Sec 4 Group 7
Sec 4 Group 7
Sec 4 Group 7
The Study of Comparison of Design build and design bid build delivery
Method of Project Performance
A Thesis
Presented to the
Faculty of Construction Technology and Management
Debre Birhan University
In Partial Fulfillment
Of the Requirements for the Degree of Bachelors of Science in
Construction Technology and Management
BY
Abebe Menber
Seada Yesuf
Tilahun Lakew
Wendmagegn Alemshet
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Firstly we would like to thanks to GOD! Next we would thanks to those individuals who made
this research project possible. Secondly we would like to thanks Engr.Alexander our research
main advisor and Ins.Samuel co- advisor for their support and guidance.
We would also like to thanks all the contractors and consultants for their time and
willingness to complete the questionnaires sent to them.
Table of Contents
ACKNOWLEDGMENT................................................................................................................................ I
ABSTRACT.................................................................................................................................................. V
Chapter 1 ....................................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 1
1.2. Problem Statement ............................................................................................................................. 2
1.3. Objective of the Study ....................................................................................................................... 3
1.4. Significance of the Study ................................................................................................................... 3
1.5. Scope of the study .............................................................................................................................. 3
1.6. Limitation of the study ....................................................................................................................... 3
CHAPTER 2 ................................................................................................................................................. 3
2. LITERATURE REVIEW ......................................................................................................................... 4
2.1. Comparisons of DB and DBB Building Projects ............................................................................... 4
2.2 Highway Project Literature Review .................................................................................................. 11
2.3. Summary of Literature Review ........................................................................................................ 14
CHAPTER 3 ............................................................................................................................................... 15
3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................ 15
3.1 Research Steps .................................................................................................................................. 15
3.1.1 Develop Objectives and Scope .................................................................................................. 16
3.1.2 Review Literature....................................................................................................................... 16
3.1.3 Develop Questionnaire ............................................................................................................... 16
3.1.4 Collect Data ............................................................................................................................... 16
3.2 Study Hypotheses.............................................................................................................................. 17
3.3. Sampling Method ............................................................................................................................. 17
3.4. Data analyzing method .................................................................................................................... 17
Chapter 4 ..................................................................................................................................................... 18
4. Data Analyze and Discussion ................................................................................................................. 18
4.1. Design-Bid-Build Delivery Method................................................................................................. 30
4.1.1Advantages of DBB .................................................................................................................... 31
List of Table
Table1.Literature Review Summary for Building Projects. .......................................................10
Table2 types of respondents and their percentage distribution. ..................................................18
Table 3 frequency distribution and percentage data analysis .....................................................19
Table 4 contractor & consultant frequency distribution & percentage .......................................21
Table 5 personal of contractors and consultant...........................................................................24
Table 6 performance of DB and level of understanding for consultant ......................................25
Table 7 cost of tendering &expectation cost saving, time &quality ...........................................25
Table 8 expectation of time overrun in DB ................................................................................26
Table 9 duration of tendering process in DB ..............................................................................26
Table10 time saving stage in DB received from consultant ......................................................26
Table 11Benefits of DB in terms of quality, time, and cost .......................................................27
Table 12 performance of DB and level of understanding for contractor ....................................27
Table 13 cost of tendering &expectation cost saving, time &quality .........................................27
Table 14 expectation of time overrun in DB ..............................................................................29
Table 15 Duration of tendering process in DB. ..........................................................................29
Table16 time saving stage in DB received from contractor ......................................................29
Table 17 Benefits of DB in terms of quality, time, and cost. .....................................................30
List of Figure
Figure1. Research Methodology Flow Chart. .............................................................................15
Figure.2 percent of contractor and consultant replied a valid questionnaire. .............................19
Figure3 frequency distribution and percentage data analysis .....................................................21
Figure 4 Contractual Relationship of the Design-Bid-Build (DBB) Method. ............................30
Figure 5 Contractual Relationship of Design-Build (DB) Method. ............................................32
ABSTRACT
In all construction projects the contractors and consultants want to finish their project
within the specific time, the budgeted cost and the required quality. Under the Design Bid
Build (DBB) project delivery method many competent contractors are electing to send low bids
on project jest to keep work on their books, with plans to receive change orders once the
project is underway, this practice is leading to cost and time overruns.
Many construction companies use Design Build (DB) as ultimate project delivery method
over the traditional delivery method of Design Bid Build (DBB) in order to reducing the cost,
time and improving the quality of the project.
In order to analyze and compare Design build (DB) and Design Bid Build (DBB) project
delivery method, this study collected data by means of convenient random sampling.
The finds of this study will help to contractors and consultants decide what delivery method
is best for them in terms of controlling cost, time and qualities. The result showed that Design
Build (DB) project delivery method significantly useful than Design Bid Build (DBB) project
delivery method in terms of reducing cost, time and improving quality of the project.
Chapter 1
1.1. Introduction
In today’s ever-changing construction market, owners are finding themselves in many
undesirable and unfamiliar situations. With an unsure market and scarce work, owners are
finding themselves in situations where they are unable to complete their projects within cost
and schedule using the traditional delivery method: Design–Bid–Build (DBB). Under the DBB
project delivery method, many of the competent contractors are electing to send low bids on
projects just to keep work on their books, with plans to receive change orders while it is
underway, which is leading to cost and schedule overruns. Many construction projects
companies are beginning to elect to use Design-Build (DB) as an alternate project delivery
method over the traditional project delivery method of DBB to aid in reducing the cost,
schedule and change orders.
Furthermore, this has led to unqualified contracting companies also bidding on jobs that
utilize the traditional delivery method, DBB. This in turn is leading to even more change
orders, cost overruns, and the inability to meet the schedule. With a selection process based on
best value or qualifications, this problem can be avoided.
Under the Design-Bid-Build (DBB) delivery method, the owner selects a design firm to
create contract documents consisting of project drawings (the design) and job specifications.
After the design is completed, the project drawings become the contract documents and the
project is awarded to the low bidder.
Construction projects companies are now searching for alternate delivery methods for
projects. One delivery method that increasingly is being considered is the DB delivery method.
Under the DB delivery method, the owner/client produces bridge documents for the
basis of the design and sets forth expectations for the design and construction of the project.
Then, the owner/client contracts with a single entity, which then becomes responsible for both
the design and the construction of the project. Furthermore, the DB delivery method has
criteria built into the selection process that allows the owner to select the DB entity based on
the best value for the owner; in this way, the owner is not ‘hand cuffed’ to the low bidder or to
afore mentioned unqualified contracting companies.
In order to aid in reducing cost and schedule overruns, construction project companies
are beginning to elect to use DB as an alternate delivery method over the traditional method of
DBB.
CHAPTER 2
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
Many construction companies are now starting to move away from the traditional
delivery method, DBB, and implement the use of alternate delivery methods, such as DB.
There have been many research studies done regarding DBB and DB delivery methods for
public and private projects, highway and military projects, and general building projects. The
majority of these studies has been of a qualitative nature, and has relied heavily upon surveys
and empirical studies. However, none of these papers referred specifically to construction
buildings. The review of the other papers proved to be extremely valuable in gaining
knowledge and understanding different methods for project procurement as well as alternate
delivery methods. This in turn contributed to the successful completion of this research project.
This chapter will summarize the literature review of DB and DBB project delivery methods
used for building projects and highway projects as they relate to construction buildings.
Air Force Construction Cost Handbook. The area cost factor index, developed by the U.S.
Department of Defense, was used for location adjustment.
A study by Konchar and Sanvido (1998) compared cost, schedule, and quality
performance of 351 projects completed between 1990-1996 for Construction Manager at Risk
(CMAR), DB and DBB projects. This research was divided into four different phases. Phase 1
developed the process of collecting and analyzing the data in terms of cost, schedule, and
quality. Phase 2 collected extensive project data from the U.S. Construction Industry. Phase 3
checked the data for accuracy and completeness, and Phase 4 tested univariate hypotheses to
distinguish significant differences in delivery performance.
According to Konchar and Sanvido (1998), “Cost was defined as the design and
construction cost of the base facility and did not include land acquisition, extensive site work,
and process or owner costs. The three cost measures were unit cost, project cost growth, and
intensity.” The time aspect was defined as “the total as planned time,” and was calculated from
the planned start date to the planned construction end date.
A survey was used to collect specific data for each project. Seven thousand six hundred
surveys were sent; only 378 surveys were completed, and of those, only 301 projects were
useable for analysis. To standardize the data, the team adjusted each project cost by using
historical cost indices for location and time. Several different statistical methods were used for
analysis, such as univariate to compare means, medians, and standard deviations and
multivariate linear regression to determine the effect of project delivery method on cost and
schedule metrics.
Quality performance was measured in the following seven specific areas:1) start up;2)
call backs;3) operation and maintenance;4) envelope, roof, structure, and foundation;5) interior
space and layout;6) environment; and finally 7) process equipment and layout. According to
Konchar and Sanvido (1998), “Quality was recorded separately for the turn over process and
for the performance of specific systems. This was done to eliminate any owner bias present
from a highly difficult turn over process.”
The results showed that the performance of DB and CMAR projects were much better
than for DBB projects in terms of startup quality, call backs, interior space and layout, and
process equipment layout. For operation and maintenance, the study found that DB projects
achieved superior performance over both CMAR and DBB projects in terms of quality;
however, DB projects only showed significantly higher results than DBB projects for envelope,
roof, structure, and foundation. In these specific areas, CMAR projects performed better than
both DB and DBB projects.
Using multivariate regression analysis, the team developed three models to evaluate the
changes in unit cost, construction speed, and delivery speed. The study showed that DB
projects outperformed DBB and CMAR projects by less than 6.1 percent and 4.5 percent,
respectively, regarding unit cost. The authors also identified four variables that have the
greatest impact on unit cost: Contract Unit Cost, Facility Type, Project Size, and Project
Delivery System. The regression analysis showed that these five variables accounted for about
99% of the variations in unit cost.
In addition, the study showed that the construction speed of DB projects was faster than
for both DBB and CMAR projects by 12 percent and 7 percent, respectively. The findings were
significant at alpha level 0.05. There were six variables that have accounted for 89% of the
variation in construction speed: project size, contract unit cost, project delivery system, percent
design complete before the construction entity joined the project team, project team
communication, and project complexity.
The last finding of this study was related to overall project delivery speed. In terms of
overall delivery speed, the study showed that DB projects were approximately 33.5 percent
faster than DBB projects and 23.5 percent faster than CMR projects. The significant variables
that have an impact on this delivery speed were project size, contract unit cost, percent design
complete before construction entity joined the project team, facility type, and project team
communication. The authors found two variables that had lesser impact on delivery speed
performance:1) excellent subcontractor experience with the facility and 2) project complexity.
Overall, Konchar and Sanvido (1998)evaluated the performance of DB, CMAR, and
DBB projects from data collected from 351 projects built in the U.S. from 19901996.From this
sample of projects, they showed that that DB projects are superior and outperformed CMAR
and DBB projects in terms of cost and schedule.
Ling et al. (2004) predicted project performance in terms of cost, schedule, quality, and
owner’s satisfaction for both DB and DBB projects, using data collected from 87 building
projects for 11 variables. According to Ling et al. (2004), “The objectives were to find
variables that affect project performance and to construct models to predict DB and DBB
project performance. With the outcomes and models produced, owners may be able to choose
which delivery method is best for their project.”
The research methodology used was a case study questionnaire based on past projects
sent to owners, contractors, and consultants. Forty owners were asked to complete 49 project
surveys, 60 contractors were asked to complete 180 project surveys, and 57 consultants were
asked to complete surveys for 171 projects. A total of 87 project surveys were completed for 54
DBB projects and 33 DB projects. The data gathered from these projects were inserted into
SPSS statistics software, and 24 possible models were produced to predict cost and
construction intensity. This study showed that different variables, and sometimes shared
variables, affected each metrics performance; a comparison of the 11 models that predict
project performance in DB and DBB projects is described below.
The comparison of the cost models of DB and DBB projects showed that only the Unit
Cost model did not share any similarities; on the other hand, both Cost Growth and Intensity
models shared similar variables, such as the contractors’ paid-up capital and design completion
when the budget is fixed, that affected project performance. The timerelated models for DB
and DBB projects showed that both construction speed and delivery speed were affected by the
gross floor area of the building, while Schedule Growth models did not share any similarities.
The comparison of the quality models showed no similarities that affected project performance
in DB and DBB projects. The DB and DBB models that compared owner satisfaction showed
that the only similar variable that affected project performance was the contractor’s technical
expertise.
Furthermore, the results showed that buildings designed and constructed by public
entities tended to be more expensive than buildings designed and constructed under private
ownership. In DB projects, the cost fluctuated up to 42% more expensive, depending on the
extent of the design completion in the bid documents. Typically, the cost will increase when
the owner initiates more of the design. The more prescriptive the design, the higher the cost
may be. This study further suggested that cost growth for DB and DBB projects would be
higher if contractors with less capital were contracted.
In addition, Ling et al. (2004) produced models for forecasting Construction Intensity,
in which the larger the project, the greater the construction intensity. This is attributed to the
use of more sophisticated equipment and the possibility for prefabrication of certain building
elements. This study agreed with one conducted by Molenaar and Songer (1998) who stated,
“The degree of urgency of the project affects schedule growth.”This means that if more
pressure were put on DB projects to accelerate the schedule and if DBB projects had the proper
amount of manpower, the construction intensity would be improved. Quality also was analyzed
during this study; the authors found that reviewing the contractors’ resumes of past projects as
well as the outcomes of those projects is a main predictor of the current and future quality of
work to be expected from a particular contractor.
The owner’s satisfaction is directly related to the contractor’s track record, expertise,
safety, and quality. Ling et al. (2004) found that 68% of owner’s satisfaction for DB projects is
related to the contractor’s specialized project experience and safety record. DBB project
owners based their satisfaction on previous track record, number of change orders submitted
during each project, and flexibility of scope. A good analogy for a DB project building for a
university laboratory would be if one contractor completed five laboratory projects with no
injuries in the previous three years and another contractor complete done laboratory project
with two injuries in the previous five years; comparing these two records, an owner would look
favorably upon the first contractor.
Ibbs et al. (2003) compared DB and DBB projects to determine which delivery method
was more effective. This study evaluated the influence that a project delivery method, such as
DB and DBB, may have on the outcome of the project. Information on cost, schedule, and
productivity were collected from the Construction Industry Institute (CII).This study developed
a questionnaire that included questions involving project delivery methods as well as changes
in cost and schedule, which were was used to request data on project information. The CII sent
surveys to over 100 projects located in the U.S., Canada, Middle East, and Latin America that
included questions regarding basic project information, cost, schedule, and productivity
information. Surveys from 67 projects were collected that included “name, location, contract
type, owner information, cost, schedule, and productivity performance.” The original budget of
each project was subtracted from the final cost to determine the cost change, and the schedule
change was calculated by subtracting the estimated duration from the final duration. The
productivity was calculated as earned labor-hours divided by expected labor-hours.
This study showed that DB projects had less cost changes (13%) than DBB projects
(15.6%). According to this research study, DBB projects had decreased changes (-0.4%) while
DB projects had about 7.4% increased changes. This result indicates that when a project used
the DB method, the cost increased.
Further research in this study showed that during the construction phase, projects that
used the DB method had approximately 4% increase in cost changes, while DBB had about 9%
decrease in cost changes. In the design phase, DB projects had an average cost change of 8%
and DBB had an average change in cost of 9%. The changes in schedule showed that DB
projects outperformed DBB projects by having only a 7.7% change, while DBB projects had an
8.4% change in schedule. This study also compared productivity against schedule and cost
changes in regards to the delivery method used by the project. The study showed that when
each delivery method had the same amount of schedule change, then DBB projects
outperformed DB projects in terms of productivity.
In conclusion, this study by Ibbs et al. (2003) showed that DB projects had a higher
total cost change than DBB projects, but DB projects outperformed DBB projects in terms of
schedule. Additionally, when productivity was compared, both DB and DBB projects had
approximately the same amount of change with respect to the project. Wardani et al. (2006)
stated that, “Several studies have analyzed the growing trend towards the use of Design-Build
delivery method and the shift from more traditional delivery methods.” This research on the
procurement method of project delivery systems strays a bit from the topic of this thesis;
however, procurement methodologies of delivery methods are almost as important as the
delivery method itself. Results from this study showed that the low-bid selection process had
the highest cost growth, which was 9% higher than the qualifications-based procurement
method. This study showed that schedule growth from the best value procurement method had
an average of 0% schedule growth. Therefore, even though the DB delivery method can
possibly lead to superior project performance, the procurement methodology used to select the
DB firm should be evaluated very carefully prior to advertising.
several hypothetical questions regarding project information, cost, and the reason for using the
DB method; project selection methodology; owner assessment; and quality. After the
questionnaires were received, the author reviewed the data for schedule, cost, quality, and
owner satisfaction. The results from the analyzing schedule data showed that 13 out of 21
projects chose DB as a project delivery method due to schedule effectiveness. The study
showed that 26 percent of the DB projects were completed ahead of schedule, typically one to
two months ahead of schedule. When the interviews were asked how the project schedule
would have been affected if thedelivery method was DBB, 100% stated that the project would
have taken longer than it
did with the DB method. Cost performance also was studied to compare the bid amount with
the total completion cost. The author defined cost growth as the difference between the bid
amount and the final cost of the project. In this case study, the result for cost growth in DB
projects was less than four percent compared to DBB projects, indicating that DB projects have
less cost growth than DBB projects.
In addition, owner satisfaction in regards to quality of the work performed while using
the DB delivery method was addressed in this study. In all 21 cases, it was determined that DB
projects have equal to or better quality than if the project was delivered under the DBB method.
Shrestha et al. (2011) compared the relationship of DBB and DB projects for large
highway projects in terms of cost, schedule, and change order per lane mile. According to
Shrestha et al. (2011), the criteria used to select the DBB projects were as follows: “1) The
projects should only involve construction of roadways, 2) the construction completion time of
the project should be after 2000 and should not go beyond 2009, 3) the design and construction
cost of the projects should exceed $50,000,000.00, and 4) the projects should be constructed in
the state of Texas.
The criteria for the DB projects were: 1) the projects should only involve construction
of roadways, 2) the highway projects are to be selected from FHWA SEP-14 projects, 3) the
construction completion time of the project should be after 2000 and should not go beyond
2009, and 4) the design and construction cost of the projects should exceed $50,000,000.” The
data was gathered in forms of questionnaires, and subsequent phone interviews, and internet
searches.
After the data was verified, it was analyzed using ANOVA and a t-test assuming
unequal variances. The analysis showed that one lane mile of DB projects was designed in one
half of a month and one lane mile in DBB projects were designed in two months. The
construction speed per lane mile for DB projects was 11 days, and the construction speed per
lane mile for DBB projects was 29.4 days. The cost per change order for DB projects was
about 50 percent more than the cost per change order for DBB projects. However, the analysis
did show that the number of change orders were lower in DB projects (25 change orders) than
DBB projects (65 change orders). The study also researched project characteristics (input
variables) and project performance (output variables) from large highway projects. This study
showed that 14input variables had an alliance with one or more of the output variables. The
input variables related to cost growth had a significant alliance with the amount of days lost
with the increase of cost. The input variables related to cost per mile had significant alliance
with the following four output variables. When a bridge area was compared, the cost per lane
mile increased as design work hours per week decreased. The cost also increased as right of
ways (ROWs) increased; this includes ROWs by eminent domain. When evaluating schedule
growth, the main finding here was that the use of partnering or bonuses resulted in lower
schedule growth. Delivery speed could be increased if the project had fewer interchanges,
fewer bridges, partnering, and less
environmental evaluations. The cost per change order was also evaluated, and showed that new
construction had fewer change orders than a reconstruction project. Furthermore, the cost of
change orders increased as the work days per week increased.
CHAPTER 3
3.RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Each questionnaire for this study had a section for general project information,
including location and contact information; and a section for project characteristics, such as
square feet, construction type, and construction year. There was a section in both the DB and
DBB questionnaires for project performance, which included performance metrics for cost,
schedule, and change orders. The cost and schedule information was collected differently for
these two types of projects. For DB projects, data for cost, schedule, and change orders were
combined with data for design and construction; for DBB projects, information was collected
separately for design and construction.
When the research began, the intention was concentrate on construction companies.
Since the laws and regulations in construction companies have been in effect .A limited
number of projects was delivered under a DB contract. Therefore, the study was broadened to
different construction companies. Once again, due to the limitation of completed DB projects,
there still was not enough data. At that point, the study was expanded to many construction
companies as possible. Even though, during the data collection phase, it was found that many
construction companies choose to use only DBB or Construction Manager at Risk delivery
methods, despite legislation that allowed them to utilize DB contracts.
In order to rely on the data responses from the questionnaires, it was important to
determine a suitable quantity of respondents. Consider that there are around 77 contractors and
15 consultants in Debre Birehan town and where N is the population size and n is the sample
size. Additionally, let V be the margin of error which the author assigned at 1 percent and let P
be the desired confidence interval which the author assigned at 0.5. Since this is a finite data
pool, then the sample size should be at least (Cui et al. 2008):
N
𝑛= (N−1)V
+1
1 + P(1−P)
Chapter 4
The type of projects collected for data analysis were construction projects that were
contracted and constructed under DBB and DB delivery methods. A detailed questionnaire was
developed and sent to construction companies across the Debre Birhan University and town,
requesting specific project information for both DBB and DB projects
In research 73.68 (14) contractor and 26.32 (5) consultant replied a valid questionnaire as
shown fig 4.1from the collected questionnaires from contractor 17and 6 questionnaires from
consultant were collected.
26.32
CONTRACTORS
CONSULTANTS
73.68
DBB?
4 Which delivery method is 14 82.35 3 17.65 4 66.67 2 33.33
suited in terms of facilities
5 In which delivery method 15 88.24 2 11.76 4 66.67 2 33.33
Single entity responsible for
design and construction?
6 In which delivery method 11 64.71 6 35.29 3 50 3 50
Construction often starts
before design completion,
reducing project schedule?
7 In which delivery method 14 82.35 3 17.65 4 66.67 2 33.33
Construction cost is known
and fixed during design; price
certainty?
8 15 88.24 2 11.76 5 83.33 11 11.67
In which delivery method.
Emphasis on cost control?
9 In which delivery method 12 70.59 5 29.41 4 66.67 2 33.33
Transfer of design and
construction risk from owner
to the DB entity?
10 In which delivery method 13 76.48 4 23.52 4 66.67 2 33.33
requires less owner expertise
and resources?
Total 136 80.00 34 20.00 45 75.00 15 25
From the above table,80% from contractors and 75% from the consultants the design build (DB)
delivery method is more effective for cost control, minimize duration of time, improving high
quality and known the project cost during design stage.
120%
100%
80%
60% DBB
40% DB
20%
0%
cotnractor consultant
Contractors Consultant
DB DBB DB DBB
Contractors Consultant
DB DBB DB DBB
According to the above table, 78.24% from the contractor and 66.67% from the consultants
design bid build (DBB) delivery method is required carefully prepared performance
specification, design changes after construction begins are costly and construction costs
unknown until contracts award. Therefore it is effective than design build (DB).
For consultants
The overall performance of DB project was excellent compare to the other, the understanding
level of the consultant also excellent and the quality of the preliminary design was good.
Table 7 cost of tendering &expectation cost saving, time &quality
Very high High Medium Low
3 50 3 50 0 0 0 0
1 What was the level of
understanding as a client when
you start DB?
2 What do you say about cost of 0 0 1 16.7 1 16.7 4 66.66
tendering as compared to DBB?
In this study the tendering process 66.67 % takes less than 3 months and 33.33 % takes less
than 2 months. The researcher concludes that the tendering duration in design build
delivery method is minimum.
Table10 time saving stage in DB received from consultant
Tendering Design &Construction Both
In this study the tendering process 52.94 % takes less than 3 months23.53 % takes less than 2
months and 23.53% takes greater than 3 months. The researcher concludes that the tendering
duration in design build delivery method is minimum.
Table16 time saving stage in DB received from contractor
Tendering Design Both
&Construction
No Freq Per Freq Per Freq Per
In the about result during tendering stage 29.41% save time,17.65% save time
during design and construction stage and 52.94% save time during both tendering
and design & construction stages.
In design build (DB), high quality building within a short period of time and within less cost
compared to design bid build (DBB) are executed.
4.1.1Advantages of DBB
4.1.2Disadvantages of DBB
1. requires significant owner expertise and resources
2. Shared responsibility for project delivery
3. Owner at risk to contractor for design errors
4. Design and construction are sequential, typically resulting in longer schedules
5. Construction costs unknown until contract award
6. No contractor input in design, planning, or value engineering (VE)
The DB entities acquire the bridging documents from the owner and meticulously go
through them in order to note all design, materials, and other work that needs to be completed
for their proposal. At that point, the DB entities prepare their final proposal and submit them to
the owner. This proposal is considered their “Bid” for the job, and typically has a guaranteed
maximum price (GMP). Also, the DB entities proposals typically must to be turned into the
owner at a specific time and place; no late proposals are accepted.
Since the DB entity creates the final design and specifications based off the bridging
documents, the DB entity is responsible for the design and construction of the project; change
orders will not be accepted unless they are owner-requested changes. Hence, the owner
contracts with a single entity that is responsible for the design and construction of the project.
Figure 2 shows the contractual relationship with the DB delivery method. The straight
arrowed lines indicate direct contractual relationships and the dashed line represents
coordination aspects only.
4.2.1. Advantages of DB
4.2.2. Disadvantages of DB
CHAPTER 5
5.1 Conclusions
This thesis has collected data by means of convenient random sampling and analyzed
by frequency distribution method. These two delivery methods have their unique advantages
and disadvantages. From the collected questionnaires design build (DB) delivery method was
more effective to saving the time, cost and improving the quality of the projects.
5.1.1. Time
This study analyzed the design build (DB) project delivery system results take lower time than
design bid build (DBB) project delivery system in both tendering phase and design and
construction phase. In design build delivery method the contract usually award by negotiation.
So that design build (DB) project delivery method takes short period of time than design bid
build (DBB) project delivery method for tendering process. According to the collected data
from 17 contractors 9 contractors were respond the design build (DB) delivery method takes
less than 3 months, 4 contractors respond the design build delivery method takes greater than 3
months and the remaining 4 contractors respond the design build delivery method takes less
than 2 months. From this data the time takes to tendering in design build (DB) project delivery
method is lower. Also in design build (DB) construction often starts before design completion.
Due to this reason design build reduces project schedule.
5.1.2. Cost
This study analyzed the design build (DB) project delivery system results take lower cost than
design bid build (DBB) project delivery system by reducing rework activities, reducing the cost
executed during bid preparation process and tendering process. Also in design build delivery
method the cost of the project is known before the construction starts. So that the owner knows
how to use his/her cost properly and effectively.
5.1.3. Quality
This study analyzed the design build (DB) project delivery system results improving high
quality performance than design bid build (DBB) project delivery system because of the owner
controls design/construction quality. In design build (DB) project delivery system single entity
responsible for both design and construction. So, that the project party build the project within
the required qualities to reduce the risks that come from constructed low quality constriction
buildings.
Generally from this study design build (DB) project delivery system was more time saving,
cost saving and high quality improving delivery method than design bid build (DBB) project
delivery system.
5.2. Recommendations
6. REFERENCES
Cook, R.H., and Smith, J.J. (1984) “Turnkey procurement consideration for management.”
Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Alexandria, Va.
Erne, J.J., Schexnayder, C., and Flora, G. (1999). “Design build effects on a construction
company.” Transportation Research Record
Federal Construction Council. (1993). “Experiences of federal agencies with the design build
approach to construction.” Tech. Rep. 122, Consulting Com. On Cost Accounting, National
Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
Gransberg, D.D., Senadheera S.P.(1999). “Design build contract award methods for
transportation projects.”J. Mgmt. Engrg.,
Hale,D., Shrestha,P. P., Gidson,G.E. Jr., and Migliaccio, G.C. (2009) “Empirical comparison
of design build and design bid build project delivery methods.”J. Construc. Eng. Manage
Ibbs,W. C., Kwak, Y.H. , Ng,T., and Odabasi,A. M.. (2003). “Project delivery systems and
project change: Quantitative analysis.”J. Construc. Eng. Manage.,
Levine et al. (2007). “Statistics for managers.” Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River,
New Jersey,
Ling,F. Y. Y., Chan,S.L., Chong,E., and Ee,L.P.. (2004) “Predicting performance of design
build and design bid build projects.” J. Construc. Eng. Manage.,
Molenaar, K., Songer,A., and Barash, M.. (1999). “Public sector design build evolution and
performance.” J. Construc. Eng. Manage.,
Myers, J.J. (1994) “Rep. on Design-Build as an Alternate Delivery Method for Public
Owners.”Com. on Mgmt and Contracting Alternatives, Building Futures Council, Georgetown,
Md.
Scott, S., Molenaar, K., Gransberg, D., and Smith, N. (2006). “Best-value procurement
methods for highway construction projects.” Rep. No. 561, Project No. 10-61, NCHRP,
Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington D.C.
Shrestha, P.P., O’Connor, J.T., Gibson Jr., G.E. (2010) “Performance comparison of large
design build and design bid build highway Projects.” J. Construc. Eng. Manage., in print.
Warne, T.R. (2005) “Design build contracting for highway projects: A performance
assessment,” Tom Warne & Associates, LLC, May 2005.
Yates, J.K. (1995). “Use of design/build in the E/C industry.” J. Mgmt. Engrg., ASCE
7. Appendix
1. What was the level of understanding as a client when you start DB?
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
11. Are you doing preliminary design during tender document preparation?
Yes No
17. How much time over run do you expect at the project completion?
Average
Maximum
Minimum
Average (%)
Maximum (%)
Minimum (%)
2o.How was your expectation of DB projects on the cost saving, time saving and quality?
High Medium Low
23. Were you fully aware of the liabilities and responsibilities before signing DB
contract?
Yes No
24. Which one of the following benefit do you think DB can give most significantly?
25. How would you rate the overall performance of this project compared to other
design-build (DB) projects?
Excellent good fair poor
No DB DBB
1 Which delivery method takes short duration (faster?
2 Which delivery method takes short duration (faster?
3 Which delivery method has high quality of design DB or DBB?
4 Which delivery method is suited in terms of facilities?
5 In which delivery method Single entity responsible for design and
construction?