Shrestha, P P and Fernane, J D (2017) Performance of design-build and design-bid-build projects for public universities. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 143(3): 04016101, ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
In an economy with an unsure market and scarce work for construction projects, public owners across the United States, especially universities, are using alternative project delivery methods to complete their projects within cost and schedule. As an alternate delivery method to design-bid-build (DBB), public universities across the United States are beginning to use design-build (DB) to construct their facilities. In order to analyze and compare DB and DBB projects, this study used 77 building projects built by planning and construction divisions of United States public universities. Statistical tests were conducted to determine if metrics related to cost, schedule, and change orders were significantly different from each other in these two types of projects. Results showed that DB projects significantly outperformed DBB projects in terms of schedule saving. The study also found that the number of construction change orders was significantly lower in DB projects than in DBB projects. The primary contribution of this paper is to provide information to the public that the DB method has potential to reduce schedule and construction change orders when constructing public university buildings.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | change-order growth; contracting; cost growth; design-bid-build; design-build; public projects; schedule growth; unit cost |
| Index terms: | change order, design-bid-build, delivery method, project delivery, public university, schedule growth, public owner, United States, unit cost, statistical test, public project, construction project |
| Subjects: | statistical analysis, sociology, educational institutions, project controls, delivery method, infrastructure engineering, production management, contractual condition, Geography, project delivery, financial and cost management, contractual arrangements |
| Topics: | Procurement, Stakeholder Management, Engineering Principles, Research Practice, Geographical Context, Project Management, Cost Management, Time Control, Education, Contract Administration |
| 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