Scholarly Papers
Sep 10, 2022

Emergent Subcontracting Models in the US Construction Industry

Publication: Journal of Legal Affairs and Dispute Resolution in Engineering and Construction
Volume 14, Issue 4

Abstract

Prime contracting models for engineering and construction projects are described extensively in the literature, but models between prime contractors and subcontractors are less well known. This study examined the established and evolving subcontracting models in the US construction industry to not only document their utilization but also investigate their advantages and disadvantages when employed. The research followed a two-phase/two-step approach. During Phase 1, the authors completed a regionally based study to identify subcontracting practices in the Pacific Northwest. As part of Phase 2, the study was expanded across the United States to gain a greater understanding of each of the identified subcontracting models, including advantages, disadvantages, and variations. Both phases were organized into two steps: (1) an online survey instrument was sent to professionals with either general or specialty contracting firms, and (2) follow-up semistructured interviews were conducted with selected survey respondents to better evaluate each subcontracting model. The authors found that five subcontracting models address the most common scenarios and the characteristics of each are familiar to the nationwide participant sample. There are subtle variations to the main five models that are being employed to varying degrees across the country. The impetus for these variations appears to be founded on the need to find better contractual arrangements and that subcontracting practices are dynamic by nature. Although most of the participants were from western and central divisions of the US Census Bureau geographical classification, participants from all geographic areas participated in the study. Increasing knowledge on how project delivery systems may affect disputes and claims or conflicts and legal issues of procurement systems, this article uniquely contributes to defining a taxonomy of subcontracting models while giving insights into the current and emerging trends in subcontracting practices, including how subcontractors are integrated into a project team.

Practical Applications

The role of specialty contractors in the construction industry is rapidly changing as project delivery methods evolve to include more collaborative approaches and dynamic scopes for specialty contractors. Findings from the research indicate subcontracting practices occur along a continuum of options that fit within the current five subcontracting models identified in the literature; however, subtle variations in both integrated specialty work subcontracting and design-build subcontracting models are emerging. In addition, the complexity of contractual relationships between specialty trade partners and other parties is also growing because the existence of multiple agreements on a single project is increasing. Because the adoption of many of these emerging models seems limited to the Pacific, Mountain, and West North Central regions, this paper provides practical insight on these practices for practitioners who are interested in their implementation on their projects. This paper enhances understanding of subcontracting models so that practitioners may better evaluate the effect of project delivery systems on disputes and claims and the conflicts and legal issues of procurement systems. Understanding the breadth and depth of project delivery methods and subcontracting alternatives is becoming more important for those industry practitioners who look to undertake projects with increasing sophistication and collaboration.

Get full access to this article

View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.

Data Availability Statement

Some data, models, or code that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. Data available include anonymous survey responses.

Acknowledgments

The authors want to recognize those who have helped or supported this study. Professor Caroline Clevenger participated to some of the early brainstorming sessions. Dr. Salvatore Biancardo set up the online survey instrument and helped with reorganizing the results. Dr. Jeffrey Ottesen attended some of the interview meetings. Professor Len Holm provided feedback in the interpretation of results. Finally, the authors want to thank the P. D. Koon Endowment Fund for partially supporting Phase 2 of the study.

References

Works Cited

Abbasian-Hosseini, S. A., M. Liu, and S. M. Hsiang. 2017. “Social network conformity and construction work plan reliability.” Autom. Constr. 78 (Jun): 1–12.
AGC (Associated General Contractors of America). 2010. “Integrated project delivery for public and private owners.” Accessed July 11, 2018. https://www.agc.org/integrated-project-delivery.
AIA (American Institute of Architects). 2007. “Integrated project delivery: A guide.” Accessed July 11, 2018. https://info.aia.org/SiteObjects/files/IPD_Guide_2007.pdf.
AIA and AGC (American Institute of Architects and Associated General Contractors of America). 2011. “Primer on project delivery.” Accessed May 27, 2018. https://www.agc.org/sites/default/files/Files/Programs%20%26%20Industry%20Relations/AIA-AGC_Primer_on_Project_Delivery_2nd_Edition-FINAL.pdf.
Arditi, D., and R. Chotibhonghs. 2005. “Issues in subcontracting practice.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 131 (8): 866–876. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2005)131:8(866).
Arizona Board of Regents and Alliance for Construction Excellence. 2007. “Design assist—Best method approach to subcontracting.” Accessed February 26, 2019. https://studylib.net/doc/18350545/design-assist---alliance-for-construction-excellence.
Biancardo, S., N. Osmanbhoy, J. Ottesen, G. C. Migliaccio, and C. Clevenger. 2015. “Closing the contractual circle: Investigating emergent subcontracting approaches.” In Proc., CSCE Int. Construction Specialty Conf. Vancouver, BC, Canada: Univ. of British Columbia. https://open.library.ubc.ca/soa/cIRde/collections/52660/items/1.0076435.
Clevenger, C. M., and R. Khan. 2013. “Impact of BIM-enabled design-to-fabrication on building delivery.” Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr. 19 (1): 122–128. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)SC.1943-5576.0000176.
Contractor, F. J., and W. Ra. 2000. “Negotiating alliance contracts: Strategy and behavioral effects of alternative compensation arrangements.” Int. Bus. Rev. 9 (3): 271–299. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0969-5931(00)00002-0.
El-adaway, I., I. Abotaleb, and S. Eteifa. 2017. “Framework for multiparty relational contracting.” J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr. 9 (3): 04517018 . https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)LA.1943-4170.0000238.
El Asmar, M., A. S. Hanna, and W.-Y. Loh. 2013. “Quantifying performance for the integrated project delivery system as compared to established delivery systems.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 139 (11): 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000744.
Franz, B. W., and R. M. Leicht. 2016. “An alternative classification of project delivery methods used in the United States building construction industry.” Construct. Manage. Econ. 34 (3): 160–173. https://doi.org/10.1080/01446193.2016.1183800.
Gil, N., I. Tommelein, R. Kirkendall, and G. Ballard. 2000. “Contribution of specialty contractor knowledge to early design.” In Proc., 8th Annual Conf. of the Int. Group for Lean Construction, 1–11. Brighton, UK: Univ. of Sussex.
Gil, N., I. Tommelein, R. Kirkendall, and G. Ballard. 2001. “Leveraging specialty-contractor knowledge in design-build organizations.” Eng. Constr. Archit. Manage. 8 (5–6): 355–367. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb021196.
Gil, N., I. D. Tommelein, and G. Ballard. 2004. “Theoretical comparison of alternative delivery systems for projects in unpredictable environments.” Construct. Manage. Econ. 22 (5): 495–508. https://doi.org/10.1080/01446190310001649100.
Harper, C. M., and K. R. Molenaar. 2014. “Association between construction contracts and relational contract theory.” In Proc., Construction Research Congress 2014: Construction in a Global Network, 1329–1338. Reston, VA: ASCE.
Hinze, J., and A. Tracey. 1994. “The contractor-subcontractor relationship: The subcontractor’s view.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 120 (2): 274–287. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(1994)120:2(274).
Jagannathan, M., and V. S. K. Delhi. 2020. “Litigation in construction contracts: Literature review.” J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr. 12 (1): 03119001. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)LA.1943-4170.0000342.
Javanmardi, A., S. A. Abbasian-Hosseini, M. Liu, and S. M. Hsiang. 2017. “Benefit of cooperation among subcontractors in performing high-reliable planning.” J. Manage. Eng. 34 (2): 04017062. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000578.
Kelly, D. 2014. “Examination of design-assist subcontracting.” J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr. 6 (3): 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)LA.1943-4170.0000143.
Kim, Y.-W., and G. Ballard. 2005. “Profit-point analysis: A tool for general contractors to measure and compare costs of management time expended on different subcontractors.” Can. J. Civ. Eng. 32 (4): 712–718. https://doi.org/10.1139/l05-021.
Kumaraswamy, M. M., and J. D. Matthews. 2000. “Improved subcontractor selection employing partnering principles.” J. Manage. Eng. 16 (3): 47–57. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0742-597X(2000)16:3(47).
Laurent, J. E., and R. M. Leicht. 2017. “Cross-functional project teams in construction: A longitudinal case study.” In Proc., 25th Annual Conf. of the Int. Group for Lean Construction, IGLC 2017. Crete, Greece: Lean Construction. https://www.scopus.com/record/display.uri?eid=2-s2.085029583280&orgin=inward&txGid=1f605a197b38780a2fc7d14570987ad9.
Ling, F. Y. Y., P. X. Teo, S. Li, Z. Zhang, and Q. Ma. 2020. “Adoption of integrated project delivery practices for superior project performance.” J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr. 12 (4): 05020014. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)LA.1943-4170.0000428.
Loosemore, M., and C. S. McCarthy. 2008. “Perceptions of contractual risk allocation in construction supply chains.” J. Civ. Eng. Educ. 134 (1): 95–105. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1052-3928(2008)134:1(95).
Maturana, S., L. F. Alarcón, P. Gazmuri, and M. Vrsalovic. 2007. “On-site subcontractor evaluation method based on lean principles and partnering practices.” J. Manage. Eng. 23 (2): 67–74. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0742-597X(2007)23:2(67).
Mehany, M. S. H. M., G. Bashettiyavar, B. Esmaeili, and G. Gad. 2018. “Claims and project performance between traditional and alternative project delivery methods.” J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr. 10 (3): 04518017. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)LA.1943-4170.0000266.
Migliaccio, G. C., and L. A. Holm. 2018. Introduction to construction project engineering. London: Routledge.
Osmanbhoy, N. 2015. “Closing the contractual circle: Investigating emergent subcontracting approaches.” M.Sc. thesis, Dept. of Construction Management, Univ. of Washington.
Ottesen, J. L., G. C. Migliaccio, and H. James Wulfsberg. 2016. “Contractual battles for higher ground: Case examples.” J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr. 8 (1): C5015001. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)LA.1943-4170.0000172.
Schaufelberger, J. E. 2000. “Strategies for successful partnering relationships.” In Proc., Construction Congress 6: Building Together for a Better Tomorrow in an Increasingly Complex World, 463–470. Reston, VA: ASCE.
Shafaat, A., T. Mahfouz, C. Jackson, and A. Kandil. 2014. “Decision-making model by specialty subcontractors in construction projects.” In Proc., Construction Research Congress 2014: Construction in a Global Network, 867–876. Reston, VA: ASCE.
US Census Bureau. 2010. “2010 geographic terms and concepts—Census divisions and census regions.” Accessed June 27, 2018. https://www2.census.gov/geo/pdfs/reference/GTC_10.pdf.
Vaux, J. S., and W. M. Kirk. 2018. “Relationship conflict in construction management: Performance and productivity problem.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 144 (6): 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001478.

Information & Authors

Information

Published In

Go to Journal of Legal Affairs and Dispute Resolution in Engineering and Construction
Journal of Legal Affairs and Dispute Resolution in Engineering and Construction
Volume 14Issue 4November 2022

History

Received: Feb 27, 2022
Accepted: Jul 8, 2022
Published online: Sep 10, 2022
Published in print: Nov 1, 2022
Discussion open until: Feb 10, 2023

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Authors

Affiliations

Professor and Chair, Dept. of Construction Management, Univ. of Washington, Box 351610, Seattle, WA 98195-1610 (corresponding author). ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3363-2245. Email: [email protected]
Richard J. Gebken [email protected]
Associate Professor, Dept. of Technology and Construction Management, Missouri State Univ., 901 S. National Ave., Springfield, MO 65897. Email: [email protected]
Affiliate Lecturer, Centro Universitario de Ciencias Exactas e Ingenierías, Univ. of Guadalajara, Blvd. Marcelino García Barragán #1421, esq Calzada Olímpica, Guadalajara, Jalisco C.P. 44430, México. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3523-3464. Email: [email protected]
Natasha Osmanbhoy [email protected]
President, Flipside Specialties, 5007 Meriden Dr., Houston, TX 77084. Email: [email protected]

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.

Cited by

  • Relationship between Subcontracting Models and Adoption of Innovative Methods in Construction Safety, Journal of Legal Affairs and Dispute Resolution in Engineering and Construction, 10.1061/JLADAH.LADR-1050, 16, 4, (2024).

View Options

Get Access

Access content

Please select your options to get access

Log in/Register Log in via your institution (Shibboleth)
ASCE Members: Please log in to see member pricing

Purchase

Save for later Information on ASCE Library Cards
ASCE Library Cards let you download journal articles, proceedings papers, and available book chapters across the entire ASCE Library platform. ASCE Library Cards remain active for 24 months or until all downloads are used. Note: This content will be debited as one download at time of checkout.

Terms of Use: ASCE Library Cards are for individual, personal use only. Reselling, republishing, or forwarding the materials to libraries or reading rooms is prohibited.
ASCE Library Card (5 downloads)
$105.00
Add to cart
ASCE Library Card (20 downloads)
$280.00
Add to cart
Buy Single Article
$35.00
Add to cart

Get Access

Access content

Please select your options to get access

Log in/Register Log in via your institution (Shibboleth)
ASCE Members: Please log in to see member pricing

Purchase

Save for later Information on ASCE Library Cards
ASCE Library Cards let you download journal articles, proceedings papers, and available book chapters across the entire ASCE Library platform. ASCE Library Cards remain active for 24 months or until all downloads are used. Note: This content will be debited as one download at time of checkout.

Terms of Use: ASCE Library Cards are for individual, personal use only. Reselling, republishing, or forwarding the materials to libraries or reading rooms is prohibited.
ASCE Library Card (5 downloads)
$105.00
Add to cart
ASCE Library Card (20 downloads)
$280.00
Add to cart
Buy Single Article
$35.00
Add to cart

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Copy the content Link

Share with email

Email a colleague

Share