Perkins, R A (2009) Sources of changes in design: build contracts for a governmental owner. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 135(7), pp. 588-593. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
In recent years, many U.S. federal, state, and local governments have been authorized to use the designbuild method of project delivery instead of the traditional designbidbuild method. Recent studies have not been definitive on the cost advantage of designbuild for governmental owners. There are fewer change orders in designbuild due to design errors because the designer (architect/engineer) and contractor are one entity, but there are other causes of change orders. Some literature suggests that changes requested by the owner of the facility are greater with the designbuild method. This research examines the causes for construction-phase changes in 14 designbuild and 20 designbidbuild projects. Total changes, expressed as number per contract, cost per contract, or percentage of original contract, were significantly lower in designbuild. Fewer design errors in designbuild accounted for this advantage. The number of owner-requested changes was significantly greater in designbuild. The cost of owner-requested changes, averaged over all the projects, was significantly less for designbidbuild. The differences in changes due to differing site conditions were not significant. The concept that there are more owner-requested changes in designbuild projects is supported by this research.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction management; contracts; design/build; project delivery |
| Index terms: | architect, design error, designer, engineer, change order, local government, project delivery, owner |
| Subjects: | professional practice, sociology, contractual condition, project delivery, administrative law, profession |
| Topics: | Design Practice, Legal Issues, Roles and Professions, Stakeholder Management, Procurement, Contract Administration |
| 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