Moon, H; Kim, K; Lee, H S; Park, M; Williams, T P; Son, B and Chun, J Y (2020) Cost performance comparison of design-build and design-bid-build for building and civil projects using mediation analysis. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 146(9): 04020113, ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
This study analyzes the cost performance of design-build (DB) and design-bid-build (DBB) delivery systems to examine whether one project delivery system (PDS) is always superior to the other when it presents lower cost growth. Previous studies have not yet separated the effects of PDS and third factors on cost performance and have thus been unable to determine the most significant factor affecting cost performance in the comparison of DB and DBB. Bidding characteristics tend to increase project costs during the construction phase and have been recognized as the third factors associated with the PDS and cost performance. The current study employed a causal relationship model, using path analysis to distinguish the effect of the PDS and bidding characteristics on cost performance, to identify the third factors as mediators and to determine whether the mediation effect of bidding characteristics has a statistically significant effect on cost growth. Subsequently, it applied a t-test to compare the cost performance of DB and DBB delivery systems across project types, based on 197 public projects in Seoul, South Korea. The results show that the cost performance of DBB has a mediation effect on architectural building projects but not civil infrastructure projects. It indicates a condition wherein DB should not be considered superior to DBB despite the lower cost growth. Thus, PDS have the potential to be misjudged when their cost-effectiveness is mediated by bidding characteristics. This study contributes to the construction engineering and management body of knowledge by providing a causal relationship analysis to compare DB and DBB cost performance based on a mediation effect. The findings from the study may guide practitioners in the architecture, engineering, and construction (AEC) industry to evaluate and select the appropriate PDS for specific project types and provide a method to benchmark DB against DBB.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | infrastructure project, construction phase, path analysis, project delivery, construction engineering, architectural building, South Korea, design-bid-build, mediator, body of knowledge, bidding, cost performance, public project, practitioner, project cost, cost-effectivenes, mediation |
| Subjects: | statistical analysis, infrastructure and transport systems, engineering methods, economics, infrastructure engineering, Geography, project delivery, bidding, knowledge management, contractual arrangements, construction type, dispute resolution, practitioner |
| Topics: | Procurement, Construction Technology, Roles and Professions, Geographical Context, Project Management, Research Practice, Information Management, Engineering Principles, Cost Management, 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