Gruneberg, S and Hughes, W P (2004) Analysing the types of procurement used in the UK: A comparison of two data sets. Journal of Financial Management of Property and Construction, 9(2), pp. 63-74. ISSN 1366-4387
Abstract
Davis Langdon and Everest (DLE) have published the results of a triennial survey on contract use since 1984. As a regular survey on the subject, this has been regarded as one of the main sources of information on contract use for surveyors and others involved in construction procurement. However, since the early 1980s Emap Glenigan (EG) has also produced marketing information based on planning applications. This information is sent to firms in the construction and property sectors. The data includes the value of projects and the types of procurement system used. Whereas the DLE data is based on a non-random sample, the EG data (used in this paper) is a census of all projects valued at over £100,000. The EG data on contract use has recently been made available for analysis and a comparison of the EG and DLE data sets has been used to verify the DLE survey results. The comparison of the EG and DLE data shows that at the 95 per cent confidence level there is no significant difference in the two sets of data in terms of the share of contracts used by number of projects. The EG data confirms the DLE findings that the traditional procurement system remains by far the most popular method, followed by design and build. The other forms of procurement in aggregate only form a small percentage of construction transactions. However, differences between the two sets of data in terms of the share in the total value of projects represented by different contract types are shown to be significant. As the DLE data represents a non-random sample of quantity surveying practices and the EG data is based on responses from contractors, developers and local authorities, differences in the proportion of contracts could reasonably be expected. The paper concludes that the EG data on the value share of contracts for new construction only is preferred to the results of the DLE survey, but the DLE survey may better reflect the value shares of all work including repair and maintenance.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | procurement systems, construction contract use, traditional contracting, design and build |
| Index terms: | aggregate, local authority, traditional contracting, construction procurement, traditional procurement, construction contract, marketing, quantity surveying practice, procurement system, repair, survey, design and build |
| Subjects: | materials science, business, profession, contractual arrangements, data collection methods, contract type, sociology, maintenance engineering |
| Topics: | Business Strategy, Engineering Principles, Procurement, Stakeholder Management, Research Practice, Roles and Professions |
| 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