Criteria For Selection Of Design And

Build Procurement Method

Abstract
One of the causes of poor project performance (PP) is the use of inappropriate
procurement method (PM). Whilst employing an appropriate method is considered to
result in project success, limited research has so far been conducted to empirically
explore this relationship. Although, a lot of studies have been done with a view to
develope models/tools for aiding the selection process, there are very less work which
research investigated the influence of procurement methods on project performance.
This paper presents a conceptual framework that demonstrates the existence of this
influence. The framework is developed based on an extensive review of literature. The
review was carried out to determine the main criteria for selecting Design and Build
procurement method (DB) and project performance measurements. Thirteen (13) DB
procurement selection criteria commonly cited in the literature were identified. A
review of how each of these criterion suits the use of DB method was also carried out.
The latter review was to facilitate ranking of each of the criterion on a rating scale for
purposes of predicting the actual level of influence a particular procurement method
exerts on performance of a project. Besides offering a deeper understanding of PM
relationships with PP, the proposed conceptual framework forms a basis for the
development of the quantitative model at subsequent stages of the on-going study.

Keywords: Construction procurement methods, Design and build procurement

method, Procurement selection criteria, Project performance

1
INTRODUCTION
Many researchers including for example Love et al. (2012) and Francom et al. (2014) indicated
that, the term ‘construction procurement method’ has been given different definitions in the
literature. For instance, Chan (2007) defined it as the system that represents the organizational
structure adopted by clients for the implementation of project processes and eventual operation of
the project. On the other hand, Molenaar et al. (2009) defined procurement method as a
comprehensive process by which designers, constructors and various consultants provide services
for design and construction to deliver a complete project to the client. As this definition suggests,
a wide range of processes are involved in a procurement strategy. These processes are often
interrelated and sequential in nature and their effectiveness and efficiency have considerable
impact on the success or failure of projects.

Not only are modern construction and engineering projects characterized by high complexity and
uncertainties (Gidado, 1996; Wardani et al., 2006), they are also increasingly subjected to
stringent project performance requirements by clients. Such demands typically call for projects to
be delivered under limited resources, at low cost, in short duration and to a high level of quality
and safety standard (Love et al., 1998). These requirements have often been difficult to meet in
most projects with the results being, significant project delays, cost overruns, loss of reputation,
extensive disputes and litigation between parties. The traditional approach to procuring projects,
commonly known as Design-Bid-Build (DBB), has often been blamed for such unfortunate
consequences (Love et al, 1998; Rwelamila and Edries, 2007), largely due to its inability to meet
changing clients’ needs and increased complexity of the interactions in technical, economic and
multi-organizational participation at play in modern project execution (Mohsini et al, 1995). The
need to deal with this problem has resulted in a wide variety of procurement methods (Love et al.,
2012), with the most common types including Design and Build, Management Contracting,
Construction Management, Project Finance Initiative and Partnering. These types of procurement
methods differ from each other in terms of allocation of responsibilities, activities sequencing,
process and procedure, and organizational approach in project delivery (Abdul Rashid et al.,
2006; Alhazmi and McCaffer, 2000). The complex nature of procurement selection and their
subsequent management, therefore pose great difficulties to clients and any failure to rise up to
this challenge has often resulted in poor project performance. Such consequences have long been
recognized by a number of researchers (Mohsini and Davidson, 1991; Molenaar et al., 2009).
Various attempts have thus been made by researchers over the years towards addressing these
procurement issues.

The studies done so far can be put into three categories. The first category involves studies that
compare existing procurement methods in a bid to find out their efficiencies as used in practice
(see for e.g. Mohsini, et al., 1995; wardani, et al., 2006). The second category involves research
carried out to identify the criteria or factors that determine the right procurement method to use
(for e.g. Alhazimi and McCaffer, 2000, Luu et al., 2003 and Hashim et al., 2008). The third
category of the studies, focus on using these criteria to develop models by which clients can
employ to select the most suitable procurement method. For instance, Chan (2007) developed a
procurement selection model called fuzzy procurement selection model. It is a mathematical rank
2
model that is adaptable to local circumstances. Alhazmi and McCaffer (2000) proposed a model
called Project Procurement System Selection Model (PPSSM) for assisting government agencies
in Saudi Arabia to select the most appropriate procurement method. The model consists of four
screening levels to be followed in selection process: feasibility ranking, evaluation by
comparison, weighted evaluation and analytic hierarchy processes. Based on a Delphi study, a
multi-attribute decision analysis was used to develop a procurement selection model by Chan et
al. (2001). Luu et al. (2003) developed a procurement selection model based on case-based
reasoning (CBR) approach. The suitability of CBR approaches was subsequently examined in a
study by Luu et al. (2005), who indicated that the approach has the potential to ensure high
quality decisions on procurement selection. The approach was also found to deal effectively with
variability in the characteristics of the clients, project and extreme environment.

However, there seems to be very less research reported in the literature which has looked at the
influence of procurement selection criteria on project performance, although such criteria are
known to contribute to project success. Such information will be of invaluable benefit to the
clients, that is, helping them to understand the aspects of procurement methods or the criteria they
need to concentrate on to improve project performance. As a contribution in this direction, this
paper reports a conceptual framework developed as a part of a wider on-going study aimed at
developing a model on the relationship between the criteria of selection of DB procurement
method and project performance criteria (time, cost and quality). The framework developed,
based on the extensive review of literature, not only seeks to establish the basis of the relationship
between these criteria, but also aims to serve as the basis for developing a quantitative model (at
later stage of the study) for establishing the exact nature and level of the influence PMs exerts on
PP.

CONSTRUCTION PROCUREMENT SELECTION

As highlighted in the previous section, the numerous PMs available, coupled with their individual
unique features, have made clients’ decisions to choose the appropriate method for any given
project, a complex task to grapple with. Such challenges have largely resulted in the need to
conduct a selection process in a disciplined and systematic manner. Various factors have to be
taken into consideration before any informed decision can be made on the right choice of PM.
The factors can be classified into external and internal factors (Love et al., 1998; Luu, and Chen,
2005), as presented in Fig. 1 (Ratnasabapathy et al., 2006). The figure shows how the factors
relate and interrelate with each other. It explains how the task involved in selecting the right PM
can be extremely complex and difficult to unravel. The nature of the selection process therefore
calls for the employment of sound systematic procedures by clients. Such an approach is likely to
yield the best procurement method that best meets the needs of a particular type of work (Ali et
al., 2011).

3
 Time related
Quality related
Cost related
Natural disasters
Client
requirements
Client
characteristics
External
Construction
procurement environment
Internal selection
environment

Project Economic
Political & legal
characteristics

Source : Ratnasabapathy et al., 2006

Figure 1 : Factor Effecting Selection Of A Procurement Method

Choosing an appropriate PM entails identifying the right selection criteria, which are informed by
these factors, and then assessing their level of compatibility with the features or characteristics of
the project to be delivered (Love et al., 1998; Rwelamila and Edries, 2007). According to Love et
al. (2008), the selection process can be narrowed down into two main components: (i) analysing
and establishing priorities for project objectives and client attitudes to risk; and (ii) considering
possible options, evaluating them and finally selecting the most appropriate option. The accuracy
and clarity of the client’s requirements and needs are crucial ingredients here. Hence, selecting a
PM involves a key set of decisions which must be planned for and which require the participation
of high-level decision makers. The nature of the selection process therefore calls for employment
of sound systematic procedures by clients. This approach involves relying on a number of existing
PM selection techniques/models (Alkhalil, 2002; Chan, 2007; Chan, et al., 2001) to arrive at the
best PM that meets the needs of the particular project (Ali, et al., 2011).

Since there are a wide range of factors that could count as a criteria for selecting a PM, it was
deemed appropriate for this study to identify the most common criteria reported in the literature
from past research studies, through an extensive literature review. Critical review of the literature
suggests total 13 criteria which are commonly cited (refer Table 1) and are suitable for selecting
Design and Build procurement method. Many of the past studies, including those listed in Table
1, have highlighted the importance of relying on these criteria to rightly select the most
appropriate PM, if increased satisfaction with PP is to be ensured. These criteria thus represent the
most current criteria that are of relevance to Design and Build procurement selection and for
which the researchers are involved in further development of the selection process.

DB Procurement Method
DB method of procurement has been used in the industry throughout the world extensively for
many years (Minchin et al., 2013; Turina et al., 2008; Seng and Yusof, 2006). It is considered as
one of the most favored project delivery methods in the engineering construction industry
(Minchin et al., 2013; Ibbs et al., 2003). It has gained its popularity from its time and cost saving
reputation, reduced conflicts and enhanced communication between project participants (Minchin
et al., 2013). DB is classified as one of the integrated forms of procurement methods, whereby the
client provides his/her requirements and needs for the specified project and signs contract with
4
only one organization, namely the contractor. This organization is responsible for the design,
supervision and construction services of the project as Fig. 2 below depicts (Seng and Yusof,
2006).

Source: Seng and Yusof (2006)

Figure 2 : Project Organisation Structure For DB Method

The circumstances in which this method is generally considered appropriate include the following
is:
 The client not familiar with the construction process.
 The project is technically complex.
 There is a low likelihood of variations to the project.
 The client desires a single point of responsibility.
 The employer desires a quick start to work on site.
 The client desires to prioritize either – time, quality, price or value for money etc.
 The client desires an opportunity for effective direct communication/interaction with contractors.
 The client desires an integration of the design and construction process.

5
 Table 1 : Criteria For Selecting DB Procurement Method
DB procurement criteria

commenceme

Less conflicts
Quick project

responsibility

Collaborative
communicati

Flexibility in

project team
construction

construction

Single point

experienced
project time

competence

project plan
relationship
Complexity

project cost
on between

Transfer of
risks to the
delivery of

design and

contractor

contractor
of design
Effective

Desiring

Desiring

Desiring
amongst

Level of

efficient
working

between
changes

reduced

reduced
process

project

project
parties

parties
Quick

and
of
nt
Authors
Hashim et al., 2008   

Seng and Yusof, 2006             

Al Khalil, 2002 

Cheung et al., 2001   

Edmond et al., 2008

Chan et al., 2001    

Alhazmi and McCaffer, 2000

Abdul Rashid et al., 2006 

Mohsini and Davidson, 1991 

Pramen et al., 2012    

Adnan et al., 2012    

Natkin, 1994  

Park et al., 2009   

Gould, 2005 

Lee, 2007  

Mante et al., 2012 

Ola et al., 2006 

Koncher and Sanvido, 1998 

Ndekkugri and Turner, 1994 

Palaneeswaran and
    
Kumaraswamy, 2000
Songer and Molenar, 1997 

6
Kamal and Hindle, 2000 

Turina et al., 2008    

Albert, 2000   

Tooky et al., 2001  

Parkins, 2009   

Darren et al. 2009

Eriksson and Westerberg, 2011 

Mahdi and Alreshaid, 2005

Thomas et al., 2002
 

Skimore and Marsden, 1988   

Eriksson and Westerberg, 2012   

Murdoch and Hugh, 2008 

Shapiro, 2013    

Pinto and Slevin, 1998  

Songer and Molenaar, 2011  

Molenaar and Songer, 1998 

Ness, 2012 

Guld, 2005 

Albert, 2000  

Gehrig, 2009   

Terril, 1998  

Ola et al., 2006 

Gibson and Walewski, 2001 

Total 7 6 8 5 13 9 9 8 12 9 5 3 1

7
PROJECT PERFORMANCE CRITERIA
Traditionally, a project is considered to have achieved a high level of performance if it is
delivered at the right time, right price and good quality level. It should also provide the client
with a high level of satisfaction. Bryde and Brown (2004) concluded that the traditional
distinction between good and at poor project performance focused on the meeting of cost, time
and product quality-related criteria. These criteria have been described as the iron triangle of
project performance. Fig. 3 shows the iron triangle as adopted by Atkinson (1999).

Time

Project
performance

Cost Quality

Source: Atkinson, 1999

Figure 3 : Project Performance Criteria Trade-Off Triangle

The project success is usually measured differently from the perspectives of different parties.
Jing et al. (2010) compared success criteria as measured by contractors and clients and found out
that clients put more emphasis on satisfying the needs of other stakeholders, while contractors
emphasize on minimizing project cost and duration. They also found that all project stakeholders
put products satisfying owner’s needs as the first criteria.

In last decades, several researchers within the multidimensional construct of project performance
have proposed different criteria or indicators based on empirical research. While some focused
on using these measures as strategic weapons, others emphasized the proper delineation of the
measures and groupings into classes that will make tracking and management reasonable. Most
of the studies (for example, Bassioni et al., 2004; Jin et al., 2007; Cheung et al., 2004) agree that
project performance can be measured and evaluated using a large number of performance
indicators or criteria but time, cost and quality appear to be the three commonly preferred
performance evaluation dimensions.

A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
The premise underlying this study is based on the principle espoused in literature that the best
procurement method chosen for a project, based on the right procurement selection criteria,
would result in successful project performance (Molenaar et al., 1998; Thomas et al., 2002). In
other words, the level of project success to be expected depends on how suitable the procurement
method used for that project was (Molenaar et al., 1998). It thus follows from this hypothesis
that a relationship exists between the extent to which the selection criteria of a given
procurement method are compatible or suitable (for the characteristics and requirements of a
project) and the performance outcomes of that project. Establishing such relationship in detail

8
would thus offer vital insights into procurement method selection, such as, knowledge of which
selection criterion contributes significantly to improved project performance and for that matter
deserves more attention during the selection process. As an initial step towards exploring this
relationship, a conceptual framework (Fig. 4) was first established to demonstrate the
relationship between the research variables involved.

DB Procurement Criteria
 Quick delivery of construction
processes
 Quick of project commencement
 Effective communication Time
between project parties
 Flexibility of design changes
Influence
 Single point of responsibility Project
 Less conflict between project Cost
performance
team
 Complexity of design
 Transfer risks to contractor
Quality
 Reducing project cost
 Minimizing project time
 Component and experienced
contractor
 Working relationship between
project team
 Planning and design project time

Figure 4 : Conceptual Framework Of Construction Procurement Influence

On Project Performance

As indicated in Fig. 4, the independent variables of the study are represented by DB procurement
selection criteria, whilst project performance outcomes (time, cost and quality) form the
dependent variables. Review of the literature suggests that all selection criteria emanate from two
main groups of factors, external and internal environmental factors as highlighted in Section 2
(Refer Fig.1).

It was noted previously that an important step in the selection of an appropriate PM involves
defining and prioritizing client’s requirements and project objectives. This is followed by setting
out selection criteria that will be used to determine the right PM. These criteria are defined as
“the set of project specific requirements that weigh high in level of suitability when measured
against procurement methods” (Thanh et al., 2003).

Following the identification of the most commented upon criteria for selection of DB
procurement method in the literature, the next important review that followed relates to a
discussion (based on critical review of the literature) on what these selection criteria entails. The

9
aim of this discussion is to specifically establish the theoretical relationship that exists between
DB selection criteria and PP, and to also identify the variables that could be used to
operationalise or conceptualize these criteria. The criteria for selecting DB methods have been
discussed as follows:

Quick Delivery Of Construction Process

This refers to the need to complete a project more quickly than other projects of similar
circumstances.. One of the most common project demands of clients is to fast-track the project
delivery process through overlapping design and construction processes in order to avoid any
delays (Bogus et al., 2005). This criterion can thus be defined as the speed of the construction
process needed to complete the project within the planned time or before (Albert, 2000; Chan,
2001; Seng and Yusof, 2006; Thomas et al., 2002). This criterion has been confirmed by many
authors as being a significant factor for selecting DB method (Rowlinson and McDermott, 1999;
Skitmore and Marsden, 1988). Holt et al. (1998) also concluded that DB procurement method is
often used when there is a pressure for early completion of the project. One of the main reasons
is that DB involves only one single procurement phase for carrying out design and construction
work, which in itself creates substantial time savings for projects.

Therefore, that the first hypothesis is:

H1: Quick delivery of construction process has a positive effect on the performance of the
project.

Quick Project Commencement

In some circumstances, clients prefer projects to start early for obvious economic, business or
political reasons. This can be achieved by relying on DB procurement method, as this approach
allows for construction to start before the design is completed, which increases the possibility of
achieving good performance in terms of time (Edmond et al., 2008; Love et al., 1998). Quick
project commencement is thus one of the defining features of DB project delivery and it has
always been a key reason for selecting DB method (Song and Yusof, 2006). This criterion
therefore represents the extent to which the actual construction work of the project is able to
begin whilst the design plans and specifications are still developing and incomplete (Eriksson
and Westerberg, 2011; Gibson and Walewski, 2001; Molenaar and Songer, 1998; Seng and
Yusof, 2006). It was thus operationalized based on the extent to which the client preferred early
commencement of the project.

Therefore, we hypothesize that:

H2: Quick project commencement has a positive effect on the performance of the project.

Effective Communication Between Project Parties

Effective cooperation and communication amongst project parties contributes positively to
project success, and has thus been regarded as one of the major criteria for selecting DB method
(Mohsini and Davidson 1991; Seng and Yusof, 2006). This criterion was operationalized on the
basis of the extent to which project parties’ members (client, contractor and consultant)

11
communicate effectively during the design and construction stages of the project (Edmond et al.,
2008; Mohsini and Davidson 1991; Seng and Yusof, 2006). Using DB procurement method to
deliver projects enables a design and construction process to overlap, which normally facilitates
communication between the client and contractor, through, for example, the direct and close
interrelationship that must be exhibited by the parties (Gould, 2005; Pinto and Slevin, 1998).

Therefore, we hypothesize that:

H3. Effective communication between project parties has a positive effect on the performance of
the project.

Flexibility In Design And Construction Changes

Flexibility in design and construction changes is particularly necessary for large and complex
projects wherein their exact requirements are often difficult to establish carefully before
tendering (Thomas et al., 2002). This criterion represents the ability to accommodate changes
during both design and construction stages. Changes (or variations) are amongst the main factors
that negatively impact on PP (Hanna et al., 1999; Ratnasabapathy et al., 2006). The extent of
impact is a function of how flexible the changes could be effected or accommodated, which
mainly depends on stage of the project, size and complexity of the project (Thomas et al., 2002).
For instance, changes implemented during construction are often more costly than those
executed during design stages (Perkins, 2009). As DB method integrates design and construction
phases with no clear separation between them, it tends to offer more flexibility to changes than
other procurement methods such as traditional procurement method (DBB) (Thomas et al.,
2002).

Therefore, we hypothesize that:

H4: Flexibility in design and construction changes has a positive effect on the performance of the
project.

Single Point Of Reasonability

This criterion has a great impact on PP (Seng and Yousf, 2006), and is considered to be a
significant determinant of DB selection (Adnan et al., 2012). This characteristic feature of the
DB method allows the project to be carried out without any mediating consultants, leaving the
central contractual relation as one between the client and the contractor (Abdul Rashid et al.,
2006; Chan et al., 2001; Cheung et al., 2001; Seng and Yusof, 2006). This criterion thus
represents the extent to which a single organization is able to assume the required responsibility
of both project design and construction duties. According to Gehrig (2009), an important driving
force behind this criterion in DB selection lies in the fact that the overall project delivery
responsibility rests with a single organization, which avoids the inconveniences clients tend to
suffer for being in contract with many organizations. By virtue of such arrangement, clients are
able to not only draft contracts that guarantee performance from contractor, but also to resolve
disputes relatively easier than would otherwise have been the case involving many parties
(Gehrig, 2009). Further, DB method provides incentive to the contractor to keep the client’s

11
costs to minimum in the event of unforeseen circumstances (Abdul Rashid et al., 2006; Seng and
Yusof, 2006).
Therefore, we hypothesize that:
H5: Single point of responsibility has a positive effect on the performance of the project.

Less Conflict Amongst Project Team

Reducing the level of conflicts amongst project team is a key factor responsible for project
success (Mante et al., 2012; Natkin, 1994; Park et al., 2009; Seng and Yusof, 2006). Conflicts
can be defined as a state of opposition between project participants’ interests and ideas (Ness,
2012). Construction projects are often undertaken by parties of different disciplines and
organizations, with different project priorities. Each has their own expertise and interests, yet
their inputs are interdependent, which therefore produces conflicting views between project
participants (Ness, 2012). A significant feature of DB method is its ability to reduce the level of
such conflicts (Mante et al., 2012; Ndekugri and Turner, 1994; Seng and Yusof, 2006). One of
the main reasons for this is the fact that DB method integrates design and construction processes,
whereby the different teams involved are able to work in the spirit of teamwork. This
arrangement enhances effective communication, coordination and collaboration amongst project
team members, which are all critical to reduce the conflicts and disputes (Seng and Yusof, 2006).

Therefore, we hypothesize that:

H6: Less conflicts amongst project team has a positive effect on the performance of the project.

Complexity Of Design
Project design is often characterized by complex processes, creating uncertainties and therefore
difficulties in achieving good project performance (Naoum and Mustapha, 1994). A key feature
of complexity is high interdependency between project activities, which require among others, a
central coordinating unit for dealing with the issues involved (Mohsini et al., 1995). This
criterion thus represents the ability of the procurement method to facilitate complex design
projects (Molenar and songer, 1998; Park et al., 2009; Thomas et al., 2002). It is often
considered while selecting DB. For instance, according to Konchar and Sanvido (1998) and Seng
and Yusof (2006) projects with greater complexity may call for the use of DB method as the DB
method is relatively appropriate for dealing with large and complex projects in terms of design
due to its ability to facilitate early collaboration between design and construction disciplines.
This collaboration minimizes design errors, which are a major source of change to the
construction contract (Perkins, 2009) and hence a source of poor project performance.

Therefore, we hypothesize that:

H7: Complexity of design has a positive effect on the performance of the project.

Transfer Of Risks To The Contractor

This criterion represents the degree to which the project risks transferred to the contractor were
fairly allocated by the contract (Thomas et al., 2002). According to a number of studies (e.g.,
Seng and Yusof, 2006; Cheung et al., 2001; Ola et al., 2006), the DB method offers

12
opportunities for clients to transfer most of the project risks to the contractor than any other
construction procurement. Therefore, the ability to transfer risks to the contractor remains one of
the significant reasons for clients to choose DB method. As the DB method offers single point of
responsibility, project risks (within both design and construction) are easily transferable to the
contractor.

Therefore, we hypothesize that:

H8. Transfer of risks to the contractor has a positive effect on the performance of the project.

Desiring Reduced Project Cost

DB is often used because it provides better value for money (Eriksson and Westerberg, 2011;
Molenaar and Songer, 1998), reducing project cost by overlapping the design and construction
processes (Seng and Yusof, 2006; Tooky et al., 2001; Turina et al., 2008), which explains why
this criterion is often considered when selecting the DB procurement. This criterion was
operationalized as the extent to which clients were keen to ensure the reduction in the project
cost. The design team typically works closely with the construction team, which increases the
level of cooperation and communication, thereby allowing for quick identification and correction
of any errors in the design and/or construction.

Therefore, we hypothesis that:

H9: Desiring reduced project cost has a positive effect on the performance of the project.

Desiring Reduced Project Duration

Reducing the duration of a project has a significant positive influence on PP (Gehrig, 2009;
Tooky et al., 2001). Saving project time is one of the major client priorities and thus is an often
considered factor in PM selection. This criterion was operationalized on the basis of the extent to
which a client desires to finish the project by an earlier completion date or in shorter project
duration. According to Seng and Yusof (2006), the DB approach is a project delivery strategy
that is famous for reducing project duration. This desirable feature of the DB method largely
results from the integration of the design and construction process, which helps the contractor to
manage, organise and accelerate construction work to finish the project early (Eriksson and
Westerberg, 2011; Songer and Molenaar, 2011).

Therefore, we hypothesize that:

H10: Desiring reduced project duration has a positive effect on the performance of the project

Level Of Competence And Experience Of Contractor

Contractors’ level of experience and skills determine how accurately they interpret and
implement designs during construction (Pinto and Slevin, 1998; Seng and Yusof, 2006).
According to Pramen et al. (2012), such skills and experience form a significant factor
considered in the selection of DB method. This can be explained by the fact that DB
procurement strategy often requires contractors who are highly experienced and efficient in

13
managing the design and construction processes effectively. This criterion thus represents the
level of skills and experience of contractors required to manage and control projects efficiently
(Adnan et al., 2012; Pinto and Slevin, 1998; Seng and Yusof, 2006).

Therefore, we hypothesize that:

H11: The level of competence has a positive effect on the performance of the project.
.
Collaborative Working Relationship Between Project Teams
Integration of the design and construction works through DB method helps to improve the
communication and collaboration among the project team members (Turina et al., 2008). This
criterion represents the extent to which the team members are able to collaborate with each other
on work execution (Seng and Yusof, 2006; Turina et al., 2008). According to Seng and Yusof
(2006) and Albert (2000), good relationships among project team members are nurtured as a
result of this arrangement, making this criterion an important factor in DB selection.

Therefore, we hypothesize that:

H12: Desiring reduced project cost has a positive effect on the performance of the project.

Desiring Efficient Project Planning

Various studies suggest that client’ objectives in construction projects can be better achieved
through improving the efficiency of the construction planning process (Faniran et al., 1994,
Naoum et al., 2004; Gidado, 2004). Earlier studies have established that construction planning
efforts are influenced by organisational characteristics of construction firms (Kabasakal et al.,
1989; Gidado, 2004). These organisational features are directly influenced by the procurement
methods used, with DB likely to promote more efficient construction planning being a more
collaborative arrangements for planning, design and construction works (Edmond et al., 2008;
Eriksson and Westerberg, 2011). This criterion thus represents the extent to which the client is
desirous of ensuring that the effective planning is achieved (Asley, 1994; Pinto and Slevin 1998).
Past studies on procurement showed that DB is likely to result in more efficient construction
planning due to its collaborative working style, wherein the designer and the contractor can work
closely together to meet the construction plan (Edmond et al., 2008; Eriksson and Westerberg,
2011).

Therefore, we hypothesize that:

H13: Desiring efficient project planning has a positive effect on the performance of the project.

The thirteen criteria reviewed so far will represent the main variables (independent) in the model
to be developed in future by the ongoing wider study. In this further work, each criterion will
first be assigned weightage based on its suitability in the selection of a particular PM, and then
aggregated (using regression or other relevant tool, as appropriate) to indicate which of these
criteria makes a significant contribution to the optimum selection of a PM, and hence project
performance.

14
CONCLUSION
This paper is part of an on-going research aimed at investigating the relationship between the
procurement selection criteria and the key project performance outcomes (Time, Cost and
Quality). It highlights the development of a conceptual framework to identify how the criteria for
the selection of DB method influences project performance, which seeks to offer a deeper
understanding of this subject matter. Such a framework has potential benefits to clients, as it
could guide them to identify the selection criteria that have relationship with project
performance, and hence employ the criteria in their DB method selection process, if project
success is to be achieved. The aspect of the study reported here explores the influence that
Design and Build procurement selection criteria has on project performance outcomes. The
framework was developed based on an intensive literature review, which was used to identify
various procurement selection criteria and the suitability of Design and Build method as far as
each criterion is concerned. From the literature, thirteen (13) procurement selection criteria were
identified as the most commonly cited criteria. The ways in which each of these criteria are
adapted for Design and Build have been explored and the ratings facilitated by a scale to predict
the actual level of influence a particular PM exerts on the performance of a project were
described.

References
Abdul Rashid, R., Mat Taib, I., Wan Ahmad, W.B., Nasid, M.A., Wan Ali, W. N. and Mohd Zainordin, Z. (2006)
"Effect of procurement systems on the performance of construction projects", Padang, pp. 1-13.
Adnan, H., Bachik, F., Supardi, A. and Marhani, M. A. (2012) “Success factors of design and build projects in
public universities”, Social and Behavioural Sciences, 35, pp. 170-179
Albert, P. C., David, S. and Edmond W. M. (2002) “Framework of Success Criteria for Design and Build Projects”,
Journal of Management in Engineering, 18, (3), pp. 120-128
Alhazmi, T. and McCaffer, R. (2000) "Project procurement system selection model", Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management, vol. 126, no. 3, pp. 176-184.
Ali, Z.A., Zakaria, N. and Che-Ani, A.I. (2011) “The Effect of Procurement System towards the Performance of
Refurbishment Works", America, pp. 70-75.
Al Khalil, M.I. (2002) "Selecting the appropriate project delivery method using AHP", International Journal of
Project Management, vol. 20, no. 6, pp. 464-469.
Asley, D. B., (1994) “Design and Build: A Survey of Construction Contractors’ Views”, Journal of Construction
Management and Economic, 12, (2), pp.155-165
Atkinson, R. (1999) "Project management: cost, time and quality, two best guesses and a phenomenon, it’s time to
accept other success criteria", vol. 17, no. 6, pp. 337-342.
Bassioni, H.A., Price, A.D.F. and Hassan, T.M. (2004) "Performance measurement in construction", Journal of
Management in Engineering, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 42-50.
Bogus S. M., Molenaar, K. R. and Diekmann, J. E. (2005) "Concurrent Engineering Approach to Reducing Design
Delivery Time", Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 131, (11), pp. 1179-85.
Bryde, D. and Brown, D. (2004) "The influence of a project performance measurement system on the success of a
contract for maintaining motorways and trunk roads", project management journal, vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 57-65.
Chan, A.P.C., Yung, E.H.K., Lam, P.T.I., Tam, C.M. and Cheung, S.O. (2001) "Application of Delphi method in
selection of procurement systems for construction projects", Construction Management and Economics, vol. 19, no.
7, pp. 699-718.
Chan, C.T.W. (2007) "Fuzzy procurement selection model for construction projects", Construction Management and
Economics, vol. 25, no. 6, pp. 611-618.
Cheng, J. and Proverbs, D. G. (2004) “The impact of strategic decisions on construction client satisfaction”, 20th
Annual ARCOM Conference, 1-3 September 2004, Heriot Watt University. Association of Researchers in
Construction Management, Vol. 2, 931-8.

15
Cheung, S.O., LAM, T.I., Leung, M.Y. and Wan, Y.W. (2001) "An analytical hierarchy process based
procurementselection method", vol. 19, pp. 427-437.
Darren, R., Hale, P. E., Pramen, P., Shrestha, P. E., Edward, G., Jr, P. E. F. and Giovanni, C.Migliaccio, C. (2009)
“Empirical Comparison of Design/Build and Design/Bid/Build Project" The Faculty of the Graduate
School of The University of Texas at Austin Available at: www.dtic.mil/cgi-
bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA471763 (Accessed 5 :May 2003)
Edmond, W. M., Albert, P. C. and Daniel W. M. (2008) “Determinants of Successful Design-Build Projects", vol.
134, no. 5, pp. 333-341.
Eriksson, P.E and Westerberg, M. (2011) “Effects of cooperative procurement procedures on construction project
performance: A conceptual framework”, International Journal of Project Management, 29, (2), pp. 197–
208.
Eriksson, P.E and Westerberg, M (2012) “Effects of procurement on construction project performance", Available
at: Available at http://www. Engineeringtoolbox.com (Accessed: 7 March 2012)
Faniran, O. O., Oluwoye, J. O. and Lenard, D. (1994) "Effective Construction Planning", Construction Management
and Economics, 12, (6), pp. 485-499.
Francom, T., Asmar, M., and Ariaratnam, S. (2014) “Using Alternative Project Delivery Methods to Enhance the
Cost Performance of Trenchless Construction Projects”, Construction Research Congress 2014: pp. 1219-
1228
Gehrig, D. S. (2009) “Alternative Project Delivery Methods for Public Works Projects in California”, available at:
http://www.p2sl.berkeley.edu/.../Gehrig%202009%20/
Gibson, G. E. and Walewski, J. (2001) “Project delivery methods and contracting approaches: Assessment and
design-build implementation guidance” Research Rep. No. 2129-1, Available at: http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us
(Accessed: 12 January 2012)
Gidado, K. (2004) “Enhancing the prime contractor’s pre-construction planning”, Journal of Construction Research,
5, (1), pp. 87-106
Gould, F. R. (2005) Managing the construction process, 3rd edn ., Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, N. J.
Hanna, A. S., Russell, J. S., Nordheim, E. V., and Bruggink, M. J. (1999) “Impact of change orders on labor
efficiency for electrical construction”, Journal of Construction Engineering andManagement, 125(4), pp
224–232
Hashim, M., Hashim, M., Yuet Li, M.C., Yin, N.C., Hooi, N.S., Heng, S.M. and Young, T.L. (2008) "Factors
Influencing The Selection Of Procurement Systems By Clients", pp. 1-10.
Holt, G. D. (1998) "which contractor selection methodology?” International Journal of Project Management, 16,
(3), pp. 153-164.
Ibbs, W. C., Kwak. Y. H., Ng. T. and Odabasi. M. A. (2003) “Project Delivery Systems and Project Change:
Quantitative Analysis”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 129, (4), pp. 382-387.
Jing-min, N., Lechler, T. and Jun-long, J. (2010) “Success Criteria Framework for Real Estate Project", vol. 4, no. 3,
pp. 10-23.
Kabasakal, H. E., Sozen, Z. and Usdiken, B. (1989) "Organisational context, structural attributes and management
systems in construction firms", Journal of Construction Management and Economics, 7, (4), pp. 347-356.
Kamala, A. M and Hindle, B. (2000) " Forces of Change and their Impact on Building Procurement Systems in use
in Tanzania" 2nd International Conference on Construction in Developing Countries, Rotterdam,
(Netherlands), available at: http://www.irb.fraunhofer.de/bauforschung/baufolit.jsp?s
=building+procurement+system
Konchar, M., and Sanvido, V. (1998) “Comparison of U.S. project delivery system", Jornal of Construction
Engineering and Management", 124, (6), pp 435 – 444.
Lee, H. S. (2007) “Analysing characteristics of design-build delivery system in Korea using system dynamics
modelling” Korea Institute of Construction Engineering and Management, 8, (5), pp.119–132.
Love, P., Davis, P., Baccarini, D., Wilson, G. and Lopez, R. (2008) "Procurement selection in the public sector:
Atatle of two state ",, pp. 1-11.
Love, P., Edwards, D., Irani, Z., and Sharif, A. (2012). “Participatory Action Research Approach to Public Sector
Procurement Selection.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage, 138, (3), pp, 311–322
Love (2002) “Influence of Project Type and Procurement Method on Rework Costs in Building Construction
Projects", Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 128, (1), pp. 18-29.
Love, P.E.D., Skitmore, M. and Earl, G. (1998) "Selecting a suitable procurement method for a building project",
Construction Management and Economics, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 221-233.
Luu, D.T., Ng, S.T. and Chen, S.E. (2005) "Formulating procurement selection criteria through case-based
reasoning approach", Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 269-276.

16
Luu, D.T., Thomas Ng, S. and Chen, S.E. (2003) "A case-based procurement advisory system for construction",
Advances in Engineering Software, vol. 34, no. 7, pp. 429-438.
Mahdi, I. M. and Alreshaid, K. (2005) "Decision support system for selecting the proper project delivery method
using analytical hierarchy process (AHP)", International Journal of Project Management, 23, (7), 564–572
Mante, J., Ndekugri, I., Ankrah, N. and Hammond, F. (2012) “The influence of procurement methods on dispute
resolution mechanism choice in construction", 28th Annual ARCOM Conference, 3rd - 5th September 2012,
Edinburgh, UK, Association of Researchers in Construction Management, pp 979-988
Minchin, R., Jr., Li, X., Issa, R., and Vargas, G. (2013). ”Comparison of Cost and Time Performance of Design-
Build and Design-Bid-Build Delivery Systems in Florida.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 139(10), 04013007
Mohsini, R. and Davidson, C.H. (1991) "Building procurement-key to improved performance", Building Research
and Information, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 106-113.
Mohsini, R.A., Sirpala, R. and Davidsonb, C.H. (1995) "Procurement: A comparative analysis of construction
management and traditional building processes ", vol. 23, no. 5, pp. 285-290.
Molenaar, K. and Songer, A. (1998). ”Model for Public Sector Design-Build Project Selection.” J. Constr. Eng.
Manage., 124(6), 467–479.
Molenaar, K., Sobin, N., Gransberg, D., Tamera McCuen, T.L., Sinem Korkmaz, S. and Horman, M. (2009)
"Sustainable, High Performance Projects and Project Delivery Methods", The Charles Pankow Foundation and
The Design-Build Institute of America.
Molenaar, K. R. and Songer, A.D. (1998) "Model for public sector design–build project selection", Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management, 124, (6), 467–79.
Murdoch, J. and Hugh, W. (2008) Construction Contracts Law and Management. 4th edn. Publisher: Taylor and
Francis, Simultaneously published in the USA and Canada
Naoum, S.G. (1991) "Procurement and project performance: A comparison of management and traditional
contracting". CIOB, Occasional Paper No. 45.
Ness, K. (2012) “Conflict in construction: constructive conflict” avilable at Available at:
http://www.academia.edu/246338/Conflict_in_construction_constructive_conflict_, (Acssesed 6 April
2013)
Ola, Lædre., Tore I. H. and Ole J. K. (2006) "Procurement Routes in Public Building and Construction Projects",
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 132, (7), p. 689–696.
Palaneeswaran, E. and Kumaraswamy, M. M. (2000) “Contractor Selection for Design and Build projects”, Journal
of, Construction Engineering and Management, 126, (5), pp. 331-339.
Park, M., Ji, S., Lee, H. and Kim, W. (2009) “Strategies for Design-Build in Korea Using System Dynamics
Modeling”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 135, (11), pp. 1125–1137.
Perkins, R. A. (2009) "Sources of Changes in Design-Build Contracts for a Governmental Owner", Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management, 135, (7), pp. 588-593.
Pinto J. K. and Slevin D. P. (1998) “Critical Success factors Across the Project Lift Cycle”, Project Management
Journal 19, (3), pp. 67-75
Pramen, P., Shrestha, P. E., James, T. O., Connor, P.E., Edward, G. and Gibson Jr, P. E. F (2012) “Performance
Comparison of Large Design-Build and Design-Bid-Build Highway Projects”, Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management, 138 (1), pp. 1-13.
Natkin, K. H. (1994) “Legal aspect of design/build”, AIAA J, 83, (9), pp. 125–127.
Ndekugri, I and Turner, A. (1994) “Building procurement of design and build approach”, Journal of Construction
Engineering and Mana, 120, (2), pp. 70–80.
Ratnasabapathy, S., Rameezdeen, R. and Gamage, I. (2006) "Macro level factors affecting the construction
procurement selection: Amulti criteria model ",, pp. 581- 591.
Rowlinson, S and McDermott, P (1999), Procurement Systems: A Guide to Best Practicein in Construction.1st edn.
Eand F. N Spon, London, UK
Rwelamila, P. and Edries, R. (2007) “Project Procurement Competence and Knowledge Base of Civil Engineering
Consultants: An Empirical Study”, Journal of, Management in Engineering, 3, (4), pp. 182-192.
Seng, N. W. and Yusof, A. M. (2006) "The success factors of design and build procurement method: a literature
visit", Proceedings of the 6th Asia-Pacific Structural Engineering and Construction Conference, pp. 1-11.
Shapiro, B., Hankinson, S. and Knutson (2013) “Design/Build and Turnkey contracts – pros and cons)”, Available
at: http://www.shk.ca/docs/Design_Build Turnkey Contracts Prosand Cons.pdf (Accessed: 21 March 2012)
Skitmore, R. M. and Marsden, D. E. (1988) “Which procurement system? Towards a universal procurement
selection technique”, Construction Management and Economics, 6, (1), pp 71–89.
Songer A. D. and Molenaar K.R. (1997) “Project Characteristics for Successful Public-Sector Design – Build”,
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management ASCE, 123, (1), pp. 34-40

17
Thanh, L. D., Thomas, N. and Chen, E. (2003) “Parameters governing the selection of procurement system an
empirical survey”, Engineering Construction and Architectural Management , 10, (3), 209-218.
Thomas, N. S., Luu, D. T. and Chen, S. E. (2002) "Decision criteria and their subjectivity in construction
procurement system", The Australian Journal of construction Economics and building, 2, (1), pp. 70-80.
Tookey, J., Murray, M., Hardcastle, C. and Langford, D. (2001) “construction procurement routes: Re-defining the
contours of construction procurement”, Engineering Construction and Architectural Management, 8, (1),
pp. 20–30.
Turina, N., Radujkovic. M. and Pusic, D. C. (2008) “Design and build in comparison with the traditional
procurement and possibility of its application in the Croatian construction industry”, 8th International
Conference: Organization, Technology and Management in Construction, 17th -20th of Septmber 2008
Umag, Hrvatska, Avialable at:Available at: http://bib.irb.hr/datoteka/362416.65-Turina_ RadujkovicCar-
Pusic.pdf (Accessed: 2 April 2011).
Wardani, M. A., Messner, J. I. and Horman, M. J. (2006) "Comparing procurement methods for design build
project” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, vol. 132, no. 3, pp. 230-238.

Winch, G. M. and Kelsey, J. M. (2005) “What do construction project planners do?” International Journal of
Project Management, 23, (2), pp. 141 - 149.

18