Ling, Y Y; Khee, H Y and Lim, K S G (2000) The reasons why clients prefer to procure more projects based on design-bid-build than design-and-build. Journal of Construction Procurement, 6(2), ISSN 1358-9180
Abstract
Design-and-build (DB) projects are known to achieve better performance than design-bid-build (DBB) projects (Konchar and Sanvido, 1998). However, the use of DB is still not widespread in many countries. A survey was carried out to find out why clients are not procuring more projects using DB. Data were collected via mailed standard questionnaire. Respondents, who were clients based in Singapore, were selected based on convenience sampling. The questionnaire requested respondents to indicate on a five-point scale the degree to which they agreed or disagreed with seven performance issues relating to DB projects, as compared to DBB projects. Data obtained from the survey were processed and statistical t-test of the mean was carried out. Another survey was conducted among DB contractors in Singapore, to compare their views with that of the clients. It was found that clients did not procure more projects based on DB because they felt that they need to bear more risks, DB projects do not have price certainty nor high quality, and maintenance issues are not considered in DB projects. It was found that DB contractors did not agree with the views of the clients. It is recommended that in order to persuade clients to procure more projects based on DB, contractors should convince them that there would be price certainty and deliver high quality DB projects. They should also invite clients to attend their value engineering sessions, for clients to see first hand that maintenance issues are considered in DB projects.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | design-build, design-bid-build, time, cost, quality |
| Index terms: | design-bid-build, Singapore, sampling, value engineering, survey, questionnaire |
| Subjects: | data collection methods, value management, Geography, contractual arrangements |
| Topics: | Cost Management, Research Practice, Geographical Context, Procurement |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCEA |
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