Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparing Cost Performance of Project Delivery Methods Using Quantifiable RFIs: Cases in California Heavy Civil Construction Projects

  • Research paper
  • Published:
International Journal of Civil Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The objective of this research is to present the comparative analysis results for cost performance of the design–build and design–bid–build methods using quantifiable request for information data resulting in contract changer order or notice of design change to help both owners and contractors estimate inherent risk and additional costs. Quantifiable request for information data are collected from real heavy civil construction projects based on the reasons and costs. Statistical analysis using unbalanced t test, hypothesis tests, analysis of variance, and multiple comparisons with the best are conducted for comparison metrics such as mean costs of change orders triggered by requests for information for eight work elements and three main reasons, such as design, material, and craftsman. The results of statistical analysis indicated that the cost growths of the design–build projects and the design–bid–build projects are 0.77 and 11.3%, respectively, while the average cost per request for information of the design–build projects is 94.2% lower than that of the design–bid–build projects. The results showed the concurrence with the merits of change order metric. The results not only coincide with the existing body of knowledge on the cost performance of the project delivery methods, but also contribute to the change order research by a comparison between the design–build and design–bid–build projects.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ibbs CW, Kwak YH, Ng T, Odabasi AM (2003) Project delivery systems and project change: quantitative analysis. J Constr Eng Manag 129(4):382–387. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2003)129:4(382)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Gibson E, O’connor JT, Migliaccio G, Walewski J (2007) Key implementation issues and lessons learned with design-build projects. In: Molenaar KR, Yakowenko G (eds) Alternative project delivery, procurement, and contracting methods for highways. ASCE, Reston, pp 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784408865.ch01

  3. Konchar M, Sanvido V (1998) Comparison of U.S. project delivery systems. J Constr Eng Manag 124(6):435–444. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(1998)124:6(435)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Hale DR, Shrestha PP, Gibson GE Jr, Migliaccio GC (2009) Empirical comparison of design/build and design/bid/build project delivery methods. J Constr Eng Manag 135(7):579–587. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000017

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Ohanesian S, Kim JL, Nguyen TH, Kim OK (2013) Quantitative analysis on project performance analysis and delivery methods. In: Proceedings of the fifth international conference on construction engineering and project management, Jan 9–11, 2013, Anaheim, California, vol S13, pp 1–6

  6. Park HS, Lee D, Kim S, Kim JL (2015) Comparing project performance of design–build and design–bid–build methods for large-sized apartment housing projects. J Asian Archit Build Eng 14(2):1–8. https://doi.org/10.3130/jaabe.14.323

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Minchin RE Jr, Li X, Issa RR, Vargas GG (2013) Comparison of cost and time performance of design-build and design-bid-build delivery systems in Florida. J Constr Eng Manag. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000746

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Smith NC, Caplicki EV (2009) California passes new design-build law for highway projects. http://www.nossaman.com/california-passes-new-designbuild-law-highway-projects. Accessed 30 Jan 2016

  9. AB 401 (2013) Transportation: design-build: highways. Assembly Bill No. 401. California Legislative Information. http://www.leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140AB401. Accessed 15 Jan 2016

  10. Gransberg DD (2003) Design/build in transportation from the research perspective. Leadersh Manag Eng 3(3):133–136. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1532-6748(2003)3:3(133)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Alnuaimi AS, Taha RA, Mohsin MA, Al-Harthi AS (2010) Causes, effects, benefits, and remedies of change orders on public construction projects in Oman. J Constr Eng Manag 136(5):615–622. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Hwang BG, Low LK (2012) Construction project change management in Singapore: status, importance and impact. Int J Project Manag 30(7):817–826. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2011.11.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. O’Brien JJ (1998) Construction change orders: impact, avoidance, documentation. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  14. Gordon CM (1994) Choosing appropriate construction contracting method. J Constr Eng Manag 120(1):196–210. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(1994)120:1(196)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Shrestha PP, Migliaccio GC, O’Connor JT, Gibson GE Jr (2007) Benchmarking of large design-build highway projects: one to one comparison and comparison with design-bid-build projects. Transp Res Rec 1994(1):17–25. https://doi.org/10.3141/1994-03

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Roth MB (1995) An empirical analysis of United States navy design/build contracts. Master’s thesis, University of Texas at Austin, Texas

  17. Warne TR (2005) Design build contracting for highway projects: a performance assessment. Tom Warne & Associates, LLC, South Jordan

    Google Scholar 

  18. Shrestha PP, O’Connor JT, Gibson GE Jr (2012) Performance comparison of large design–build and design–bid–build highway projects. J Constr Eng Manag 138(1):1–13. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000390

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. U.S. Department of Transportation (2006) Design-build effectiveness study. Federal Highway Administration. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/reports/designbuild/designbuild.pdf. Accessed 15 Jan 2014

  20. El Wardani MA, Messner JI, Horman MJ (2006) Comparing procurement methods for design–build projects. J Constr Eng Manag 132(3):230–238. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2006)132:3(230)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Molenaar KR, Songer AD, Barash M (1999) Public-sector design/build evolution and performance. J Manag Eng 15(2):54–62. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0742-597X(1999)15:2(54)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Schaufelberger JE (2012) Use of design-build on mass transit rail projects. In: Proceedings, construction research congress, ASCE, Reston, VA, pp 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1061/40754(183)89

  23. Al K, Mohammed I (2002) Selecting the appropriate project delivery method using AHP. Int J Proj Manag 20(6):469–474. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-7863(01)00032-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. El Asmar M, Lotfallah W, Whited G, Hanna AS (2010) Quantitative methods for design–build team selection. J Constr Eng Manag 136(8):904–912. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Nurhajar AR (2009) A survey on problem faced by contractors using design and build contract. Doctoral dissertation, University Malaysia Pahang, Malaysia

  26. Molenaar K, Vanegas JA, Martinez H (2012) Appropriate risk allocation in design-build RFPs. In: Proceedings, construction research congress, ASCE, Reston, VA, pp 1083–1092. https://doi.org/10.1061/40475(278)117

  27. Rowlinson SM (1998) An analysis of factors affecting project performance in industrial buildings with particular reference to design build contracts. http://bura.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/4320. Accessed 15 Jan 2014

  28. Gransberg DD, Senadheera SP (1999) Design–build contract award methods for transportation projects. J Transp Eng 125(6):565–567. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-947X(1999)125:6(565)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Stager DK (1996) Organizing and managing a finance-design–build project in Turkey: fourth Roebling lecture. J Constr Eng Manag 122(3):199–204. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(1996)122:3(199)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Friedlander MC (1998) Feature: design/build solutions. J Manag Eng 14(6):59–64. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0742-597X(1998)14:6(59)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Park M, Ji SH, Lee HS, Kim W (2009) Strategies for design–build in Korea using system dynamics modeling. J Constr Eng Manag 135(11):1125–1137. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000095

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Henry E, Brothers HS (2001) Cost analysis between SABER and design bid build contracting methods. J Constr Eng Manag 127(5):359–366. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2001)127:5(359)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Grobler K (1999) An evaluation of design-build as procurement method for building and civil engineering projects in South Africa. Doctoral Dissertation, Rand Afrikaans University, South Africa

  34. Moore DR, Dainty AR (2001) Intra-team boundaries as inhibitors of performance improvement in UK design and build projects: a call for change. Constr Manag Econ 19(6):559–562. https://doi.org/10.1080/01446190110055508

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Chan AP, Ho DK, Tam CM (2001) Design and build: views from some major public clients in Hong Kong. Australas J Constr Econ Build 1(1):22–31. https://doi.org/10.5130/AJCEB.v1i1.2277

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Choi J, Cho T (2014) Comparing perception concerning the importance of apartment complex components between consumers and housing providers. J Asian Archit Build Eng 13(1):109–116. https://doi.org/10.3130/jaabe.13.109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Lee S, Shin K, Kim JH, Kim JJ (2014) Comparison of dynamics in the Korean housing market based on the FDW model for the periods before and after the macroeconomic fluctuations. J Asian Archit Build Eng 13(1):117–124. https://doi.org/10.3130/jaabe.13.117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Thomas SR, Macken CL, Chung TH, Kim I (2002) Measuring the impacts of the delivery system on project performance—design–build and design–bid–build. NIST GCR, vol 2, p 840. http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build02/PDF/b02150.pdf. Accessed 15 Dec 2013

  39. Ling FYY, Chan SL, Chong E, Ee LP (2004) Predicting performance of design–build and design–bid–build projects. J Constr Eng Manag 130(1):75–83. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2004)130:1(75)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Ling FYY, Kerh SH (2004) Comparing the performance of design–build and design–bid–build building projects in Singapore. Archit Sci Rev 47(2):163–175. https://doi.org/10.1080/00038628.2004.9697040

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Hanna AS, Tadt EJ, Whited GC (2012) Request for information: benchmarks and metrics for major highway projects. J Constr Eng Manag 138:1347–1352. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000554

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Levine DM (2001) Applied statistics for engineers and scientists. Prentice Hall, New Jersey

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  43. Hsu JC (1984) Constrained simultaneous confidence intervals for multiple comparisons with the best. Ann Stat 12:1136–1144

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  44. State of California (2016) Index 2016–1 Southern California basic trade journeyman rates. Department of Industrial Relations, Sacramento, CA. http://www.dir.ca.gov/oprl/pwd/Southern.html. Accessed 15 Feb 2016

  45. Hughes N, Wells M, Nutter CL, Zack Jr JG (2013) Impact and control of RFIs on construction projects. Navigant. https://www.cmaanet.org/sites/default/files/resource/Impact%20%26%20Control%20of%20RFIs%20on%20Construction%20Projects.pdf. Accessed 15 Dec 2013

  46. Minitab (2018) Minitab assistant white paper: 2-sample t-test. https://support.minitab.com/en-us/minitab/18/Assistant_Two_Sample_t.pdf. Accessed 15 Jan 2019

  47. Kuehl RO (2000) Design of experiment: statistical principles of research design and analysis, 2nd edn. Duxbury Press, Pacific Grove

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  48. Wells M, Zack JG (2013) RFI’s—use & abuse. In: Navigant (ed) Navigant consulting. http://www.navigant.com/~/media/WWW/Site/Page/Insights/IFH/2013/RFIsUseAndAbuse_TL_0613.pdf. Accessed 15 Feb 2016

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Civil Engineering and Construction Engineering Management, California State University, 1250 Bellflower Blvd., Long Beach, CA, 90840, USA

    Joseph J. Kim, Anton L. Petrov & Jeeyoung Lim

  2. Department of Architectural Engineering, Kyung Hee University, Yongin, Gyeonggi-do, Korea

    Joseph J. Kim & Sunkuk Kim

Authors
  1. Joseph J. Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Anton L. Petrov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jeeyoung Lim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sunkuk Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joseph J. Kim.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kim, J.J., Petrov, A.L., Lim, J. et al. Comparing Cost Performance of Project Delivery Methods Using Quantifiable RFIs: Cases in California Heavy Civil Construction Projects. Int J Civ Eng 20, 323–335 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40999-021-00658-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40999-021-00658-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation