Abstract

Design-build (DB) is an alternative project delivery system that is distinguished by a DB team acting as the single point of responsibility for a project in which the design and construction phases overlap. There are two main methods used to procure DB services: single-step and two-step procurement. Single-step DB involves a request for proposal (RFP) phase, whereas two-step DB involves both request for qualifications (RFQ) and RFP phases. There is an industry perception that more resources are spent to procure single-step DB projects as compared with two-step DB projects. Therefore, this paper focuses on quantifying the resource expenditures and efficiency impacts of single-step and two-step DB through investigating several procurement and project performance metrics. The paper presents results stemming from 32 completed projects. The results of the analysis show that the total cost to industry to develop single-step proposals is approximately 5% of the total project cost, whereas the cost to develop two-step proposals is approximately 1% of the total project cost. Additionally, the relative procurement duration was 18% of the total project time for single-step DB and 22% of the total project time for two-step DB. Moreover, the percentage of design completed at the RFP and award stages are presented. For single-step DB, 23% of the design was completed at the RFP stage, and 43% at the award stage. For two-step DB, 12% of the design was completed at the RFP stage, and 32% at the award stage. Most importantly, the findings contribute to the DB body of knowledge by quantifying a significant five-fold procurement cost difference between the two DB procurement methods, helping the industry implement procurement policy changes.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article number04016033
JournalJournal of Construction Engineering and Management
Volume142
Issue number9
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 1 2016

Fingerprint

Design/build
Procurement
Performance assessment
Costs
Industry
Resources
Policy change
Project delivery
Performance metrics
Body of knowledge
Project performance
Expenditure
Qualification
Responsibility

Keywords

  • Contracting
  • Contracts
  • Performance
  • Procurement
  • Project delivery

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Civil and Structural Engineering
  • Building and Construction
  • Industrial relations
  • Strategy and Management

Cite this

@article{695e1f664cc94a9cb175abf967645307,
title = "Quantitative performance assessment of single-step versus two-step design-build procurement",
abstract = "Design-build (DB) is an alternative project delivery system that is distinguished by a DB team acting as the single point of responsibility for a project in which the design and construction phases overlap. There are two main methods used to procure DB services: single-step and two-step procurement. Single-step DB involves a request for proposal (RFP) phase, whereas two-step DB involves both request for qualifications (RFQ) and RFP phases. There is an industry perception that more resources are spent to procure single-step DB projects as compared with two-step DB projects. Therefore, this paper focuses on quantifying the resource expenditures and efficiency impacts of single-step and two-step DB through investigating several procurement and project performance metrics. The paper presents results stemming from 32 completed projects. The results of the analysis show that the total cost to industry to develop single-step proposals is approximately 5{\%} of the total project cost, whereas the cost to develop two-step proposals is approximately 1{\%} of the total project cost. Additionally, the relative procurement duration was 18{\%} of the total project time for single-step DB and 22{\%} of the total project time for two-step DB. Moreover, the percentage of design completed at the RFP and award stages are presented. For single-step DB, 23{\%} of the design was completed at the RFP stage, and 43{\%} at the award stage. For two-step DB, 12{\%} of the design was completed at the RFP stage, and 32{\%} at the award stage. Most importantly, the findings contribute to the DB body of knowledge by quantifying a significant five-fold procurement cost difference between the two DB procurement methods, helping the industry implement procurement policy changes.",
keywords = "Contracting, Contracts, Performance, Procurement, Project delivery",
author = "David Ramsey and {El Asmar}, Mounir and Edd Gibson",
year = "2016",
month = "9",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001145",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "142",
journal = "Journal of Construction Engineering and Management - ASCE",
issn = "0733-9364",
publisher = "American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)",
number = "9",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Quantitative performance assessment of single-step versus two-step design-build procurement

AU - Ramsey, David

AU - El Asmar, Mounir

AU - Gibson, Edd

PY - 2016/9/1

Y1 - 2016/9/1

N2 - Design-build (DB) is an alternative project delivery system that is distinguished by a DB team acting as the single point of responsibility for a project in which the design and construction phases overlap. There are two main methods used to procure DB services: single-step and two-step procurement. Single-step DB involves a request for proposal (RFP) phase, whereas two-step DB involves both request for qualifications (RFQ) and RFP phases. There is an industry perception that more resources are spent to procure single-step DB projects as compared with two-step DB projects. Therefore, this paper focuses on quantifying the resource expenditures and efficiency impacts of single-step and two-step DB through investigating several procurement and project performance metrics. The paper presents results stemming from 32 completed projects. The results of the analysis show that the total cost to industry to develop single-step proposals is approximately 5% of the total project cost, whereas the cost to develop two-step proposals is approximately 1% of the total project cost. Additionally, the relative procurement duration was 18% of the total project time for single-step DB and 22% of the total project time for two-step DB. Moreover, the percentage of design completed at the RFP and award stages are presented. For single-step DB, 23% of the design was completed at the RFP stage, and 43% at the award stage. For two-step DB, 12% of the design was completed at the RFP stage, and 32% at the award stage. Most importantly, the findings contribute to the DB body of knowledge by quantifying a significant five-fold procurement cost difference between the two DB procurement methods, helping the industry implement procurement policy changes.

AB - Design-build (DB) is an alternative project delivery system that is distinguished by a DB team acting as the single point of responsibility for a project in which the design and construction phases overlap. There are two main methods used to procure DB services: single-step and two-step procurement. Single-step DB involves a request for proposal (RFP) phase, whereas two-step DB involves both request for qualifications (RFQ) and RFP phases. There is an industry perception that more resources are spent to procure single-step DB projects as compared with two-step DB projects. Therefore, this paper focuses on quantifying the resource expenditures and efficiency impacts of single-step and two-step DB through investigating several procurement and project performance metrics. The paper presents results stemming from 32 completed projects. The results of the analysis show that the total cost to industry to develop single-step proposals is approximately 5% of the total project cost, whereas the cost to develop two-step proposals is approximately 1% of the total project cost. Additionally, the relative procurement duration was 18% of the total project time for single-step DB and 22% of the total project time for two-step DB. Moreover, the percentage of design completed at the RFP and award stages are presented. For single-step DB, 23% of the design was completed at the RFP stage, and 43% at the award stage. For two-step DB, 12% of the design was completed at the RFP stage, and 32% at the award stage. Most importantly, the findings contribute to the DB body of knowledge by quantifying a significant five-fold procurement cost difference between the two DB procurement methods, helping the industry implement procurement policy changes.

KW - Contracting

KW - Contracts

KW - Performance

KW - Procurement

KW - Project delivery

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84982261397&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84982261397&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001145

DO - 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001145

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84982261397

VL - 142

JO - Journal of Construction Engineering and Management - ASCE

JF - Journal of Construction Engineering and Management - ASCE

SN - 0733-9364

IS - 9

M1 - 04016033

ER -