Patterson, D A; Farnsworth, C B; Hutchings, D M; Eggett, D L and Weidman, J E (2023) Comparing cost, schedule, and quality of CM/GC and DBB project delivery for repetitive commercial construction. International Journal of Construction Education and Research, 19(2), pp. 166-186. ISSN 1557-8771
Abstract
Design/Bid/Build (DBB) delivery is the traditional approach for establishing the least cost for building projects, but other alternative project delivery methods have become increasingly popular. Although multiple studies have compared delivery methods for vertical construction, there have not been any comprehensive studies quantifying how delivery methods compare specifically for repetitive commercial construction. This research utilized a mixed methods approach to compare the cost, schedule, and quality of Construction Manager/General Contractor (CM/GC) delivered projects with DBB projects for repetitive commercial construction, using 173 facilities built with the same base floorplan. A comprehensive quantitative comparison was conducted, excluding potential confounding variables and including short- and long-term direct and indirect costs, construction time, and quality assessment scores. Contractors and project managers were also surveyed regarding their perceptions of CM/GC process effectiveness in a repetitive construction environment. This research demonstrated that the CM/GC delivery method was more effective for repetitive commercial construction, uniquely quantifying the relative cost, schedule, and quality improvements of CM/GC delivery over DBB projects. Compared to DBB, CM/GC projects produced total construction cost savings of 5.4%, a 20% shorter construction cycle time, consistently higher quality assessment scores, and an overall reduction in repair costs of 34%.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | commercial construction; construction manager/general contractor; design/bid/build; partnering; project delivery method |
| Index terms: | construction manager, repair, general contractor, quality assessment, repetitive construction, effectiveness, project delivery, construction time, project manager, indirect cost, mixed method, partnering, savings, floorplan, quality improvement, construction cost, commercial construction, delivery method |
| Subjects: | data collection methods, profession, design layouts, project delivery, financial and cost management, performance management, partnership management, project controls, delivery method, cost management, construction type, practitioner, economic analysis, maintenance engineering, building construction, quality assurance |
| Topics: | Time Control, Design Practice, Roles and Professions, Stakeholder Management, Construction Technology, Cost Management, Business Strategy, Research Practice, Quality Management, Procurement |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCE |
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