Sources of Changes in Design–Build Contracts for a Governmental Owner
Publication: Journal of Construction Engineering and Management
Volume 135, Issue 7
Abstract
In recent years, many U.S. federal, state, and local governments have been authorized to use the design–build method of project delivery instead of the traditional design–bid–build method. Recent studies have not been definitive on the cost advantage of design–build for governmental owners. There are fewer change orders in design–build due to design errors because the designer (architect/engineer) and contractor are one entity, but there are other causes of change orders. Some literature suggests that changes requested by the owner of the facility are greater with the design–build method. This research examines the causes for construction-phase changes in 14 design–build and 20 design–bid–build projects. Total changes, expressed as number per contract, cost per contract, or percentage of original contract, were significantly lower in design–build. Fewer design errors in design–build accounted for this advantage. The number of owner-requested changes was significantly greater in design–build. The cost of owner-requested changes, averaged over all the projects, was significantly less for design–bid–build. The differences in changes due to differing site conditions were not significant. The concept that there are more owner-requested changes in design–build projects is supported by this research.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
Acknowledgments
The writer thanks the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in Alaska for their cooperation and support. An earlier version of this paper with data from only the Northern Alaska Area Office was presented at the 2007 Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology Conference Proceedings.
References
American Bar Association (ABA). (1982). The model procurement ordinance for local governments, Section of State and Local Government Law, Chicago.
American Bar Association (ABA). (1986). The model procurement code for state and local governments, recommend regulations, Section of State and Local Government Law, Chicago.
American Bar Association (ABA). (2000). The 2000 model procurement code for state and local governments, Section of State and Local Government Law, Chicago.
Atlynx Surety Brokers. (2006). “State little Miller acts.” ⟨http://www.esuretybond.com/StateLittleMillerActs.asp⟩ (Dec. 16, 2006).
Construction Industry Institute (CII). (1997). “Project delivery systems: CM at risk, design-build, design-bid-build.” Research Summary No. 133-1, Austin, Tex.
Design-Build Institute of America. (2007). “An introduction to design-build.” ⟨http://www.dbia.org/pubs/pd_intro.htm⟩ (Jan. 15, 2007).
Heisse, J. B. (2002). “‘Best value procurement: How federal and state governments are changing the bidding process.” ⟨http://www.constructionweblinks.com/Resources/Industry_Reports_Newsletters/April_29_2002/best_value_procurement.htm⟩ (Mar. 4, 2007).
Ibbs, C. W., Kwak, Y. H., Ng, T., and Odabasi, A. M. (2003). “Project delivery systems and project change: Quantitative analysis.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 129(4), 382–387.
Laedre, O., Austeng, K., Haugen, T. I., and Klakegg, O. J. (2006). “Procurement routes in public building and construction projects.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 132(7), 689–696.
Molenaar, K. R., Songer, A. D., and Barash, M. (1999). “Public-sector design/build evolution and performance.” J. Manage. Eng., 15(2), 54–62.
National Society of Professional Engineers. (2007). “Design/build in the public sector (#1726).” ⟨http://www.nspe.org/govrel/gr2-ps1726.asp⟩ (Mar. 4, 2007).
Riley, D. R., Diller, B. E., and Kerr, D. (2005). “Effects of delivery systems on change order size and frequency in mechanical construction.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 131(9), 953–962.
Schapper, P. R., Veiga Malta, J. N., and Gilbert, D. L. (2006). “An analytical framework for the management and reform of public procurement.” J. Public Procurement, 6(1/2), 1–26.
Thomas, S. R., Macken, C. L., Chung, T. H., and Kim, I. (2002). “Measuring the impacts of the delivery system on project performance: Design-build and design-bid-build.” NIST GCR 02-840, Office of Applied Economics, Building and Fire Research Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, Md.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). (2004). “Construction modification reason codes in RMS (Resident Management System).” Engineering and Construction Bulletin No. 2004–22, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Code, Title 10, Section 2304 (referred to as the “Competition in Contracting Act” or the “Clinger-Cohen Act”).
U.S. Code, Title 40, Sections 3131 to 3134 (referred to as the “Miller Act”).
U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT). (2006). “Design-build effectiveness study—Final report.” ⟨http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/reports/designbuild/designbuild0.htm⟩ (Dec. 16, 2006).
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management
Volume 135 • Issue 7 • July 2009
Pages: 588 - 593
Copyright
© 2009 ASCE.
History
Received: Sep 5, 2007
Accepted: Jan 30, 2009
Published online: Jun 15, 2009
Published in print: Jul 2009
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.