Mulholland, S M; Boffy-Ramirez, E and Clevenger, C M (2026) Incentives and effort elicitation in construction contracting: Modeling strategic behavior under DBB and CMR/GMP contracts. Construction Management and Economics, 44(2), pp. 143-158. ISSN 0144-6193
Abstract
Owners in the construction industry face persistent challenges in aligning the incentives of designers and contractors with project objectives, often leading to suboptimal collaboration and effort allocation. While prior research has qualitatively examined these dynamics, few studies have formalized them into replicable models that reveal underlying equilibrium behaviors. This study addresses this gap by applying dynamic game-theoretic frameworks to two prevalent procurement archetypes: Lump Sum contracts typically associated with Design-Bid-Build (DBB) and Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) contracts often linked with Construction Manager at Risk (CMR). Theoretical predictions are evaluated using survey evidence from designers and contractors on U.S. commercial construction projects. Results confirm systematic differences in effort and in perceptions of counterpart effort across contract types, consistent with model predictions: DBB structures mirror a sequential Prisoner's Dilemma in which both agents minimize effort, whereas CMR/GMP structures elicit higher contractor effort and shift bargaining power toward designers. The study also highlights the critical but underexplored role of owners in orchestrating incentives. By linking contract type to strategic behavior, this research provides a conceptual decision-support framework for owners and expands the construction management Body of Knowledge on incentive alignment in procurement strategies.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | collaboration; contracting; incentives; procurement; risk |
| Index terms: | construction manager at risk, owner, commercial construction, designer, design-bid-build, procurement strategy, construction industry, modelling, bargaining, dynamics, archetype, face, survey, agent, body of knowledge, collaboration, evidence |
| Subjects: | analytical methods, knowledge management, contractual arrangements, psychology, practitioner, evaluation and assessment methods, construction type, modelling and simulation, data collection methods, profession, systems engineering, industry analysis, sociology, economics, management |
| Topics: | Organizational Design, Construction Technology, Stakeholder Management, Roles and Professions, Information Management, Research Practice, Supply Chain Management, Procurement, Engineering Principles |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
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