Henry, E and Brothers, H S (2001) Cost analysis between SABER and design bid build contracting methods. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 127(5), pp. 359-366. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
The majority of Air Force construction is performed by two main contractual methods, design bid build (DBB) and simplified acquisition of base engineering requirements (SABER). DBB is the traditional contracting method in which each project is competitively bid. SABER uses one contractor to complete multiple projects using unit prices established in the original contract. This research performs a cost analysis between DBB and SABER construction projects. The research involved finding appropriate, comparable projects completed by the two contractual methods. Two diverse Air Force bases were used to gather project information, and a total of 46 interior renovation projects were used. Project comparability was demonstrated by evaluating the similarity of type and scope of work. Data from the projects was used to calculate unit cost per dimensional characteristic and time and cost growth for each project. The results indicated SABER contracting had a lower cost per square meter, although not at a statistical level of significance. SABER performed better in time growth. Cost growth was similar for both methods.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | unit cost, construction project, contracting method, cost analysis, renovation, design-bid-build, acquisition, traditional contracting |
| Subjects: | business, contractual arrangements, financial and cost management, renovation and retrofit, production management |
| Topics: | Business Strategy, Cost Management, Engineering Principles, Project Management, Procurement |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 PC |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here