of load traffic flows, but this may be data-intensive given the scale and complexity of the technical design of the project, time, and cost inefficient. It is possible also to update the existing transport model, especially in the case of the construction of new linear transport infrastructure that is not yet embedded in the site under consideration, and thus, to examine the impact of the change on the generation of load flows and their distribution on the affected transport infrastructure. These traffic data will allow us to update the demand model in the CBA and to investigate the sensitivity of the implementation of the change on the socio-economic performance of the project and to name and quantify the risks associated with the implementation of the change in the evaluated alternatives in order to provide the basis for the evaluation of the change and the selection of the optimal solution.

3.6. Impacts on Finance

When quantifying the impacts on finances in detail on the unit rates for the activities carried out and the in-kind intensity of these activities, the initiator may, in the conditions of the Slovak Republic, use methods of determining the price of change, such as the following:

Application of rate schedules (price lists) for the valuation of financial requirements of construction works: CENEKON—Price lists of construction works broken down by structures; price lists of construction works broken down by types of construction works. ODIS—Budget, schedule or execution management module. UNIKA—Price list for designing bid prices for design works and engineering activities. Rate schedule for the design of bid prices for the completion of construction activities.

Preparation of quotations from relevant institutions in the field of design and the implementation of construction works.

Preparation of a forensic expert opinion by a person competent in the field of forensic expert engineering.

Unless the investor is the initiator of the change, the above methods are used to verify the relevance of the unit price and the intensity in nature of the individual works of the declared intensity by the initiator of the change.

The choice of the optimal variant of the proposed change is significantly influenced by the financial requirements for its implementation. In practice, for linear, technically demanding constructions, it is quite common for circumstances to arise that require interventions in the project and are included in the budget reserve. However, it is the natural tendency of the investor and the construction supervisor to spend funds efficiently and to adhere to the established budget and project schedule. Therefore, the quantification of the cost of implementing the change is an important part of the treasure chest for the change procedure and one of the fundamental determinants in the selection of an option and the approval of the proposed change.

3.7. Impacts on the Schedule

The impact on the project schedule is also an important determinant for the selection of the optimal change option. Due to the occurrence of unforeseen circumstances that have an impact on the timing of the implementation of some parts of the construction, the impact on the schedule needs to be carefully determined, as the change in a particular CO/OS may also have an impact on the downstream or upstream CO/OS. Such a situation carries the risk of non-compliance with the approved schedule, with an impact on the resulting construction period and the date of commissioning of the works. The risk is all the greater if the change affects one of the most technically and/or technologically demanding objects, such as bridge structures, tunnels, etc. Delays in the commissioning of the works have an impact on the generation of revenue for the investor, while at the same time requiring increased costs on the part of both the contractor and the investor, so compliance with the construction schedule and any interventions in it should be carefully analysed and evaluated. Another factor is the risk associated with non-compliance with the timeframe of eligibility for financing from EU sources and the subsequent need to finance the remaining volume of construction works exclusively from the state budget, the investor’s budget, or the phasing of the project and its inclusion in the next programming period. However, this procedure has a major impact on the efficiency of financing from European funds, because if the necessity of phasing the project arises, there is a real risk that the investor (eligible applicants) will not have an alternative project at such a stage of readiness, which could be a substitute candidate for the benefit of European funds. At the same time, phasing will result in the contracting of part of the allocated funds of the next programming period and prevent or delay the implementation of other planned projects.

3.8. Procedural Impacts

Depending on its complexity, scope, and deviation from the originally approved project documentation, the implemented change may have different impacts on the processes related to the environmental impact assessment (EIA), zoning decisions, building permits, protocols for early use/commissioning of the construction (parts of it), or the sources of project financing. A change requiring a reassessment of the environmental impacts by the relevant institution will cause additional time due to the process of reviewing the content of the change and its impacts and issuing the final decision. The same problem may arise at the stage of the planning decision or building permits, which will have to be reissued. In this procedural step, it is crucial to know the legal obligations and deadlines arising in particular from Act No. 24/2006 Coll. on Environmental Impact Assessment, No. 71/1967 Coll. on Administrative Proceedings, and No. 50/1976 Coll. on Spatial Planning and Building Code.

If the project is also financed by EU funds, the change may affect the process of submitting the Application for Nonreturnable Financial Contribution or the process of concluding the Nonreturnable Financial Contribution Contract. In this case, the potential need to update the Competent Authority’s Opinion on the impact of the project implementation on NATURA 2000 sites or the appropriate assessment of the impacts on NATURA 2000 sites, or the Competent Authority’s Opinion on the status of surface water bodies and groundwater in relation to the fulfilment of the environmental objectives should also be taken into account. There is a risk of a significant impact on the project budget, and there may be a need for self-financing by the investor and the state.

3.9. Technical–Technological Impacts

The technical–technological impacts may not relate exclusively to changes in the technical design of the CO in question or changes in the technology of the OS. They may involve technological changes of a logistical nature or changes in the handling of materials and waste. The implementation of the change may also trigger the need to rehabilitate objects that are not directly related to the project and were not necessary to take into account in the original technical solution, or changes related to the geological and hydrological conditions on the construction site. If the construction is in direct contact, crosses, or partially interferes with the surroundings of other structures, there may be a need for the modification of some parts of the surrounding structures, the relocation of utilities, and the additional securing of the statics, drainage, and other properties of the affected construction objects. Therefore, technical and technological impacts should be assessed also in the context of the elaborated construction organisation plan, the fire safety of constructions, the occupational health and safety plan, transport technology, the creation of temporary waste dumps and waste management, and other documents focused on potential technical and technological impacts on the construction implementation process.

3.10. Request for Initiation of Change Procedure

The initiator of the change shall submit to the construction supervision all necessary documents for the change; i.e., justification of the validity of the proposed change, the definition of the subject and material content of the change, technical justification, documents for the valuation of the change and its impact on the financial area of the project, and additional related documentation.

All necessary information on the proposed change should be clearly defined within the submission documents. This means, the justification of the validity of the implementation of the change, its technical–technological characteristics, the scope of the change and the affected COs or OSs, the technical–technological solution of the proposed change (in variant solutions), drawings and photo documentation, documents defining the impact of the implementation of the change on the financial, time, process, and technical–technological areas of the project, supplementary documentation, and related documents and information. The completeness of the submitted documentation is crucial in terms of the time efficiency of the whole process of the change procedure and prevents additional requirements for supplementing the documentation or possible supplementation for the issuance of the necessary decisions and opinions by statutory institutions (District Offices, Ministry of Transport and Construction, Research Institute of Water Management, etc.).

3.11. Submission of the Proposal for Change by the Construction Supervisor and Its Examination by the Investor

The construction supervisor is obliged to draw up a draft change order and submit it to the investor and the construction supervisor without delay after receiving the change documents from the initiator of the change. The construction supervisor is obliged to provide the following materials within the proposal and its annexes: the subject and material scope of the change together with the corresponding project documentation, the technical solution of the proposed variants, drawings and photo documentation, documents necessary for the evaluation of the complexity of the change and the determination of the economically eligible costs, a written statement from the future administrator, user, or operator on the proposed changes, a written statement from the construction supervisor on the proposed changes, and supplementary related documentation.

As part of this process, the investor is required to secure the written opinion of the author’s supervisor on the documentation for the change as part of the author’s supervision activities. The investor should assess the justification for the implementation of such a change and its declared complexity and impacts on the financial, time, process, and technical–technological aspects of the project on the basis of the documents and statements of the relevant persons.

3.12. Negotiation Between the Parties in the Change Procedure Aimed at Selecting the Optimal Variant

After the examination of the change initiator’s proposal by the investor, there is an opportunity for argumentation of all participants in the change procedure in order to identify the optimal variant of the change implementation on the basis of substantive arguments, with a focus on the justification of the implementation of the change and its impacts. At this point, it is possible to negotiate the scope and the financial and time evaluation of the activity so that the cost and time requirements for its implementation are in line with the normal cost and time requirements of similar works following the conditions of the contractor, while at the same time eliminating the identified problems that have necessitated the change in the project.

3.13. Rejection/Approval of the Change Procedure

Based on the results of the negotiations on the selection of the optimal variant of the change implementation and its impact on the financial, time, process, and technical–technological aspects of the project, a decision on the rejection/approval of the change procedure is issued to the extent that it is the result of the consensus of the parties involved, based on the relevant arguments.

4. Conclusions and Discussion

4.1. Practical Application of Methodological Apparatus

The practical application of the defined procedural approach to the assessment of changes was carried out on the initiated change procedure of the project documentation of the construction of the D1 Hubová–Ivachnová highway section in the Slovak Republic, namely the construction object 201-00 bridge on D1 at 0.411–0.849 km.

In this case, the change procedure process started with the recognition of the need for the implementation of the change based on the conclusions of the additional engineering–geological investigation carried out and the expert assessment by the competent institutions. The initiator at the start of the potential change procedure was the contractor, with whom the work contract was duly signed as a result of the tender procedure carried out.

The definition of the nature and scope of the change was defined by the processed documents for the change procedure, and they contained the necessary elements providing information on the reasons for the implementation of the change and the technical characteristics of the proposed change, drawings, conclusions of the conducted additional engineering–geological investigation, etc.

It was a forced change due to the influence of geological factors in the construction site, although in the process of the change procedure, it has its initiator—the contractor. From the point of view of categorization, it is a forced change, which required intervention in the project in the defined scope so that the planned functionality, the quality, and safety level of the final work was maintained.

Arguments for the justification of the change implemented stemmed mainly from the documents for the change procedure, i.e., from the additional geological–engineering survey carried out, the technical report prepared, and the related drawings and additional documentation.

The initiator of the change submitted the prepared design documentation for the change in the project before completion to the construction supervisor, who took the necessary steps for the proper initiation of the change procedure. The construction supervisor prepared a Change Instruction Proposal and submitted it to the investor and the construction supervisor. Having familiarised himself with the contents of the documentation and the nature and extent of the change, the investor accepted that it is a change that is unquestionable in terms of the future project deliverables, and its implementation is necessary. The proposed technical solution was the result of a consensus of all parties concerned in the process of the preparation and construction of the project. The investor has also accepted that at this stage the proposed technical solution for the change has not been subjected to a re-assessment (updated) through a CBA tool that would quantify the sensitivity of the change to the originally considered financial and socio-economic cashflows of the construction. At the same time, for this reason, the transport model and traffic forecast as the main input demand model to the cost–benefit analysis has also not been updated to monitor the impact of the change on the potential redistribution and volumes of congestion flows in the affected project site and the secondary effects of the implementation of the change on the load on the surrounding infrastructure with impacts on its traffic, operational, safety, and technical levels. This procedure was chosen by the investor due to the time and financial complexity of the comprehensive update of the traffic model and the socio-economic performance of the project. Another argument was the level of construction work in progress and the subject to change—the bridge—since it was an element of critical infrastructure, a major change in the project (change in routing, replacement of the construction object, etc.) was not able to be considered in this project. At the same time, the potential loss of socio-economic benefits from the delayed operation of the work reinforced the urgency of a timely solution.

At the time of the preparation of the study, the process of the change procedure was at the stage when it was necessary to verify the financial complexity of the implementation of the approved technical solution and either to confirm the time and financial complexity declared by the designer or to proceed to the negotiation of the proposed amount of the price of the change in the project documentation between the investor and the contractor so that the approval of the change procedure and the content and scope of the change could take place based on an agreement between all the concerned parties participating in the process of the preparation and implementation of the work.

Any of the above approaches to cost could have been used to assess the reasonableness of the amount of the declared financial requirements to implement the change.

For objective reasons—mainly due to the existence of an offer from the main designer of the works—approaching the companies performing the services or works that were the subject of the valuation with a request to prepare and send a quotation for the defined scope and nature of the activities appeared to be the optimal form. The quotations provided an overview of the actual price level of the work required (

Table 1. Quotations from the companies.

	Dopravoprojekt	HBH Projekt	DAQE Slovakia	‘Design Company’
Item	[EUR]
Price excl. VAT	459,308.00	517,672.00	438,330.00	394,349.00
VAT	91,861.60	103,534.40	87,666.00	78,869.80
Price incl. VAT	551,169.60	621,206.40	525,996.00	473,218.80

), reflected the real market conditions at the time, and became a comparative basis (benchmark of 100%) against the tender submitted by the construction designer. In the process of assessing the cost of the change, three quotations were received from HBH projekt, s.r.o., DAQE Slovakia, s.r.o., and a company acting within the framework of this study as the ‘Design Company’, which did not wish to be named. The data on the time and financial complexity of the change were provided by the infrastructure manager applying the proposed methodological procedure in this process, which obtained the information in question through a market survey, which can be applied for the determination of the estimated value of the contract in accordance with Act No. 343/2015, as amended.

The reference value of the quotation from Dopravoprojekt, a. s., was at the level of EUR 459,308 excluding VAT. The quotations of the addressed companies reflected the current state of the market at the time of the preparation of the methodological manual and the application example. It can be concluded that the cheapest and the most expensive offer created an interval of acceptable market prices for the scope and technical complexity of the service in question, i.e., between EUR 394,349 and 517,672 excluding VAT. The reference quotation of the designer under consideration, at EUR 459,308 excluding VAT, is therefore almost in the middle of the established range (it exceeds the average of the quotations by only about 2%). The contractually agreed investment costs of the D1 Hubová–Ivachnová construction were at the level of EUR 288,790,981.21 excl. VAT, which means that the considered interval of costs for changes between EUR 394,349–517,672 excluding VAT represents a cost share of approximately 0.14–0.18% of the total costs. The inevitable change to an element of critical infrastructure, which is key to the performance of the overall work at such a small level of cost share, led the investor to attach importance to the time factor, the contractual experience with companies, and the fact that one of the questioned companies was the creator of the project documentation. Thus, it performed author’s supervision, which reduced the risk of problems associated with the implementation of the change and the subsequent need for further intervention measures or change procedures, as well as the overall compatibility of the object changed with the project as a whole.

A second important factor entering into the assessment of the adequacy of the reference offer was the time required to carry out the activities (Figure 3).

The submitted quotations were then compared with the reference value of the main designer of the construction in terms of time and financial requirements. As the price offer of the current contractor of the project documentation was almost in the middle of the defined interval of the lowest and highest price offer of the institutions addressed and was also close to the average time intensity of the offers considered, it could be considered adequate in terms of the objectivity of the time intensity and unit rates for the tasks performed in relation to the usual prices for works of similar scope and complexity and the market conditions at the time.

Since the main designer of the construction, whose quotation was the subject of examination within the application example of the methodological manual, knew the specific conditions of the construction in detail, and had comprehensive information about the current situation in the process of planning, preparation, and implementation of the D1 Hubová–Ivachnová project, there was room for the investor to negotiate the time complexity of the partial activities and tasks. For this reason, some of the sub-activities in question did not need to be carried out, as the designers involved in the processing of the project documentation were familiar in detail with the actual situation and conditions on the construction site, which created space for the reduction in the time-consuming implementation of the sub-activities. This state could lead to the optimisation of the time, and thus, also the financial complexity of the implementation of the project change after mutual negotiations of the parties participating in the change procedure.

4.2. Future Research Directions

The above methodological tool confirmed in the application case of a specific change procedure that from the position of the investor, it is important to have a coherent uniform methodological apparatus describing the individual steps of the change procedure process, which must be carried out in a chronological and logical order during the assessment of the justification of the initiated changes in the project. The proposed tool provides the evaluator with an overview of all the necessary knowledge and data for a competent decision and defines the timing of the partial activities and the logical and substantive structure of the sequence of steps from the initiation of the change to the final decision to approve/reject the proposed change.

Highlights of the paper:

The proposal of a methodological apparatus of change management, which will be at the level and character of a methodological document of a ministerial strategic document from the side of the ministry.

The creation of a unified model defining the structure and steps of change management.

A recommendation of tools for use in the conditions of the Slovak Republic, taking into account the specificities of change management in the Slovak Republic.

The practical application of the methodological apparatus and the consolidation of the process of change management for a concrete example.

The application example of the methodological apparatus on a specific construction object located in the process of change proceedings demonstrated the validity of the availability of the proposed procedural apparatus of change proceedings in the form of a tool defining the structure and sequence of steps in the assessment of changes and the validation of the declared financial and time complexity of the implementation of the work in question as key indicators of verification of the relevance of the scope and the complexity of the change under consideration. The investor had a methodological tool at its disposal in the change procedure process that allowed it to make the whole change process managed, clearly predictable, and plannable in advance, so that the change procedure was carried out without delays and its outcome was optimal in terms of all the project aspects under consideration. At the same time, the investor is able to declare the justification for the implementation of the change and to provide all the necessary documentation for any controlling state institutions.

Further application examples of the methodological apparatus in change procedures of transport infrastructure projects will allow the preparer to establish its potential for unification and provide feedback from stakeholders in relation to the proposed methodological approach. Subsequently, the proposed framework apparatus can be elaborated in greater detail in the areas of specific legislative steps for authorising the implementation of changes in these projects, and the financial and time complexity of the processing of the proposed variant solution and impact assessment can be evaluated by updating (processing) the transport model of technical solutions and CBA in the context of the Value for Money of the spent public funds.