Alazzam, M. and Celoza, A. (2026) Current state of supplier qualification in capital projects: Factors, practices, and industry perspectives. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 152(8): 04026111, ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Materials and equipment often comprise a majority of capital project costs, making supplier qualification pivotal to controlling cost, schedule, scope, quality, and risk. Prior studies have examined specific aspects of supplier qualification; however, few empirical investigations have simultaneously mapped the factors, practices, and industry perspectives that shape supplier qualification for major equipment and materials in capital projects, and compared the perspectives of owners and engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC) organizations. This study maps how frequently qualification factors and practices are applied, assesses agreement on industry perspectives, and compares owners and EPCs, interpreting the findings through transaction cost, resource-based, institutional, and relational-contracting perspectives. An analytical approach combining a literature review and industry panel input informed the development of a survey distributed to capital project professionals working primarily on capital projects in North America. A total of 114 valid responses that met the inclusion criterion of prior supplier-qualification experience, including owners (n = 38) and EPCs (n = 22), were analyzed using descriptive and nonparametric statistical methods based on a nonprobability, expert sample recruited through professional networks. Results show that safety, experience, insurance, quality management, and financial stability are the most frequently applied factors. The most common practices include site visits, early engagement, segmentation, and tailoring technical and nontechnical qualifications to project needs and objectives. Widely supported industry perspectives include early engagement, quality management, collaboration capacity, audits and verification, and postcompletion support, indicating a broad consensus that supplier qualification should support risk control and collaborative project delivery. While no statistically significant differences were observed between owners and EPCs for factor and practice frequencies, differences were found for certain industry perspectives, particularly early engagement and location-based tailoring of technical and nontechnical qualifications, indicating small, role-specific emphases on how future qualification practices should evolve. Overall, the results indicate convergence on core qualification factors and practices combined with selective divergence around context-specific tailoring, especially location-based criteria. Practitioners can use the findings to support more objective supplier qualification processes, benchmark their current practices and perspectives against industry patterns, and clarify where to standardize versus where to tailor qualification approaches in capital project settings.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | capital projects; decision-making processes; procurement; project performance; risk management; supplier qualification; supply chain management |
| Index terms: | collaborative project, statistical method, risk management, project performance, investigation, insurance, capital project, quality management, qualification, audit, owner, decision-making process, practitioner, collaboration, transaction cost, maps, survey, literature review, stability |
| Subjects: | financial analysis, quality assurance, educational resources, spatial and geospatial analysis, structural engineering, economic analysis, strategic project management, contractual arrangements, practitioner, statistical analysis, sociology, decision analysis, project management theory and practice, performance measurement, management, data analysis and analytics, risk assessment, data collection methods |
| Topics: | Organizational Design, Roles and Professions, Stakeholder Management, Research Practice, Business Strategy, Cost Management, Education, Quality Management, Procurement, Risk Management, Engineering Principles, Project Management |
| 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