Which of the following is the safest contract for a property owner?

A unit price contract offers a level of safety for property owners because it establishes specific prices for each unit of work performed. This type of contract allows for precise budgeting based on the actual quantities of work completed, which can be particularly beneficial in situations where the full scope of work may not be clearly defined at the outset. The property owner pays based on the units delivered, which minimizes the risk of cost overruns typically associated with other contract types.

In contrast, a cost-plus contract can expose the property owner to higher costs, as it involves paying the contractor for all incurred expenses plus an additional fee. This structure can lead to uncertainty regarding the total final cost. A fixed-price contract, while generally favoring the contractor if project costs exceed estimates, does provide budget predictability; however, it may not offer the flexibility to account for unexpected changes in scope. Time and materials contracts also present risks in terms of cost control, as they bill based on the time spent and materials used, potentially leading to escalating expenses without clear limits.

Overall, a unit price contract strikes a balance between work defined and cost control, making it a safer choice for property owners concerned about budgetary constraints and scope adjustments.