Challenges in engineering estimates for best value design-build highway projects

Gaikwad, S V; Calahorra-Jimenez, M; Molenaar, K R and Torres-Machi, C (2021) Challenges in engineering estimates for best value design-build highway projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 147(7): 04021065, ISSN 0733-9364

Abstract

Traditional design-bid-build guidelines suggest that engineering estimates should be within +/-10% of the lowest contractor bid and recommend this value as a reference to identify anomalies in the bidding process. This guidance, however, neglects delivery approaches such as design-build (D-B). This research examines 305 D-B highway projects procured using best-value and identifies the underlying reasons for bid dispersion and cost estimates inaccuracies. This study found an average bid dispersion of 27%, suggesting that a larger threshold (i.e., 25%) is needed to account for the inherent variability of D-B projects. This study also found that engineering estimates are on average 2% more than the awarded price. This result contradicts findings in existing literature and suggests that current practice in D-B best-value may be more conservative than other procurement methods. The study explores four potential reasons for bid dispersion and engineering estimate inaccuracies and suggests strategies for improvement. By providing a better understanding of bid dispersion and engineering estimate accuracy, this study will ultimately assist in the development of new policies and processes for D-B best-value projects.

Item Type: Article
Index terms: bidding, estimate, highway construction, best value, design-bid-build, procurement method, variability, strategy, accuracy, cost estimate
Subjects: management, bidding, professional development, financial and cost management, contractual arrangements, statistical analysis, civil engineering
Topics: Information Management, Cost Management, Procurement, Research Practice, Engineering Principles, Business Strategy
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