Rosner, J W; Thal Jr, A E and West, C J (2009) Analysis of the design-build delivery method in Air Force construction projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 135(8), pp. 710-717. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
The design-build (DB) method for construction project delivery continues to grow in both the private and public sector; additionally, research has shown that the DB method outperforms the design-bid-build (DBB) method. The Air Force has applied the results of these previous research efforts to its military construction (MILCON) program without performing empirical studies to validate the approach. Therefore, the objective of this study was to compare the performance of the DB delivery method with the traditional DBB approach for the Air Force MILCON program. Data related to 835 (278 DB and 557 DBB) MILCON projects for fiscal years 1996-2006 were subsequently analyzed. The DB method had better performance in three of six metrics with the performance being significantly better for cost growth and the number of modifications per million dollars. The traditional DBB method performed significantly better in terms of total project time. Furthermore, the DB method was best suited for various facility types. This study provides empirical evidence of how the DB method provides an advantage over the traditional DBB method for Air Force MILCON projects.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | air force; delivery; design/build |
| Index terms: | empirical study, public sector, design-bid-build, military construction, design-build delivery, delivery method, evidence, construction project, program, construction project delivery |
| Subjects: | production management, software systems, research methods, administrative law, infrastructure and transport systems, delivery method, project controls, evaluation and assessment methods, contractual arrangements |
| Topics: | Procurement, Engineering Principles, Research Practice, Project Management, Time Control, Digital Applications, Legal Issues |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCA |
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