Predicting Performance of Design-Build

and Design-Bid-Build Projects

Florence Yean Yng Ling1; Swee Lean Chan2; Edwin Chong3; and Lee Ping Ee4

Abstract: Design-build ~DB! and design-bid-build ~DBB! are two principal project delivery systems used in many countries. This paper
reports on models constructed to predict performance of DB and DBB projects on 11 areas, using project-specific data collected from 87
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CASA Institution Identity on 04/20/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

building projects. The study included collecting, checking, and validating industry data, and the statistical development of multivariate
linear regression models for predicting project performance. Robust models are developed to predict construction and delivery speeds of
DB and DBB projects. Gross floor area of the project is the most significant factor affecting speed. Besides this, for DBB projects,
contractors’ design ability, and adequacy of plant and equipment would ensure speedy completion of the projects. For DB projects, if the
contract period is allowed to vary during tender evaluation, this would slow down the project. Robust models to predict turnover and
system quality of DB projects are also constructed. A DB contractor’s track record is an important variable. They must have completed
past projects to acceptable quality and have ability in financial, health and safety management.
DOI: 10.1061/~ASCE!0733-9364~2004!130:1~75!
CE Database subject headings: Performance evaluation; Design/build; Project management; Models.

Introduction predict what the likely project performance level will be. This is
useful because based on the predicted project performance, own-
The design-bid-build ~DBB! procurement method is the prevalent
ers and A/Es will be able to decide if they should use the DBB or
procurement method in many countries such as Singapore, the
DB procurement method in order to obtain the desired results. If
U.K., and the United States. DBB is the traditional project deliv-
they have already decided on a certain procurement method, the
ery system where the owner contracts separately with a designer
models will help them decide what the key variables which need
and a constructor to design and construct the facility, respectively
to be controlled in order to obtain good project performance. Per-
~Mohsini and Davidson 1992!. One of the alternative procurement
formance of a project is multifaceted. 11 possible performance
systems is the design-build ~DB!, whereby the owner contracts
measures are shown in Table 1, and grouped into four categories:
with a single entity to perform both design and construction under
cost, time, quality, and others.
a single DB contract ~Janssens 1991!.
All the projects investigated in this study were based in Sin-
The objectives of this paper are ~1! to find explanatory vari-
gapore. They were all grass-root building construction projects
ables that significantly affect project performance and ~2! to con-
~i.e., not renovation works! exceeding $5 million, and were com-
struct models to predict the performance of DB and DBB
pleted between 1993 and 2001. Both private and public sector
projects. The first objective is important because contractors will
projects were investigated.
know the important variables that they must pay very close atten-
tion to in order that their projects can be completed within budget
and schedule, to acceptable level of quality, and to the satisfaction
of the owner and consultants. The second objective is important Literature Review
because the project performance models developed in this study
can help owners, contractors, and architects and engineers ~A/Es! In the U.K., Bennett et al. ~1996! studied DB and DBB project
selection and performance from the owners’ perspective. They
1 constructed three models to predict unit cost, construction speed,
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Building, National Univ. of Singapore,
4 Architecture Dr., Singapore 117566 ~corresponding author!. E-mail: and delivery speed, and obtained R 2 of 0.51, 0.90, and 0.80, re-
[email protected] spectively. The models were developed based on more than 170
2
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Building, National Univ. of Singapore, projects. When trying to predict one performance metric ~example
4 Architecture Dr., Singapore 117566. E-mail: [email protected] construction speed!, the study included other performance metrics
3
Research Assistant, Dept. of Building, National Univ. of Singapore, 4 as predictor variables ~example quality and unit cost!. This made
Architecture Dr., Singapore 117566. the constructed model difficult to use, as the evaluator would not
4
Research Assistant, Dept. of Building, National Univ. of Singapore, 4 have the information of the other independent variables before the
Architecture Dr., Singapore 117566. project starts. As can be seen from Table 1, there are many other
Note. Discussion open until July 1, 2004. Separate discussions must performance metrics that were not reported in the Bennett et al.
be submitted for individual papers. To extend the closing date by one
~1996! study.
month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Managing Editor.
The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and possible In the United States, Konchar and Sanvido ~1998! conducted
publication on May 15, 2002; approved on November 7, 2002. This paper an empirical study that examined explanatory and interacting
is part of the Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, variables to predict project performance based on DB, DBB, and
Vol. 130, No. 1, February 1, 2004. ©ASCE, ISSN 0733-9364/2004/1- construction management at risk procurement systems. Using
75– 83/$18.00. multivariate regression analysis, they developed models to predict

JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2004 / 75

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2004, 130(1): 75-83

 Table 1. Performance Metrics
Performance metrics
Number ~Dependent variables! Definition
Cost
Y1 Unit cost ~dollars/m2! ~Final project cost/area!/index
Y2 Cost growth ~%! @~Final project cost2contract project cost!/contract project cost#*100
Y3 Intensity @~dollars/m2!/month# Unit cost of design and construction work put in place in a facility per unit time.
The formula is given by ~unit cost/total time!

Time
Y4 Construction speed ~m2/month! Area/~as-built construction end date2as-built construction start date!
Y5 Delivery speed ~m2/month! Area/total time
Y6 Schedule growth ~%! @Total time2total as-planned time!/total as-planned time#*100
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CASA Institution Identity on 04/20/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Quality
Y7 Turnover quality Ease of starting up and extent of call backs.
~55exceed owner’s expectation; 15not satisfactory!
Y8 System quality Performance of building elements, interior space and environment.
~55exceed owner’s expectation; 15not satisfactory!
Y9 Equipment quality Performance of equipment. ~55exceed owner’s expectation; 15not satisfactory!

Others
Y10 Owner’s satisfaction 55exceed owner’s expectation; 15not satisfactory
Y11 Owner’s administrative burden 55minimum burden; 15very heavy burden
Note: Adapted from Konchar and Sanvido ~1998! and Molenaar and Songer ~1998!.

unit cost, construction, and delivery speeds based on 316 projects. mance metrics ~see Table 1! and instead concentrated on several
However, the regression equations, coefficients of variables, and areas of project performance. Many of the studies, even after
R 2 were not reported in detail, thus limiting the usefulness of the developing the regression models, did not provide detailed infor-
models. mation such as regression coefficients. This limits the use of the
Molenaar and Songer ~1998! developed prediction models for models. Based on the above, there appears to be a need to develop
the United States public-sector DB project selection, which re- more tools to be used for predicting how DB and DBB projects
lated specific project characteristics to success. A multiattribute would perform. This study therefore aims to fill this gap.
regression technique was used to develop the prediction models
based on 122 projects. Five models were developed for cost and
schedule growth, conformance to expectations, administrative Research Method
burden, and overall user satisfaction. The models are generally
not robust, with R 2 ranging from 0.28 to 0.47. However, the work From the review of past works, 59 potential factors affecting
is useful because the models and equations are provided for use to project performance were identified ~see Table 2!. The factors
predict performance of future projects. The limitation of this work affecting project success are categorized into attributes relating to
is that the models were constructed using only public sector DB the project, owners, consultants, and contractors. The research
projects. So, private sector DB projects, and DBB projects could method had the aim of identifying the important factors ~listed in
not rely on this study for performance prediction. Moreover, Table 2! that affect project performance ~defined in Table 1!. To
many other performance metrics ~see Table 1! were not reported. achieve this, a retrospective case study questionnaire ~data collec-
In Hong Kong, Chan et al. ~2001! constructed models to pre- tion instrument! was designed. A pilot study was first carried out
dict time and cost performance and overall DB project perfor- to identify possible inadequacies in the data collection instrument.
mance using 19 DB projects, with information supplied by 53 The finalized form provided the basis for the implementation of a
project participants. Thirty-one attributes that may affect project questionnaire survey, which constituted the primary data collec-
performance were reduced, using factor analysis, to six main tion method for this study.
project success factors. Like Molenaar and Songer ~1998!, the Projects were identified from the Singapore Building and Con-
models developed in this study can only be used to predict public struction Authority’s ~BCA! website ~BCA 2002!. All grass-root
sector DB project performance. The study may have used all the building projects exceeding $5 million in value, and com-
53 project participants’ responses to develop the models, and this pletedafter 1992 were identified. These were numbered chrono-
could give rise to double-counting, as there were only 19 projects. logically based on project end-date. Using a table of random num-
When a few respondents provided data for one project, they did bers, 400 projects were randomly identified. In the list of the 400
not average the ratings. The relatively small number of projects projects, many consultants and contractors have undertaken mul-
may cause the findings to be nongeneralizable and violate the tiple projects. A decision was made to request each firm to pro-
assumptions of normality in their statistical analysis. vide information on a maximum of three projects, to avoid fa-
From the brief literature review, a few gaps in knowledge tigue. Sixty contractors were therefore selected to provide
emerge. Many of the studies concentrated only on DB in the information of 180 projects, 57 consultants to provide information
public sector. While Konchar and Sanvido ~1998! and Bennett of 171 projects, and the balance 49 projects were requested from
et al. ~1996! looked into both public and private sectors, like all 40 owners ~35 owners were asked to provide information of one
other previous studies, they did not investigate all the 11 perfor- project each, one owner to provide information of two projects,

76 / JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2004

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2004, 130(1): 75-83

 Table 2. Factors that May Affect Project Performance
Number Explanatory variables Definition
Project characteristics
X1 Gross floor area of the project m2
X2 Payment mode to the contractor 15Lump sum; 25Cost plus
X3 Form of contract 15Singapore Institute of Architects contract; 25Singapore
Public sector standard conditions of contract; 35U.K. Joint
Contracts Tribunal contract
X4 Type of building 15residential; 25warehouse; 35shops; 45educational
institution; 55others; 65hotel; 75manufacturing; 85office; 95health care
X5 Ownership of building 15public sector; 25private sector
X6 Level of design complexity 15not complex; 55highly complex
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CASA Institution Identity on 04/20/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

X7 Level of construction complexity 15not complex; 55highly complex

X8 Level of technologically advancement 15not complex; 55highly complex
X9 Level of specialization required of 15not complex; 55highly complex
contractors
X10 Percent of repetitive elements 150–10%; 2511–20%; 3521–30%; 4531– 40%; 5541–50%;
65.50%
X11 Presence of special issues 15yes; 25no
X12 Type of specification 15performance; 35combination; 55prescriptive
X13 Extent to which bid documents allow 15prevented addition; 55encouraged additions
additions to scope
X14 Flexibility of scope of works when 15flexible; 55not flexible
contractor is hired
X15 Project scope definition completion when 15low; 55high
bids are invited
X16 Design completion ~by owner! when bids 150%; 25up to 10%; 3511–25%; 4526 – 49%; 55>50%
are invited
X17 Design decisions made ~by owner! when 15up to 10%; 2511–20%; 3521–30%; 4531– 49%; 55>50%
bids are invited
X18 Design completion when budget is fixed 150%; 251–5%; 356 –10%; 4511–25%; 5526 –50%;
65.50%
X19 Bidder’s knowledge of the budget 15no; 25yes
X20 Importance for project to be completed 15not crucial; 55very critical
within budget
X21 Importance for project to be delivered 15not crucial; 55very critical
X22 Time given to contractors to prepare bid 15inadequate; 55adequate
X23 Time given to owners/consultants to 15inadequate; 55adequate
evaluate bids
X24 Extent to which the contract period is 15firmly fixed; 55variable
allowed to vary during bid evaluation stage
X25 Importance for the project to be completed 15not crucial; 55very critical
on time
X26 Bidding procedure 15competitive bid; 25negotiation
X27 Number of bidders 151; 252–3; 354 –5; 456 –7; 558 –12; 65.12
X28 Prequalification or short-listing 15no; 25yes
X29 Bid evaluation and selection criteria 15price only; 25ability only; 35combination of price and ability
X30 Bidding environment 15low/scarcity of work; 55high/plentiful

Owner and consultant characteristics

X31 Consultant’s level of construction 15low; 55high
sophistication
X32 Owner’s level of construction 15low; 55high
sophistication
X33 Consultant’s experience with similar 15no similar projects; 55nearly all those types
projects
X34 Owner’s experience with similar projects 15no similar projects; 55nearly all those types
X35 Consultant’s staffing level to attend to 15low; 55high
contractor

JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2004 / 77

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2004, 130(1): 75-83

 Table 2. ~Continued!
Number Explanatory variables Definition
X36 Owner’s staffing level to attend to contractor 15low; 55high
X37 Number of design-bid-build/design-build 150; 251; 352–3; 454 – 6; 557–10; 65.10
projects handled by consultant in the past
X38 Number of design-bid-build/design-build 150; 251; 352–3; 454 – 6; 557–10; 65.10
projects handled by owner in the past

Contractor characteristics
X39 Contractor’s experience with similar types of projects 15no similar projects; 55nearly all those types
X40 Contractor’s experience with similar size of projects 15no similar projects; 55nearly all those types
X41 Contractor’s experience with projects in Singapore 15no similar projects; 55nearly all those types
X42 Subcontractors’ experience and capability 15poor; 55excellent
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CASA Institution Identity on 04/20/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

X43 Communication among project team members 15poor; 55excellent

X44 Contractor’s prior working relationship with the owner 15poor; 55excellent
X45 Contractor’s prior working relationship with consultants 15poor; 55excellent
X46 Contractor’s track record for completion on time 15poor; 55excellent
X47 Contractor’s track record for completion on budget 15poor; 55excellent
X48 Contractor’s track record for completion to acceptable quality 15poor; 55excellent
X49 Contractor’s staffing level 15low; 55high
X50 Adequacy of contractor’s plant and equipment 15low; 55high
X51 Magnitude of change orders in contractor’s past projects 15low; 55high
X52 Magnitude of claims and disputes in contractor’s past projects 15low; 55high
X53 Contractor’s key personnel’s management ability 15poor; 55excellent
X54 Contractor’s ability in financial management 15poor; 55excellent
X55 Contractor’s quality control and management capability 15poor; 55excellent
X56 Contractor’s health and safety management capability 15poor; 55excellent
X57 Contractor’s technical expertise 15poor; 55excellent
X58 Contractor’s design capability 15no in-house capability; 55full in-house designers
X59 Contractor’s paid-up capital ~U.S. dollars! 1514 –27 K; 2528 – 82 K; 3583–138 K; 45139–277 K;
55278 – 833 K; 65834 K–1.39 M; 751.4 –2.8 M; 85.2.8 M

and four owners to provide information of three projects each!. tor projects. The DB models would apply to projects with a large
Fewer questionnaires were sent to owners because past research range of floor area. However, there is a skew toward public sector
experience showed that very few of them respond to surveys in DB projects. The entire data set was used for analysis in lieu of a
Singapore. To provide the data, respondents had a choice of being smaller focused set because the original data set was not large.
interviewed or self-administering the questionnaires, and sending
them back to the researchers. After the completed questionnaires
were received, multiple linear regression ~MLR! modeling was Multivariate Analysis
undertaken to construct models to predict each of the 11 project
performance measures identified in Table 1. More project data In this study, multivariate regression analysis was used to develop
sets were subsequently collected, and used to validate the con- 11 models to determine the statistical relationship between some
structed models. response variables of DBB projects ~for example cost growth and
construction speed, see Table 1! and the explanatory variables ~for
example gross floor area, type of client, and adequacy of contrac-
Data Sample Characteristics tor’s plant and equipment, see Table 2!. Another 11 models were
developed to predict performance of DB projects. The models
Data sets of 87 projects were received. 27 firms provided data of were developed using traditional regression techniques with the
54 DBB projects, while another 15 firms provided data of 33 DB help of the Statistical Package for Social Sciences software
projects. For DBB projects, 17, six and four contractors, A/Es, ~SPSS!.
and owners, respectively, provided the project data. Seven con- In this research, the independent/predictor variables are the
tractors, six A/Es, and two owners projected data for DB projects. attributes relating to the project, consultants, owners, and contrac-
The details of the projects are shown in Table 3. It can be seen tor listed in Table 2. For each model, the dependent variable is
that the models constructed in this study would be more appli- one of the performance metrics identified in Table 1. Each model
cable to residential projects which are undertaken by both the is expressed by the following equation:
public and private sectors in Singapore. The data of schools and
Y i 5a1b 1 x 1i 1b 2 x 2i 1b 3 x 3i 1¯1b K x Ki 1« i (1)
offices formed a minority, but were not removed from the data set
because the Engineering New Record classifies these together where Y5value of the dependent variable ~one of the performance
with residential construction under General Building. The DBB metrics in Table 1!; a5constant, and the intercept at the Y axis;
models would apply more to medium sized projects up to 100,000 b 1 to b K 5estimated regression coefficients; X 1 to X K 5values of
m2. These models would apply equally to public and private sec- the independent or explanatory variables; « i 5error term, which is

78 / JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2004

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2004, 130(1): 75-83

 Table 3. Profile of Projects found to be significantly correlated, one of them was excluded
Design-bid-build Design-build from the model, by trial and error method, during regression mod-
eling.
Data Number % Number %
Regression modeling is an iterative process. The details of the
Type of building performance of the 54 DBB and 33 DB projects were input into
Residential 35 65 15 45 the SPSS software and 24 possible models were produced ~Tables
Factory/industrial building 15 28 4 12 4 and 5!. The models were selected by the stepwise procedure.
Office 1 2 6 18 The predictive power of the model is judged through the coeffi-
School 3 5 8 24 cient of determination (R 2 ), which is a measure of the goodness
Total 54 100 33 100 of fit for the model. R 2 is used to measure the strength of the
Gross floor area ~m2! correlation when more than two variables are being analyzed. The
10,000 to 50,000 32 59 16 48 R 2 gives the proportion of the variance of Y, which is explained
50,001 to 100,000 13 24 7 21 by the independent variables, reflecting the aptness of the model.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CASA Institution Identity on 04/20/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

.100,000 9 17 10 31 However, when more independent variables are introduced into

Total 54 100 33 100 the model, R 2 automatically increases. A better estimate of the
Ownership model’s goodness of fit is adjusted R 2 . Unlike R 2 , it does not
Public 25 46 23 70 inevitably increase as the number of included explanatory/
Private 29 54 10 30 independent variables increases.
Total 54 100 33 100
The optimum models were obtained through accepted regres-
Contract sum
sion modeling practices. The regression analysis techniques in-
clude maximizing the R 2 value, minimizing model variances, and
$5 to 14.9 million 17 31 14 42
only including variables in the model that have been proven to be
$15 to 29.9 million 11 20 2 6
statistically significant through t-tests, F-tests, and stepwise selec-
$30 to 49.9 million 14 26 3 9
tion procedures. The optimum regression model to be selected
>$50 million 12 22 14 42
should be the one that fits the data the best and yields the most
Total 54 100 33 100
accurate prediction of the project performance. In general, models
Note: Rounding off error has occurred when percentages were calculated. that have R 2 >0.7 are considered to have high predictive powers.
From Table 4, it can be seen that two robust DBB models were
a random variable with mean 0; i5index of the performance met- constructed for construction speed (R 2 50.829) and delivery
ric being predicted; and K5number of independent variables or speed (R 2 50.934). From Table 5, four robust models were con-
parameters. structed to predict performance of DB projects: construction
speed (R 2 50.782), delivery speed (R 2 50.896), turnover quality
(R 2 50.821), and system quality (R 2 50.888).
Model Development
Model Estimation and Discussion
Given the large number of predictor variables and the limited
sample size, there was a need to reduce the number of predictor The section discusses the models that were developed, which are
variables, before embarking on regression modeling. In Step 1, shown in Tables 4 and 5 for DBB and DB projects, respectively.
predictor variables that correlate significantly ( p<0.05) to the The discussion focuses on the models with high predictive powers
respective performance metrics were identified through Spear- (R 2 >0.7) and highlights significant factors that affect each per-
man’s correlation analysis. Correlation coefficient is a measure of formance metric. By knowing the factors, practitioners could go
the strength of any association between a pair of random variables about controlling and managing them so as to achieve a higher
~Newbold 1991!. It measures how closely a change in one vari- level of project success.
able is tied to the change in another variable, and vice versa.
Unlike linear regression, random variables are treated symmetri-
Cost Performance
cally, where the correlation between X 1 and X 2 is the same as the
correlation between X 2 and X 1 . The correlation relationship is For DBB projects, the results show that privately owned buildings
measured on a scale of 21 to 11, where 0 represents ‘‘no corre- are likely to be more expensive. This is not unexpected, as public
lation’’ or ‘‘no relationship’’ between the scores, 21 is for ‘‘per- facilities are funded by tax-payers and financial prudence needs to
fect negative correlation,’’ and 11 is for ‘‘perfect positive corre- be exercised. In more advanced countries such as the United
lation.’’ The other independent variables that displayed weak States, public buildings may be more expensive because owners
associations (p.0.05) with the performance metric were elimi- pay more attention to life-cycle costs. In Singapore, the consider-
nated, and therefore, the number of predictor variables were re- ation of life-cycle costs is still in its infancy. If projects contain
duced. This elimination process is equivalent to the removal of repetitive elements, unit cost will fall ~b52161.68!. For DB
statistical outliers. The predictor variables that are significantly projects, 42% of variability in unit cost can be explained by the
correlated to a dependent variable were then used to construct a extent of design completion when bids are invited. If the owner
MLR model. provides more design, the unit cost is likely to be higher. This
In Step 2, Spearman’s correlation coefficients between every may be because owners ~through their designers! may not propose
two significant predictor variables were calculated to identify in- the cheapest design but one that meets their needs best. Cost
stances of multicollinearity among the variables. When multicol- growth for DB and DBB projects will be higher if contractors
linearity is present, the variances of the estimated coefficients will with lower paid-up capital are engaged. It appears that contractors
be exaggerated and thus the predictability of the regression mod- with smaller financial capabilities are less able to control cost, as
els becomes less satisfying. When two predictor variables were they may have to channel their limited funds to other activities.

JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2004 / 79

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2004, 130(1): 75-83

 Table 4. Regression Results for Models to Predict Design-Bid-Build Table 5. Regression Results for Models to Predict Design-Build
Project Performance Project Performance
Variable b s b t value p value Variable b s b t value p value
Y1 DBB . Unit cost, R 2 50.462, Adj R 2 50.433 Y1 DB . Unit cost, R 2 50.438, Adj R 2 50.418
Constant 695.7 489.4 NA 1.421 0.164 Constant 705.63 156.9 NA 4.496 0.000
X5 874.4 205.1 0.54 4.263 0.000 X16 260.45 55.7 0.66 4.674 0.000
X10 2161.68 65.0 20.31 22.487 0.018
Y2 DB . Cost growth, R 2 50.484, Adj R 2 50.445
Y2 DBB . Cost growth, R 2 50.420, Adj R 2 50.391 Constant 59.06 16.45 NA 3.589 0.003
Constant 30.32 5.85 NA 5.214 0.000 X59 27.346 2.10 20.70 23.495 0.004
X59 23.249 0.75 20.54 24.333 0.000
Y3 DB . Intensity, R 2 50.644, Adj R 2 50.568
X4 0.681 0.31 0.28 2.232 0.031
Constant 237.60 15.54 NA 22.42 0.030
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CASA Institution Identity on 04/20/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Y3 DBB . Intensity, R 2 50.276, Adj R 2 50.242 X48 12.29 3.15 0.63 3.90 0.002
Constant 81.29 26.9 NA 3.016 0.004 X18 3.377 1.33 0.41 2.531 0.024
X10 216.07 5.14 20.41 23.127 0.003 X13 6.536 2.70 0.39 2.424 0.029
X18 8.898 3.78 0.31 2.351 0.023
Y4 DB . Construction speed, R 2 50.782, Adj R 2 50.765
2 2 Constant 1,628.8 557.7 NA 2.921 0.007
Y4 DBB . Construction speed, R 50.829, Adj R 50.820
Constant 2357.0 498.8 NA 20.716 0.479 X1 0.034 0.004 0.99 9.34 0.000
X1 0.021 0.002 0.91 13.14 0.000 X24 2824.28 322.9 20.27 22.553 0.017
X50 277.3 123.0 0.16 2.254 0.030
Y5 DB . Delivery speed, R 2 50.896, Adj R 2 50.879
2 2 Constant 3,462.2 785.3 NA 4.409 0.000
Y5 DBB . Delivery speed, R 50.934, Adj R 50.930
Constant 2144.9 170.6 NA 20.850 0.402 X1 0.024 0.002 0.895 11.08 0.000
X1 0.017 0.001 0.93 19.62 0.000 X15 2463.57 151.3 20.21 23.065 0.005
X58 132.8 51.8 0.12 2.563 0.015 X24 2443.01 180.8 20.19 22.451 0.022
X18 2180.16 77.55 20.16 22.323 0.029
Y6 DBB . Schedule growth, R 2 50.406, Adj R 2 50.391
Constant 58.37 10.11 NA 5.776 0.000 Y6 DB . Schedule growth, R 2 50.129, Adj R 2 50.100
X49 213.38 2.53 20.64 25.291 0.000 Constant 26.61 10.92 NA 2.645 0.013
X21 25.034 2.58 20.39 22.112 0.043
Y7 DBB . Turnover quality, R 2 50.195, Adj R 2 50.175
Constant 2.71 0.28 NA 9.680 0.000 Y7 DB . Turnover quality, R 2 50.821, Adj R 2 50.783
X2 0.702 0.22 0.44 3.185 0.003 Constant 1.44 0.514 NA 2.804 0.014
X48 0.424 0.135 0.42 3.147 0.007
Y8 DBB . System quality, R 2 50.375, Adj R 2 50.344 X1 253106 0.000 20.52 24.537 0.000
Constant 2.94 0.42 NA 7.022 0.000 X56 0.29 0.114 0.34 2.547 0.023
X55 0.331 0.09 0.46 3.623 0.001
X14 20.184 0.06 20.37 22.973 0.005 Y8 DB . System quality, R 2 50.888, Adj R 2 50.862
Constant 0.114 0.444 NA 0.257 0.801
Y9 DBB . Equipment quality, R 2 50.550, Adj R 2 50.512 X54 1.042 0.159 0.94 6.566 0.000
Constant 2.122 0.62 NA 3.419 0.002 X33 0.265 0.046 0.58 5.81 0.000
X36 0.284 0.08 0.41 3.394 0.002 X50 20.391 0.157 20.37 22.496 0.027
X48 0.379 0.12 0.37 3.056 0.004
X41 20.233 0.08 20.34 22.945 0.006 Y9 DB . Equipment quality, R 2 50.746, Adj R 2 50.706
Constant 20.238 0.661 NA 20.36 0.725
Y10DBB . Owner’s satisfaction, R 2 50.780, Adj R 2 50.746 X54 1.042 0.141 0.75 5.294 0.000
Constant 2.07 0.47 NA 4.417 0.000 X33 20.391 0.102 0.35 2.484 0.027
X57 0.206 0.10 0.23 2.087 0.045
X51 20.232 0.06 20.33 23.945 0.000 Y10DB . Owner satisfaction, R 2 50.720, Adj R 2 50.677
X48 0.483 0.11 0.49 4.435 0.000 Constant 20.348 0.767 NA 20.454 0.657
X24 0.180 0.05 0.31 3.565 0.001 X57 0.701 0.174 0.631 4.038 0.001
X14 20.163 0.06 20.26 22.989 0.005 X56 0.381 0.152 0.392 2.509 0.026

Y11DBB . Owner’s admin burden R 2 50.095, Adj R 2 50.076 Y11DB . Owner’s admin burden, R 2 50.511, Adj R 2 50.509
Constant 2.102 0.51 NA 4.107 0.000 Constant 0.287 0.829 NA 0.347 0.734
X49 0.298 0.14 0.31 2.219 0.031 X48 0.839 0.213 0.713 3.944 0.001
Note: Regression coefficient ~b!, calculated using ordinary least-squares Note: Same notes as Table 4.
method. Standard error ~s! of variable regression coefficient, measures
the dispersion of regression coefficient over sampling distribution. Stan-
dardized regression coefficient ~b!, allows for equal comparison of coef-
ficient weights, when the constant is removed. Value of t-statistic, to be Time Performance
compared to the theoretical t-distribution for accuracy. Significance of
t-statistic. For significance ,0.05, the null hypothesis that b50 is re- In this study, robust models for predicting construction speeds
2 2
jected. There is less than 5% chance that t-statistic is wrong due to ran- were developed (R DBB 50.83; R DB 50.78). The models are ex-
dom occurrence. tracted from Tables 4 and 5, and presented below.

80 / JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2004

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2004, 130(1): 75-83

 Y4 DBB5235710.021•Gross floor area As expected, quality of a new project is dependent on the con-
tractor’s quality track record in past projects. Contractors’ ability
1277•Adequacy of contractor’s plant and equipment to complete past projects to acceptable quality significantly affect
DBB project’s equipment quality ~b50.379!, and DB project’s
(2)
turnover quality ~b50.424!. This is consistent with the Kaming
Y4 DB51,62910.034•Gross floor area et al. ~1997! finding that a contractor’s past performance impacts
current project success. An excellent track record is testimonial to
2824•Extent to which the contract period a defect-free constructed facility. The low incidence of defective
work would circumvent the need to call the contractor back for
is allowed to vary during bid evaluation stage (3)
remedy works and bring about a smooth start-up and commission-
Robust models for predicting delivery speeds were also devel- ing of the facility. This study also showed that contractors’ proven
2 2
oped (R DBB50.93; R DB50.90). The models are presented below. ability in quality control and management give rise to better per-
formance in system quality. It is interesting to note that system
Y5 DBB5214510.017•Gross floor area
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CASA Institution Identity on 04/20/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

quality (Y8 DB) declines with an increase in adequacy of contrac-

1133•Contractor’s design capability (4) tor’s plant and equipment. This unexpected result may be because
as more plant and equipment are committed to a project, owners’
Y5 DB53,46210.024•Gross floor area expectations of the achievable system quality will increase. They
will demand higher standards for system quality and their perfor-
2464•Project scope definition completion mance criteria will also become more stringent. Hence, it be-
comes more difficult to meet their expectations.
when bids are invited

2443•Extent to which the contract period is Owner’s Satisfaction

allowed to vary during bid evaluation stage 68% of DB project owners’ satisfaction can be explained by the
contractors’ technical expertise and ability in health and safety
2180•Design completion when budget is fixed (5) management. For DBB projects, owners’ satisfaction is accounted
Gross floor area is the main predictor of speed, with higher speed for by five variables: contractors’ technical expertise, their ability
obtained when the project is bigger. Previous studies have also to complete past projects to acceptable quality, magnitude of
established that project size impacts performance ~Kumaraswamy change orders in contractor’s previous projects, extent to which
and Chan 1995; Konchar and Sanvido 1998!. With a larger devel- the contract period was allowed to vary during bid evaluation, and
opment, there is an increased scope for parallel working or con- flexibility of scope of works when the contractor is hired. It is
current construction. Larger projects also have economies of noted that there is a negative correlation between owners’ satis-
scale, and can economize on the use of speedier but costlier meth- faction and magnitude of change orders in contractors’ previous
ods of construction such as prefabrication. Schedule growth will projects. Intuition suggests that contractors who have experienced
be minimized if DBB contractors have adequate staffing level many change orders in their previous projects would be in a better
~b5213.38! and owners for DB projects made it clear that it is position to cope with changes in future projects than without it.
very crucial for the project to be delivered ~b525.034!. This is Instead, the results show that owners would be less satisfied with
consistent with the Molenaar and Songer ~1998! finding which them. This may be because these contractors would, after being
showed that the degree of urgency of the project affects schedule awarded the DBB contracts, set out to identify minor deficiencies
growth. in the design and ask for change orders to be issued. For owners
to have low administrative burden, the results show that they
should engage contractors who have good quality performance in
Quality Performance
past projects ~DB projects! and high staffing level ~DBB
2
Robust models for predicting DB turnover (R DB50.82) and sys- projects!.
2
tem (R DB50.89) quality were developed. The models are pre-
sented below.
Y7 DB51.4410.424•Contractor’s track record Model Validation

for completion toacceptable quality Model validation was carried out on the two robust DBB models
and four robust DB models presented earlier. A diagnostic test
253106 •Gross Floor Area was conducted, and the residual plots of R ~being actual Y less
predicted Y! versus ‘‘predicted Y’’ show a random distribution.
10.29•Contractor’s health and safety management This confirms that the assumption about normality is valid. As
capability (6) described earlier, when two predictor variables were found to be
significantly correlated, one of them was excluded from the
Y8 DB50.11411.04•Contractor’s ability in financial model. Therefore, multicollinearity is absent from the models. To
validate these prediction models further, six new DBB and five
management10.27•Consultant’s experience new DB project data were collected ~see Table 6!. The predicted
project performance measures ~‘‘predicted Y’’! were derived
with similar projects
mathematically from the models. These predicted results were
20.39•Adequacy of contractor’s plant compared to the actual performance ~‘‘actual Y’’! of the projects.
The relative measures of accuracy used to validate the predic-
and equipment (7) tion results of the models are given below.

JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2004 / 81

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2004, 130(1): 75-83

 Table 6. Background of Test Cases
Project Contract sum
reference Building type GFA ~m2! ~U.S. dollars! Person providing information
Design-bid-build ~DBB! test cases
DBB1 Primary school ~public sector! 9,666 $8 million Contractor’s cost engineer
DBB2 Residential apartments ~public sector! 182,750 $75 million Contractor’s project manager
DBB3 Polytechnic ~public sector! 136,800 $158 million Owner
DBB4 Residential apartments ~private sector! 75,695 $58 million Consultant architects
DBB5 Residential apartments ~private sector! 9,523 $10 million Contractor’s project manager
DBB6 Residential apartments ~private sector! 36,485 $32 million Owner
Design-build ~DB! test cases
DB1 Residential apartments ~private sector! 61,350 $53 million Contractor’s cost engineer
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CASA Institution Identity on 04/20/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

DB2 Secondary school ~public sector! 18,458 $10 million Owner-consultant

DB3 Secondary school ~public sector! 30,000 $19 million Owner-consultant
DB4 Residential apartments ~public sector! 163,660 $88 million Owner-consultant
DB5 Residential apartments ~public sector! 180,650 $75 million Owner-consultant

Percentage error ~PE) Limitations

Actual value2Model’s predicted value The first limitation is that only 87 project data sets were used to
5 3100% construct the models, which appeared to be small. The value of
Actual value
construction put in place in 2000 in the United States was $815
(8) billion ~U.S. Census Bureau 2002! while that of Singapore was $8
n
( i5n PE billion ~BCA 2002!. Therefore, proportionally, if U.S. studies ana-
Mean percentage error ~MPE)5 (9) lyzed 300 sets of data ~example, Konchar and Sanvido 1998!, the
N
87 data sets collected for this study is not small, when compared
where n5number of predictions. to the overall size of the Singapore construction industry.
n The second limitation is the possible biases that might be cre-
( i5nu PEu
Mean absolute percentage error ~MAPE)5 ated when respondents answer some of the questions. For ex-
n ample, owner’s satisfaction ~Y10! and owner’s administrative
(10) burden ~Y11! may not be accurately answered by contractors or
where uPEu5absolute value of the percentage error. A/Es. Finally, the use of only six and five DBB and DB projects
Table 7 shows that all models achieved relatively accurate rep- to test the models. However, this is not expected to nullify the
resentation of the actual results with MPE ranging from 28.2 to results for two reasons. First, the triangulation rule ~Hammersley
16.22%. The models are robust and appear to be able to predict a and Atkinson 1983! was met. Second, some 54 and 33 DBB and
project’s performance that would closely reflect its actual perfor- DB project data sets were fed into the SPSS to construct the
mance. The robustness of the models does not appear to have multiple linear regression models.
been affected even though the data set contained both residential
and industrial constructions which vary in many aspects.
Conclusion

Practical Application The essence of this study is that significant variables that affect
different aspects of project performance were identified in Tables
The two robust DBB and four robust DB models may be used to 4 and 5, thus achieving the first objective. Certain performance
predict certain aspects of project performance. An example of aspects of DBB and DB projects can be predicted, thus fulfilling
how the model for predicting construction speed of projects is the second objective of this study. The predictions can be made
now given. The construction speed of a project can be predicted through the models shown in Tables 4 and 5. Six robust models
by using the Eqs. ~2! and ~3!. Suppose there is a project with were developed. They have high R 2 , the regression coefficients
gross floor area of 10,000 m2. The contract period is not allowed
to vary. The potential contractor has many plants and equipment.
These information are input into Eqs. ~2! and ~3!, to obtain Table 7. Comparison of Predicted and Actual Performance
2
Y4 DBB5235710.021310,00012773551,238 m /month Mean percentage Mean absolute
(11) error percentage error
Performance measure ~%! ~%!
Y4 DB51,62910.034310,00028243151,145 m2 /month
(12) Design-bid-build construction speed 6.22 25.34
Design-bid-build delivery speed 26.22 28.85
Eqs. ~11! and ~12! above show what the likely construction
Design-build construction speed 23.31 14.11
speeds of the project would be, if DBB and DB procurement
Design-build delivery speed 28.20 9.21
systems are used. If the owner would like the construction speed
Design-build turnover quality 20.76 14.16
to be high, DBB procurement method should be chosen in this
Design-build system quality 0.97 6.24
example.

82 / JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2004

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2004, 130(1): 75-83

 are significant, and the models’ predicted performance did not isfaction, and administrative burden. It has also constructed mod-
vary very much from the actual performance. els which are applicable to the private sector, unlike the work of
The delivery speed of DBB projects can be predicted using Chan et al. ~2001!, which focused on the public sector.
just two variables: gross floor area and the contractor’s design
capability. DB delivery speed can be predicted using four vari-
ables: gross floor area, level of project scope completion when References
bids are invited, extent to which the contract period is allowed to
Bennett, J., Pothecary, E., and Robinson, G. ~1996!. Designing and build-
vary during bid evaluation, and level of design completion when
ing a world-class industry, Center for Strategic Studies in Construc-
the budget is fixed. tion, Reading, U.K.
The construction speed of DBB projects can be predicted Building and Construction Authority ~BCA!. ~2002!. ‘‘Singapore building
using two variables: gross floor area and adequacy of the contrac- and construction authority home page.’’ Building and Construction
tor’s plant and equipment. For DB project’s construction speed is Authority, ^http://www.bca.gov.sg& ~Apr. 19, 2002!.
predicted using the gross floor area and extent to which the con- Chan, A. P. C., Ho, D. C. K., and Tam, C. M. ~2001!. ‘‘Design and build
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CASA Institution Identity on 04/20/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

tract period is allowed to vary during bid evaluation. Turnover project success factors: Multivariate analysis.’’ J. Constr. Eng. Man-
and system quality of DB projects can also be predicted, as shown age., 127~2!, 93–100.
in Table 5. Hammersley, M., and Atkinson, P. ~1983!. Ethnography principles in
Many other attributes which would ordinarily be thought to be practice, Routledge, London.
Janssens, D. E. L. ~1991!. Design-build explained, Macmillan, London.
significant proved instead to be insignificant in predicting project
Kaming, P. F., Olomolaiye, P. O., Holt, G. D., and Harris, F. C. ~1997!.
performance. However, it does not mean that these attributes are
‘‘Factors influencing construction time and cost overruns on high-rise
not important, as correlation analyses show that these are corre- projects in Indonesia.’’ Constr. Manage. Econom., 15~1!, 82–94.
lated to project performance. What is obvious however, is that Konchar, M., and Sanvido, V. ~1998!. ‘‘Comparison of U.S. project de-
they need not be used to predict project performance. livery systems.’’ J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 124~6!, 435– 444.
It is recommended that those who need to decide on whether Kumaraswamy, M. M., and Chan, W. M. ~1995!. ‘‘Determinants of con-
to use DB or DBB rely on the models developed in this study to struction duration.’’ Constr. Manage. Econom., 13~2!, 209–217.
predict the project’s likely performance. The practical application Mohsini, R. A., and Davidson, C. H. ~1992!. ‘‘Determinants of perfor-
of this research finding for contractors is that in order to ensure mance in the traditional building process.’’ Constr. Manage. Econom.,
their projects have high performance, they should concentrate on 10~4!, 343–359.
the important attributes which can be used to predict perfor- Molenaar, K. R., and Songer, A. D. ~1998!. ‘‘Model for public sector
design-build project selection.’’ J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 124~6!,
mance.
467– 479.
This study has extended previous works particularly those of Newbold, P. ~1991!. Statistics for business and economics, 3rd Ed.,
Konchar and Sanvido ~1998! and Chan et al. ~2001!. More mod- Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.
els were constructed in this study which were not found in the U.S. Census Bureau. ~2002!. ‘‘Annual value of construction put in place
work of Konchar and Sanvido ~1998!. These include intensity, in the United States: 1996 –2000.’’ USA: Census Bureau, ^http://
turnover quality, system quality, equipment quality, owner’s sat- www.census.pub/const/C30/tab100.txt& ~Apr. 19, 2002!.

JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2004 / 83

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2004, 130(1): 75-83