Optimal outcome sharing among clients, builders, and designers in collaborative construction contracts: Comparing design–bid–build and design–build methods using principal–agent theory

Mokhtari, M and Hosseinian, S M (2025) Optimal outcome sharing among clients, builders, and designers in collaborative construction contracts: Comparing design–bid–build and design–build methods using principal–agent theory. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 151(3): 04024212, ISSN 0733-9364

Abstract

This study addresses a significant gap in the literature by proposing an optimal outcome–sharing framework within client–builder–designer relationships, specifically in design–bid–build (DBB) and design–build (DB) project delivery methods. Based on the assumption of different degrees of risk avoidance among all parties involved, this research focuses on collaborative contracting scenarios where designers and builders collaborate with clients. Our study investigates the allocation of outcome shares and how they are affected by the risk avoidance levels of the contracting parties. To achieve this, we developed a mathematical model based on principal–agent theory and conducted empirical investigations through structured exercises with construction practitioners in Iran. Key findings reveal that optimal outcome shares for designers remain consistent across both DBB and DB delivery methods, while builders' optimal shares vary depending on the delivery method. Specifically, in DBB delivery, the client's share is higher due to its leadership role, whereas in DB delivery, the builder's share increases as it assumes a leadership role. Furthermore, our results highlight the importance of considering risk preferences in collaborative contracting, because they significantly impact outcome allocation decisions. This study contributes to contract literature by offering innovative insights into outcome sharing among clients, builders, and designers, along with a practical framework for structuring compensation.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: author keywords: cooperative contracting; gain–pain sharing; project delivery
Index terms: preference, agent, leadership role, builder, construction practitioner, mathematical model, project delivery, compensation, investigation, construction contract, contracting party, designer, delivery method, exercise, pain
Subjects: contract type, health behaviours and lifestyles, practitioner, decision-making and reasoning, leadership, mathematical modelling, profession, data collection methods, dispute resolution, project delivery, professional development, health conditions and diseases, delivery method
Topics: Information Management, Research Practice, Roles and Professions, Human Resources, Health and Safety, Procurement, 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