Williams Jr., G H (2003) An evaluation of public construction contracting methods for the public building sector in Oregon using data envelopment analysis. PhD thesis, Portland State University, USA.
Abstract
Since 1976 public agencies in Oregon have been allowed to select construction contractors using a "qualification" based competition instead of the more typical lowest responsible bid or Design-Bid-Build (DBB) basis. Since 1985, at least 136 such selections, commonly known as CM/GC for Construction Manager/General Contractor, have been made. The results of this policy have not previously been analyzed. This research compares these selection methods, seeking to answer the following questions: 1. Does the CM/GC method result in projects that differ from DBB projects regarding cost and schedule control? 2. Are CM/GC projects more efficient than DBB projects, where efficiency is defined as the data envelopment analysis (DEA) technical efficiency score? 3. Does efficiency depend on an interaction between project type and the selection method? 4. How do project stakeholders evaluate the benefits and drawbacks of the two selection methods? 5. How do projects compare when the only apparent difference between them is the selection method? To answer these questions, we identified 407 Oregon public building construction projects and obtained a variety of data, including cost and schedule results, for 215 jobs (111 CM/GC and 104 DBB). We analyzed the data several ways, including statistical analysis, DEA, and various qualitative methods. Results: 1. There was no statistically significant difference between the CM/GC and DBB projects regarding cost and schedule control. 2. The DEA technical efficiency scores showed that CM/GC projects outperformed the DBB projects. 3. There was no interaction effect between project type and selection method. 4. Project stakeholders stated that reduction of risk is the principal benefit of using CM/GC; however, architects and subcontractors are less enthusiastic than owners and general contractors. 5. Data on two nearly identical projects indicated that the DBB project was less costly than the comparable CM/GC project and also incurred less cost growth; both projects were completed on time. To summarize, this research fails to find support for the current Oregon law that exempts certain projects from competitive bidding based on the presumption that CM/GC will lead to substantial cost savings but does indicate that the CM/GC projects may be better able to accommodate accelerated project schedules.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Thesis advisor: | Anderson, T |
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | competition; efficiency; construction project; bidding; policy; architects; construction contractors; construction contractors; owner; project stakeholder; stakeholders; subcontractor; statistical analysis |
| Index terms: | selection method, general contractor, qualitative method, competitive bidding, agency, construction contractor, subcontractor, bidding, public building, public building construction, construction project, competition, contracting method, schedule control, construction manager, project stakeholder, owner, design-bid-build, statistical analysis, efficiency, qualification, cost saving, data envelopment analysis, interaction, public construction, architect |
| Subjects: | practitioner, profession, construction type, research design and methodology, bidding, data science, contractual arrangements, data analysis and analytics, production management, economics, performance management, tendering, educational resources, behavioral psychology, market analysis, project controls, building construction, sociology |
| Topics: | Procurement, Engineering Principles, Project Management, Education, Quality Management, Roles and Professions, Stakeholder Management, Construction Technology, Cost Management, Research Practice, Time Control, Design Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
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