Please wait a minute...
Shopping Cart Email List Chinese
Advanced Search Fig/Tab
Frontiers of Engineering Management

ISSN 2095-7513

ISSN 2096-0255(Online)

CN 10-1205/N

Postal Subscription Code 80-905

Featured Articles  |  Most Downloaded  |  Most Reading
Online Submission Subscribe to Our RSS Content Feed
Front. Eng    2018, Vol. 5 Issue (2) : 240-250    https://doi.org/10.15302/J-FEM-2018040
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Performance of seven highway construction contracting methods analyzed by project size
Yuanxin ZHANG1, Abdol CHINI2(), R. Edward MINCHIN Jr.2, Lourdes PTSCHELINZEW2, Dev SHAH2
1. School of Management, Guangzhou University, Guangzhou 510006, China
2. Rinker School of Construction Management, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA
 Download: PDF(128 KB)   HTML
 Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks
Abstract

The conventional Design-Bid-Build (DBB) construction contracting method has had various drawbacks exposed in highway construction practice, including lack of communication, inefficient design, antagonizing relationships, and increased disputes. To mitigate the negative aspects of DBB, several alternative contracting methods and alternative project delivery systems have been devised and introduced to the industry over the past 30 years. Five such innovations were tested by a research team from the University of Florida under the sponsorship of the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT). To perform a realistic assessment, this study categorized FDOT projects built between 2006 and 2015 into groups according to current contract amounts. Both absolute and relative metrics were defined and employed. For comparison purposes, a collective analysis on all gathered data was performed. Additionally, the influence of outliers on the results was examined. The results showed that analyses based on individual cost categories are more convincing because large projects tend to impose stronger influence on the analyses. In addition, outliers must be identified and screened to reach realistic and reliable conclusions. With regard to the actual performance of the contracting methods, each performs differently within different cost categories.
Keywords alternative contracting methods      time      cost      performance evaluation     
Corresponding Author(s): Abdol CHINI   
Just Accepted Date: 15 March 2018   Online First Date: 12 April 2018    Issue Date: 28 June 2018
 Cite this article:   
Yuanxin ZHANG,Abdol CHINI,R. Edward MINCHIN Jr., et al. Performance of seven highway construction contracting methods analyzed by project size[J]. Front. Eng, 2018, 5(2): 240-250.
 URL:  
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fem/EN/10.15302/J-FEM-2018040
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fem/EN/Y2018/V5/I2/240
Categories DBB D-B (Minor) D-B (Major) LS I/D A+ B NEB Total
Original Number of Projects 1654 147 86 728 73 21 12 2721
Removed by Type 157 - - 125 - - - 282
Removed as Data set Outlier 2 - - 1 - - - 3
Final Total Analyzed 1495 147 86 602 73 21 12 2436
Tab.1  Final distribution of all projects by contracting methods
Cost Category DBB D-B (Minor) D-B (Major) LS I/D A+ B NEB
<1 Million 609 89 15 357 16 0 0
$1 Million- $5 Million 658 42 27 205 36 6 5
$5Million- $10 Million 135 10 10 31 13 3 4
$10 Million- $20 Million 63 3 12 8 5 6 2
>$20 Million 30 3 22 1 3 6 1
Total 1495 147 86 602 73 21 12
Tab.2  Distribution of projects by cost categories
Contracting Method $20 to $30 M $30 to $40 M $40 to $50 M $50 to $60 M $60 to $70 M $70 to $80 M $80 to $90 M $90 to $100 M $100 to $125 M Total
DBB 16 7 2 1 2 0 1 1 0 30
D-B (Minor) 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
D-B (Major)* 10 6 2 0 1 1 0 0 1 21
LS 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
I/D 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 3
A+ B 4 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 6
NEB 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Tab.3  Distribution of projects over $20 million
Contracting Methods DBB D-B (Minor) D-B (Major) LS I/D A+ B NEB
Total Number of Projects 1495 147 86 602 73 21 12
PCD -1.97% -1.64% -1.39% -2.46% -10.42% -9.12% -11.04%
ADS 5 5 6 3 35 44 50
PCC 0.03% -0.54% 1.69% -0.98% 2.46% 4.54% 1.37%
ACS -$855 $11,936 -$135,470 $14,485 -$151,948 -$679,947 -$120,764
Tab.4  Collective time and cost savings analysis of all contracting methods
Contracting Methods DBB D-B (Minor)* D-B (Major) LS* I/D+ A+ B NEB*
Total Number of Projects 30 3 22 1 3 6 1
PCD -3.00% -0.20% -3.00% -0.30% -7.00% -5.20% -21.30%
ADS 28.7 2 27.3 2 88.7 43.7 250
PCC 3.70% 1.40% 2.60% -8.30% 3.80% 3.40% 2.60%
ACS -$1,317,046 -$436,072 -$1,469,581 $2,079,629 -$2,278,408 -$1,035,405 -$660,372
Tab.5  Time and cost savings analysis for projects over $20 million
Contracting Methods DBB D-B (Minor)* D-B (Major) LS I/D A+ B NEB*
Total Number of Projects** 63 3 12 8 5 6 2
PCD -0.20% 3.80% -0.50% -4.40% -14.70% -17.10% -1.30%
ADS 1.4 -28.3 3.9 19.6 95 97.8 10
PCC 1.40% -1.20% 1.50% -0.70% 5.50% 4.50% -0.60%
ACS -$178,909 $136,399 -$209,815 $98,085 -$774,658 -$709,287 $89,565
Tab.6  Time and cost savings analysis for projects between $10 and $20 million
Contracting Methods DBB D-B (Minor) D-B (Major) LS I/D A+ B* NEB*
Total Number of Projects 135 11 10 31 13 3 4
PCD -1.90% 1.60% 0.30% -2.10% -11.80% -10.20% -3.50%
ADS 8.3 -9.8 -2 5.4 55.4 23.3 12.3
PCC -0.60% -2.00% -0.60% 0.10% 2.90% 14.90% 4.00%
ACS $41,317 $126,084 $42,873 -$6,744 -$203,315 -$1,168,445 -$315,778
Tab.7  Time and cost savings analysis for projects between $5 and $10 million
Contracting Methods DBB D-B (Minor) D-B (Major) LS I/D A+ B NEB
Total Number of Projects 658 45 27 205 36 6 5
PCD -2.20% -0.60% 2.80% -2.20% -8.30% -0.20% -21.30%
ADS 6 2.2 -11 4.2 21.8 0.3 55.2
PCC -1.90% -0.50% -1.30% -0.20% -1.80% 2.20% -1.70%
ACS $45,641 $9,831 $30,102 $3,871 $49,865 -$50,900 $59,037
Tab.8  Time and cost savings analysis for projects between $1 and $5 million
Contracting Methods DBB D-B (Minor) D-B (Major) LS I/D A+ B NEB
Total Number of Projects 609 85 15 357 16 0 0
PCD -2.10% -5.20% -6.50% -2.60% -15.20% - -
ADS 3 9.8 16.7 2.4 21.4 - -
PCC -4.90% -2.60% -3.90% -4.30% -4.40% - -
ACS $22,816 $9,698 $19,197 $14,765 $29,018 - -
Tab.9  Time and cost savings analysis for projects under $1 million
Contracting Methods With Outliers 3 standard deviations 2 standard deviations
Total Number of projects PCD ADS PCC ADS Total projects after removing outliers PCD ADS PCC ACS Total projects after removing outliers PCD ADS PCC ACS
>$20 million
D-B Major 22 -3.03% 27.3 2.64% $(1,469,581) 21 -3.15% 28.6 2.39% $(1,347,184) 19 -1.87% 16.8 1.07% $ (403,785)
DBB 30 -3.00% 28.7 3.65% $(1,317,046) 29 -2.03% 19.3 3.64% $(1,296,898) 26 -2.15% 20.2 3.14% $(1,057,038)
$10- $20 million
DBB 64 -0.97% 6.6 -0.07% $9,142 63 -0.21% 1.4 1.35% $ (178,909) 62 -1.11% 7.5 1.39% $ (184,231)
$5 to $10 million
LS 31 -2.06% 5.4 0.10% $ (6,744) 29 -1.47% 3.9 -0.53% $34,786 29 -1.47% 3.9 -0.53% $34,786
DBB 136 -2.34% 10.4 -1.14% $78,719 134 -1.46% 6.5 -0.03% $2,416 132 -1.40% 6.3 -0.24% $16,364
$1- $5 million
D-B Minor 45 -0.56% 2.2 -0.47% $ 9,831 43 -0.69% 2.7 -0.55% $ 11,544 39 -0.09% 0.4 -0.95% $19,773
D-B Major 27 2.78% -11.0 -1.28% $30,102 26 1.49% -6.0 -1.19% $27,976 21 -1.06% 4.3 -1.49% $35,341
DBB 658 -2.21% 6.0 -1.86% $45,641 633 -1.93% 5.2 -1.44% $35,326 607 -1.45% 3.9 -1.21% $ 29,647
LS 206 -2.54% 4.7 -0.84% $17,973 203 -2.71% 5.0 -0.11% $2,432 196 -2.76% 5.2 -0.28% $5,894
I/D 36 -8.31% 21.8 -1.81% $ 49,865 35 -8.36% 22.3 -2.37% $ 66,196 31 -10.94% 28.3 -1.94% $55,265
<$1million
D-B Minor 85 -5.20% 9.8 -2.60% $9,698 82 -4.06% 7.74 -2.35% $8,827 76 -2.56% 4.99 -2.41% $9,238
D-B Major 15 -6.50% 16.7 -3.90% $19,197 15 -6.52% 16.73 -3.94% $ 19,196 14 -3.48% 8.79 -3.68% $ 18,248
DBB 609 -2.10% 3 -4.90% $22,816 599 -2.27% 3.22 -4.95% $ 23,177 556 -1.69% 2.43 -5.09% $ 24,001
LS 357 -2.60% 2.4 -4.30% $14,765 349 -2.77% 2.58 -4.28% $ 14,898 315 -2.10% 1.97 -4.39% $ 15,401
I/D 16 -15.20% 21.4 -4.40% $29,018 16 -15.18% 21.44 -4.36% $ 29,018 14 -14.45% 21.36 -5.27% $ 35,083
Tab.10  Summary of analysis results before and after excluding outliers
1 Anderson S D, Damnjanovic I D (2008). Selection and evaluation of alternative contracting methods to accelerate project completion. NCHRP Synthesis 379, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 77
2 Beard J, Loulakis E M, Wundram E (2001). Design-Build: Planning through Development. New York: McGraw Hill Professional
3 Charoenphol D, Stuban S M, Dever J R (2016). Using robust statistical methodology to evaluate the cost performance of project delivery systems: A case study of horizontal construction. Journal of Cost Analysis and Parametrics, 9(3): 181–200
https://doi.org/10.1080/1941658X.2016.1267598
4 Chen Q, Jin Z, Xia B, Wu P, Skitmore M (2016). Time and cost performance of design–build projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 142(2): 04015074
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001056
5 Choi K, Kwak Y H, Pyeon J H, Son K (2012). Schedule effectiveness of alternative contracting strategies for transportation infrastructure improvement projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 138(3): 323–330
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000431
6 Col Debella D, Ries R (2006). Construction delivery systems: A comparative analysis of their performance within school districts. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 132(11): 1131–1138
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2006)132:11(1131)
7 El Asmar M, Hanna A S, Loh W Y (2013). Quantifying performance for the integrated project delivery system as compared to established delivery systems. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 139(11): 04013012
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000744
8 Ellis R D, Herbsman Z J, Kumar A (1991). Evaluation of the FDOT design/build program. Florida Department of Transportation
9 Ellis R D, Pyeon J H, Herbsman Z J, et al. (2007). Evaluation of alternative contracting techniques on FDOT construction projects. Florida Department of Transportation, Tallahassee, Florida
10 FDOT (2017). Design-Build Minor.
11 FDOT (2017). Design-Building Major.
12 Gordon C (1994). Choosing appropriate construction contracting method. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 120(1): 196–210
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(1994)120:1(196)
13 Herbsman Z, Ellis R (1992). Multiparameter bidding system-innovation in contract administration. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 118(1): 142–150
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(1992)118:1(142)
14 Herbsman Z J, Chen W T, Epstein W C (1995). Time is money: Innovative contracting methods in highway construction. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 121(3): 273–281
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(1995)121:3(273)
15 Ibbs C W, Kwak Y H, Ng T, Odabasi A M (2003). Project delivery systems and project change: Quantitative analysis. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 129(4): 382–387
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2003)129:4(382)
16 Konchar M, Sanvido V (1998). Comparison of US project delivery systems. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 124(6): 435–444
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(1998)124:6(435)
17 Meng X, Gallagher B (2012). The impact of incentive mechanisms on project performance. International Journal of Project Management, 30(3): 352–362
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2011.08.006
18 Miller J B (1995). Aligning infrastructure development strategy to meet current needs. Dissertation for the Doctoral Degree. Boston: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
19 Minchin R E, Chini A R, Ptschelinzew L, et al. (2016). Alternative contracting research. Florida Department of Transportation, Tallahassee, Florida
20 Minchin R E Jr, Li X, Issa R R, Vargas G G (2013). Comparison of cost and time performance of design-build and design-bid-build delivery systems in Florida. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 139(10): 04013007
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000746
21 Molenaar K, Harper C, Yugar-Arias I (2014). Guidebook for Selecting Alternative Contracting Methods for Roadway Projects: Project Delivery Methods, Procurement Procedures and Payment Provisions.
22 Molenaar K R, Songer A D, Barash M (1999). Public-sector design/build evolution and performance. Journal of Management Engineering, 15(2): 54–62
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0742-597X(1999)15:2(54)
23 Molenaar K R, Yakowenko G (2007). Alternative project delivery, procurement, and contracting methods for highways. American Society of Civil Engineers Reston, Virginia
24 Shrestha P P, O’Connor J T, Gibson G E Jr (2011). Performance comparison of large design-build and design-bid-build highway projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 138(1): 1–13
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000390
25 Strong K, Tometich C, Raadt N (2005). Cost effectiveness of design-build, lane rental, and A+B contracting techniques. In: Proceeding of Mid-Continent Transportation Research Symposium Ames, IA
26 Tran D, Harper C, Molenaar K, Haddad N, Scholfield M (2013). Project delivery selection matrix for highway design and construction. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2347: 3–10
https://doi.org/10.3141/2347-01
[1] Xinzheng LU, Qingle CHENG, Zhen XU, Chen XIONG. Regional seismic-damage prediction of buildings under mainshock–aftershock sequence[J]. Front. Eng, 2021, 8(1): 122-134.
[2] Pengfei ZHANG, Samuel T. ARIARATNAM. Life cycle cost savings analysis on traditional drainage systems from low impact development strategies[J]. Front. Eng, 2021, 8(1): 88-97.
[3] Jordan DAVIDSON, John FOWLER, Charalampos PANTAZIS, Massimo SANNINO, Jordan WALKER, Moslem SHEIKHKHOSHKAR, Farzad Pour RAHIMIAN. Integration of VR with BIM to facilitate real-time creation of bill of quantities during the design phase: A proof of concept study[J]. Front. Eng, 2020, 7(3): 396-403.
[4] James M. TIEN. Convergence to real-time decision making[J]. Front. Eng, 2020, 7(2): 204-222.
[5] Jing ZHANG, Hongqiang JIANG, Wei ZHANG, Guoxia MA, Yanchao WANG, Yaling LU, Xi HU, Jia ZHOU, Fei PENG, Jun BI, Jinnan WANG. Cost-benefit analysis of China’s Action Plan for Air Pollution Prevention and Control[J]. Front. Eng, 2019, 6(4): 524-537.
[6] Lizzette PÉREZ LESPIER, Suzanna LONG, Tom SHOBERG, Steven CORNS. A model for the evaluation of environmental impact indicators for a sustainable maritime transportation systems[J]. Front. Eng, 2019, 6(3): 368-383.
[7] Houchen CAO, Yang Miang GOH. Analyzing construction safety through time series methods[J]. Front. Eng, 2019, 6(2): 262-274.
[8] Lu ZHEN, Dan ZHUGE, Liwen MURONG, Ran YAN, Shuaian WANG. Operation management of green ports and shipping networks: overview and research opportunities[J]. Front. Eng, 2019, 6(2): 152-162.
[9] Ziyou GAO, Lixing YANG. Energy-saving operation approaches for urban rail transit systems[J]. Front. Eng, 2019, 6(2): 139-151.
[10] Alireza MOGHAYEDI, Abimbola WINDAPO. Key uncertainty events impacting on the completion time of highway construction projects[J]. Front. Eng, 2019, 6(2): 275-298.
[11] Juan LIU, Fei QIAO, Yumin MA, Weichang KONG. Novel slack-based robust scheduling rule for a semiconductor manufacturing system with uncertain processing time[J]. Front. Eng, 2018, 5(4): 507-514.
[12] Rini NISHANTH, Andrew WHYTE, V. John KURIAN. Floating production storage and offloading systems’ cost and motion performance: A systems thinking application[J]. Front. Eng, 2018, 5(3): 357-368.
[13] Lynda M. BOURNE, Patrick WEAVER. The origins of schedule management: the concepts used in planning, allocating, visualizing and managing time in a project[J]. Front. Eng, 2018, 5(2): 150-166.
[14] Jiateng YIN, Yihui WANG, Tao TANG, Jing XUN, Shuai SU. Metro train rescheduling by adding backup trains under disrupted scenarios[J]. Front. Eng, 2017, 4(4): 418-427.
[15] Xiqun (Michael) CHEN, Xiaowei CHEN, Hongyu ZHENG, Chuqiao CHEN. Understanding network travel time reliability with on-demand ride service data[J]. Front. Eng, 2017, 4(4): 388-398.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed