Cost Analysis between SABER and Design Bid Build Contracting Methods
Publication: Journal of Construction Engineering and Management
Volume 127, Issue 5
Abstract
The majority of Air Force construction is performed by two main contractual methods, design bid build (DBB) and simplified acquisition of base engineering requirements (SABER). DBB is the traditional contracting method in which each project is competitively bid. SABER uses one contractor to complete multiple projects using unit prices established in the original contract. This research performs a cost analysis between DBB and SABER construction projects. The research involved finding appropriate, comparable projects completed by the two contractual methods. Two diverse Air Force bases were used to gather project information, and a total of 46 interior renovation projects were used. Project comparability was demonstrated by evaluating the similarity of type and scope of work. Data from the projects was used to calculate unit cost per dimensional characteristic and time and cost growth for each project. The results indicated SABER contracting had a lower cost per square meter, although not at a statistical level of significance. SABER performed better in time growth. Cost growth was similar for both methods.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
References
1.
Air Force Institute of Technology. ( 1996a). SABER management course book, The Civil Engineer and Services School, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio.
2.
Air Force Institute of Technology. ( 1996b). Working in the engineering flight course book, The Civil Engineer and Services School, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio.
3.
Al-Bahar, J. F., and Crandall, K. C. (1990). “Systematic risk management approach for construction projects.”J. Constr. Engrg. and Mgmt., ASCE, 116(3), 533–546.
4.
Arnavas, D. P., and Ruberry, W. J. ( 1994). Government contract guidebook, Federal Publications, Washington, D.C., 2-1–2.24, 4-1–4-25.
5.
Back, E. W., and Sanders, S. R. ( 1996). “Partnering in a unit price environment.” Proj. Mgmt. J., XXVII(1), 18–25.
6.
Department of the Air Force. ( 1996). Air Force federal acquisition, regulation appendix DD, Washington, D.C., 102–104.
7.
Department of the Air Force. ( 1999). “Working in the engineering flight.” Air Force Pamphlet 32-1005, Tyndall AFB, Fla., 13.
8.
Devore, J. L. ( 1997). Probability and statistics for engineering and the sciences, Duxbury Press, Calif., 638–645.
9.
Erickson, L. T., and Murphy, P. D. ( 1994). “The job-order contracting solution.” Civ. Engrg., ASCE, 64(4), 68–70.
10.
Furr, J. W. ( 1996). “Government business—smart business.” Report to Army Management Staff College, Fort Belvoir, Va.
11.
Ibbs, W. C., and Ashley, D. B. (1987). “Impact of various construction contract clauses.”J. Constr. Engrg. and Mgmt., ASCE, 113(3), 501–521.
12.
McDermott, T. ( 1995). “JOCs cut the cost of contracting.” Am. City and County, 110(3), 28.
13.
Moore, S. D. ( 1998). “A comparison of project delivery systems on United States federal construction projects.” MS thesis, the Pennsylvania State University, State College, Pa.
14.
Pockock, J. B., and Liu, Y. L. ( 1996). “Alternative approaches to projects: Better or worse?” The Military Engr., 578, 57–59.
15.
Waier, P. R. ( 1998). Means unit price estimating methods, Construction Publishers & Consultants, Construction, Kingston, Mass.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management
Volume 127 • Issue 5 • October 2001
Pages: 359 - 366
History
Received: Jul 25, 2000
Published online: Oct 1, 2001
Published in print: Oct 2001
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.