• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
Free ACCA & CIMA online courses from OpenTuition

Free ACCA & CIMA online courses from OpenTuition

Free Notes, Lectures, Tests and Forums for ACCA and CIMA exams

  • ACCA
  • CIMA
  • FIA
  • OBU
  • Books
  • Forums
  • Ask AI
  • Search
  • Register
  • Login
    • BT
    • MA
    • FA
    • LW
    • PM
    • TX-UK
    • FR
    • AA
    • FM
    • SBL
    • SBR
    • AAA
    • AFM
    • APM
    • ATX
    • Dates
    • What is ACCA

March 2026 ACCA Exams Results

Comments & Instant poll

Save 20% on ACCA & CIMA Books

Interactive BPP books for June 2026 exams, recommended by OpenTuition.
Get discount code >>

ACCA F7 IAS 11 Construction Contracts Example 3

VIVA
ACCA F7 lectures聽聽Download F7 notes

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. Avatartikum says

    October 1, 2014 at 8:35 am

    Dear Sir, Thanks for the excellent lectures. I was wondering why in example 5, for the costs recognised in year one you did not remove period specific cost of 40000 from general cost of 300000 before calculating the percentage of cost incurred that is 30% x (300000-40000+500000). I might not have understood the concept well but I think that is what you did in example 3.

    Log in to Reply
    • AvatarMikeLittle says

      October 1, 2014 at 8:44 am

      In example 3 it says specifically that the $750,000 INCLUDES the $200,000 period specific

      In example 5 the general costs are described as “general costs to date” and on the line above the period specific are clearly separate from those general costs.

      It’s all a matter of reading the question very carefully!

      Log in to Reply
      • Avatartikum says

        October 1, 2014 at 9:51 am

        Thanks.
        You are right! is a matter of reading the question very carefully.

      • AvatarMikeLittle says

        October 1, 2014 at 10:24 am

        But that’s the same principle for ALL questions in ACCA exams!

      • Avatartikum says

        October 1, 2014 at 6:15 pm

        Thanks for the reply.As you said is a matter of reading the question very carefully. Thanks once more for the very enriching lectures, I would also take this opportunity to thank You and Mr John Mofat for my success in CBE F2 and F3 in early september 2014. I relied solely on your lectures and revisions and i did not get any revision kit and i still scored 62 and 56 respectively. Thanks once more for the great opportunity you are giving students to pass the ACCA EXAMS.

      • AvatarMikeLittle says

        October 1, 2014 at 8:35 pm

        Hi Bertrand

        Thanks for F2 and F3 should be directed at John – I’ll pass on your thanks. But remember, it was you in that exam room!

        Congratulations!

  2. AvatarSwati says

    August 23, 2014 at 5:39 pm

    Dear Sir,

    There is this cost thing in the construction contract:

    Omega has an insurance policy to protect it against claims arising on its construction contracts. The directors estimate that a monthly premium of $50,000 can reasonably be allocated to this contract, together with general administrative overheads of $40,000 per month.

    So, my doubt is: Do we always take the insurance cost (if its attributed to the contract)
    and what about the general admin OH? The solution has not added it with other construction costs..? Any specific reason is there?

    Log in to Reply
    • AvatarMikeLittle says

      August 23, 2014 at 9:14 pm

      From the wording of your question, those general administrative overheads would have been incurred anyway, whether or not we were working on a contract.

      Only those costs directly attributable should be involved in calculating revenue, costs and therefore profits on the contract

      Log in to Reply
      • AvatarSwati says

        August 24, 2014 at 8:29 am

        Okay, thank you Sir.
        Understood..

      • AvatarMikeLittle says

        August 24, 2014 at 12:31 pm

        You’re welcome

  3. AvatarSwati says

    August 22, 2014 at 7:27 pm

    Dear Sir,

    Here is a Dec -2008 question of Construction contract (Dipifr)

    On 1 October 2007 Delta began a substantial construction project for a customer. The fixed contract price was $60 million and the estimated duration of the contract was two years. On that date they purchased plant for $15 million and materials for $10 million, both amounts being for exclusive use on the contract. They debited both amounts to the contract account that appears in the trial balance. They also used employees at a monthly cost of $500,000 throughout the 12 month period beginning on 1 October 2007. These employee costs are included in production costs in the trial balance.
    On 1 October 2008 Delta purchased additional materials for exclusive use on the contract at a cost of $10 million. They expect to require employees to work on the contract at a monthly cost of $400,000 for the 12 month period to 30 September 2009 but these are the only additional costs they expect to incur in future on this contract. The plant and equipment purchased for use on the contract is expected to have no residual value on 30 September
    2009. The directors of Delta considered that the contract was 50% complete at 30 September 2008.

    Could you please have a look if the following solution is correct?

    Step1: Checking if the entire contract is profitable or loss-making:

    Total contract price = 60 mn
    Less: Total contract costs (15+10+6+10+4.8) = 45.8 mn
    Total expected Profit = 60-45.8 = 14.2 (Hence, its a profit making contract)

    Step2: P/L working:
    Revenue recognize= 50% of 60 = 30
    Less:
    period specific costs = (500000*12)= 6
    general costs= 50% [(15+10)+(10+4.8)]= 19.9

    => Attributable profits= 30- (6+19.9) = 4.1

    Please let me know where have I gone wrong ?

    Log in to Reply
    • AvatarMikeLittle says

      August 22, 2014 at 7:43 pm

      Why do you think that you have gone wrong?

      Log in to Reply
      • AvatarSwati says

        August 23, 2014 at 4:11 pm

        I am not sure about the ‘cost’ part. In Solutions, it says:
        Total expected costs:
        Plant: 15
        Material: 10+10
        Labour: 6+4.8
        Total= 45.8
        And, then 50% of 45.8 = 22.9 is recognised as cost of sales. But, in your lecture, it was told that we take 100% of the period specific cost.

        Can you please explain it?

      • AvatarMikeLittle says

        August 23, 2014 at 4:36 pm

        The materials cost is not period specific ie although it was incurred specifically in that first year, it didn’t need to be – it’s just part of the overall material cost

        A period specific cost is one that is incurred and that relates specifically to that particular period. Material costs are rarely specifically related to a specific period – they are merely the material costs of the entire contract.

      • AvatarSwati says

        August 23, 2014 at 4:41 pm

        Thank you Sir. I understand that material cost is not period specific.
        But what about the employee salary for that period (5,00,000 *12 months = 6mn) Wouldn’t this be considered as the period specific?

        And, why plant cost is included? Don’t we just take the depreciation of plant (for 1 yr) in the costs to be recognised in P/L?

      • AvatarMikeLittle says

        August 23, 2014 at 4:58 pm

        The plant has a two year life, it was bought on day 1 of the contract and dies on the completion of the contract. OK, just take the depreciation – it works out the same (because the plant was bought on day 1!)

        No (employee salaries) again, like materials, employees’ wages are simply a cost of the contract. If there had had to be some remedial work and the employees had had to work specifically on repairing the previous work, that would have been period specific.

        I’m going to generalise here (and I’ve never said this before (so I could be wrong!)) “a period specific cost is a cost that was not anticipated at the time the contract was started / signed but has been incurred because of some unforeseen event / circumstance”

        Now, I’ve not thought that through thoroughly, but as an initial thought, it’s not bad

        OK?

      • AvatarSwati says

        August 23, 2014 at 5:05 pm

        Great!
        Thanks a lot..
        So, in the costs, we always take the depreciation (for that period)
        Why employee salary is not ‘period specific’, I have understood.

        In short, I have understood it!

        Thanks again.
        Also, you earlier asked me if I have cleared F7 or not. Actually, its my first international exam and its DipIfr. I have not given any ACCA exam prior to this.
        I read your F7 & P2 lectures for preparing Dipifr.

      • AvatarMikeLittle says

        August 23, 2014 at 5:09 pm

        Ah, ok! It probably would have been easier if you had been an ACCA student that had already passed F7. But, no problem. It’s still there available for you to pass

  4. AvatarSwati says

    August 22, 2014 at 7:26 pm

    Dear Sir,

    Here is a Dec -2008 question of Construction contract (Dipifr)

    On 1 October 2007 Delta began a substantial construction project for a customer. The fixed contract price was $60 million and the estimated duration of the contract was two years. On that date they purchased plant for $15 million and materials for $10 million, both amounts being for exclusive use on the contract. They debited both amounts to the contract account that appears in the trial balance. They also used employees at a monthly cost of $500,000 throughout the 12 month period beginning on 1 October 2007. These employee costs are included in production costs in the trial balance.
    On 1 October 2008 Delta purchased additional materials for exclusive use on the contract at a cost of $10 million. They expect to require employees to work on the contract at a monthly cost of $400,000 for the 12 month period to 30 September 2009 but these are the only additional costs they expect to incur in future on this contract. The plant and equipment purchased for use on the contract is expected to have no residual value on 30 September
    2009. The directors of Delta considered that the contract was 50% complete at 30 September 2008.

    Could you please have a look if the following solution is correct?

    Step1: Checking if the entire contract is profitable or loss-making:

    Total contract price = 60 mn
    Less: Total contract costs (15+10+6+10+4.8) = 45.8 mn
    Total expected Profit = 60-45.8 = 14.2 (Hence, its a profit making contract)

    Step2: P/L working:
    Revenue recognize= 50% of 60 = 30
    Less:
    period specific costs = (500000*12)= 6
    general costs= 50% [(15+10)+(10+4.8)]= 19.9

    => Attributable profits= 30- (6+19.9) = 4.1

    Please let me know where have I gone wrong ?

    Log in to Reply
  5. AvatarAli says

    March 25, 2014 at 12:08 pm

    SO I’m lost over here. How exactly was the cost recognized (Genera) calculated in question 5?

    Thanks in advance

    Log in to Reply
    • Avatarabodinho says

      April 28, 2014 at 2:44 pm

      yr1: costs to date : 300,000 +Est’d costs: 500,000 = 800,000
      800,000 x 30% = 240,000

      yr2: we estimated a loss =1,000,000 – (600,000+500,000) = (100,000)
      plus the specific periode (40,000) we’ll have a (140,000)
      so,Rev 650,000
      spec cost (40,000)
      gen costs ( since we estimated a loss then this will be the balancing figure)
      610,000 – x = -140,000
      x= 750,000
      loss recognised (140,000)
      I hope this is clear lol xD

      Log in to Reply
  6. Avatarrcc002 says

    January 20, 2014 at 10:36 am

    Hi’ now i stuck in kit questions regarding ias 11
    any one here who help me on skype?

    Log in to Reply
  7. Avatarrcc002 says

    January 20, 2014 at 10:06 am

    dear mike:
    specific cost of 40.0000 occur in both first two years, but why u can’t accont it while preparing year 2 profit nd loss

    Log in to Reply
    • Avatarbiggles says

      January 20, 2014 at 12:17 pm

      40,000 does NOT occur in both years! I had that problem to. The column your looking at where 40,000 appears is a cumulative column and coz 40,000 was recognised in the first year you cant recognise again in the second. I think thats right

      Log in to Reply
      • AvatarMikeLittle says

        January 20, 2014 at 1:38 pm

        That’s right Biggles.
        rcc002 – do you see the amount of 190,000? That’s also cumulative – it’s 40,000 from year 1, zero from year 2 and 150,000 from year 3

        so recognition os period specifics is 40,000 in year 1, and 150,000 in year 3 giving a total of period specifics of 190,000

        OK?

  8. Avatartauraiversatile says

    September 27, 2013 at 12:22 am

    Hi Mike, Thanks for the lecture.
    However, would you advise on the right procedure because BPP apportions both revenue rec and costs rec using the %ge completion when there is Recognised loss- and any balancing figure they call it “expected loss”, unlike the approach in this example where costs would not need to be apportioned using the %ge compl. method when a loss is recognised.
    Reference Question, Qn50, Books of Contract, 2012 Rev Kit, pg53. Thanks in advance!

    Log in to Reply
  9. Avatarcrye says

    May 12, 2013 at 6:32 am

    It’s said losses expected should be recorded even if contract hasn’t bugun.

    But why would anyone even need to go that far, like … a commercial entity embarking on a loss venture?? Why?

    Log in to Reply
    • Avatarcrye says

      May 12, 2013 at 6:33 am

      ‘bEgun’

      Log in to Reply
    • AvatarSangria9 says

      May 12, 2013 at 6:55 am

      Maybe the seller wants “to receive” this buyer by performing current contract for low price and hoping that in future buyer will bring more profits in another contracts.

      Log in to Reply
    • AvatarSangria9 says

      May 12, 2013 at 6:58 am

      Or maybe next situation. Contract is signed with profit, but lately something changed (for example seller’s equipment damaged) and new expenses occur (seller know exactly that to start works under this contract he need to purchase new equipment or repair old) and seller can’t avoid performing contract (maybe penalties will much more higher than expected losses)..

      Log in to Reply
  10. Avatarfidahussain says

    April 21, 2013 at 12:25 pm

    hi
    can any one explain how we got 750 in statement of comprehensive income in eg 5 ch13 plz

    Log in to Reply
    • Avatarmarilynlojikim says

      September 9, 2013 at 3:34 pm

      Its a balancing figure. If u forsee a loss ( [ total cost of 500+600+40] > contract value 1000) u have to immediately recognize it. So 1140 -1000 is a 140 loss. Revenue of 650 was recognized, so in order to get the 140 loss. ( 650-40-750) = 140

      Hope this helps

      Log in to Reply
      • AvatarMikeLittle says

        September 9, 2013 at 8:01 pm

        Thanks Marilyn – it could be a bit late – the original question was posted in April so presumably Fida has already taken the exam. I just hope that they (he or she) passed! 馃檪

      • Avatartauraiversatile says

        September 26, 2013 at 11:34 pm

        Excellent Mariyln! This requires some practise ……………its very easy to forget.

  11. Avatarfidahussain says

    April 21, 2013 at 12:22 pm

    HI
    CAN any one explain how we got 750 in year 2 in statement of comprehensive income eg 5 ch 13 plz

    Log in to Reply
  12. Avatareadinnu says

    April 9, 2013 at 5:51 pm

    Good day Mike,

    I need clarification. In the event of a loss, the total loss is recognised immediately. In example 4, the Cost recognised was the balancing figure whereas the Revenue recognised was worked out based on the percentage completed.

    An example in Kaplan instead gave the Revenue recognised as the balancing figure and worked out the Cost recognised with the percentage completed.

    Are they accepted alternative ways of treating this situation?

    Log in to Reply
    • Avatareadinnu says

      April 12, 2013 at 8:38 am

      The answer to the issue I raised is in the technical article on construction contracts in the Sept-Nov 2008 edition of the Student Accountant.

      Log in to Reply
  13. AvatarAkis says

    April 9, 2013 at 10:37 am

    Hi Mike! Could you explain the presentation in the SFP when we have both amounts due to customers and from customers? Do we demonstrate separate lines in current assets and liabilities or we present one line depending on the total difference ?

    Log in to Reply
  14. Avatar1992825amaar says

    December 28, 2012 at 3:28 pm

    In Example 5 working 2 (W2) why using $140 loss in year 2 instead of the $160 from income statement (w1)??

    Log in to Reply
    • AvatarMikeLittle says

      December 28, 2012 at 4:10 pm

      @1992825amaar, The 140 loss is the figure to be recognised by THE END of year 2. But we have already recognised 20 profit in year 1. So, in order that 140 loss should be recognised by the end of year 2, we need to recognise 160 loss in year 2 to give us 140 cumulative by end year 2.

      Better?

      Log in to Reply
  15. Avatarchenchen says

    November 1, 2012 at 9:38 pm

    hi Mike

    in year 1 we calculated the costs (300+500) by 30% stage of completion. Why did we not do the same in year 2, multiply the costs (600+500) by 65%?

    Log in to Reply
    • AvatarMikeLittle says

      November 2, 2012 at 6:31 am

      @chenchen, Because a loss is forecast and that loss should be recognised in full in the year in which it is forecast.

      Therefore, we can determine the revenue figure ( 65% x 1 million ) and we know the forecast loss by simple calculation. Therefore the costs to be recognised becomes the missing figure

      OK?

      Log in to Reply
      • Avatarvikki says

        February 5, 2017 at 10:32 am

        So 1mil is contract value less costs (500+40+600)? I’m struggling to see what figures are being used to get to the 510 on yr2 costs recognised

      • Avatarvikki says

        February 5, 2017 at 11:00 am

        Ahh I got it!

      • AvatarMikeLittle says

        February 5, 2017 at 3:45 pm

        Always better when you work it out for yourself 馃檪

  16. Avatarkimcap28 says

    October 5, 2012 at 10:49 pm

    In example 5 page 75-how is the 510,000 in general cost shown in the year 2 income statement calculated….somehow I am not following that bit.

    Log in to Reply
    • AvatarMikeLittle says

      October 6, 2012 at 11:22 am

      @kimcap28, Because, in the situation where an overall loss is forecast, the loss must be recognised in full in the year you realise that a loss will be suffered.

      In order to recognise the loss in full, the bottom line of working 1 must be completed immediately after the first line. So, now we have a figure for revenue and a figure for loss recognised. The missing figure of 510,000 is therefore the value of the costs to be recognised

      Better?

      Log in to Reply
  17. Avatarclaudia1 says

    October 5, 2012 at 8:21 am

    Hi Mike…the 50 which is yet to be billed, is an asset to be included in the SOFP…..current asset! Can you confirm please???

    Log in to Reply
    • AvatarMikeLittle says

      October 5, 2012 at 11:18 am

      @claudia1, Hi

      Yes, that is correct. I suppose possibly it COULD be a deferred asset to be invoiced after, say, 2 years – if that’s what the contract says. But, when I wrote the question, it was intended that it was a current asset

      Log in to Reply
  18. Avatarnoldis says

    June 3, 2012 at 2:56 pm

    Good example, however I still don’t have complete understanding why unbilled amounts and A/R has the same name ” Amounts due from/to customers” 馃檪

    Log in to Reply
  19. Avatarsdehnjo says

    May 19, 2012 at 10:02 pm

    i understand and could apply this in a 11/2hr by the way am home studying with f7 so this is my only source of help and you guys are doing a great job

    Log in to Reply
  20. Avatarmdadil says

    April 19, 2012 at 12:13 pm

    what about the additional costs for the constructor 150,000 ?

    Log in to Reply
    • Avataronly4testing says

      April 22, 2012 at 3:20 pm

      @mdadil,
      Maybe Specific to date costs 190,000-40,000 = 150,000

      Log in to Reply
    • Avatarbarzakh says

      May 10, 2012 at 11:52 pm

      @mdadil, Well that ‘150,000’ was as a matter of fact, added to the question and hence the increase in cumulative total of period specific cost in year 3 to ‘190,000’.
      It seems confusing reading the text (below) as if it’s a separate cost, but actually it has already been settled in the chart above.

      Log in to Reply
Newer Comments »

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Copyright © 2026 路 Contact 路 Advertising 路 OpenLicense 路 About 路 Sitemap 路 Privacy Policy 路 Cookie settings 路 Comments 路 Log in