vntllll o~|).l s.

 

THESIS
7/
’1 o°l/

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

Selection Criteria Utilized By Large Private Sector
Commercial Owners In Design-Build Method Selection

presented by

Jeffrey John Pfeifer

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

M.S. flegreein Building Construction
Management

 

 

 

_
v

Major professor

Date January 24, 2002

0-7639 MS U i: an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

PLACE IN REFURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

 

4C).;—

19% g; 63280.5

 

tyrr
JANl

c ions

 

APR 3 O 2088

 

03 25:18

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 c:/CIRC/DateDue.p65-p.15

 

SELECTION CRITERIA UTILIZED BY LARGE PRIVATE SECTOR
COMMERCIAL OWNERS IN DESIGN-BUILD METHOD SELECTION

by

Jeffrey John Pfeifer

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the graduate degree of

BUILDING CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT

2002

ABSTRACT

SELECTION CRITERIA UTILIZED BY LARGE PRIVATE SECTOR
COMMERCIAL OWNERS IN DESIGN-BUILD METHOD SELECTION

by

Jeffrey John Pfeifer

The goal of this research was to identify and evaluate the selection criteria that
private sector owners use in selecting design-build as their project delivery
method. A portion of this thesis explored owner background information,
construction activity and experience, project budgets and construction methods

utilized by private sector owners.

This research collected data from owners in order to better understand their
criteria for utilizing design-build. Data on design-build performance criteria was
collected through a series of interviews. The purpose of the interview survey was
to collect data for use in development of a Design-Build evaluation form. The
owners can reference the form with their project information to decide whether
the design-build method may be a procurement solution. The form will allow
potential design-build users to evaluate their project and better understand the
criterion that best matches this method. The owner's question of whether
design-build may be a viable solution for their project may now be a more

informed and educated decision, based on specific project information.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES ....................................................................... iv
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION .................................................................. 1
1.1 Statement/ Problem Area ................................................................ 1

1.2 Goals/ Objectives ............................................................................ 4
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW ....................................................... 7
2.1 History ............................................................................................. 7

2.2 Definition/ Background ................................................................... 12

2.3 Success ......................................................................................... 15

2.4 Selection Criteria ........................................................................... 17

2.5 Owners-Procurement Method Selection ........................................ 20
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY ........................................................... 24
3.1 Introduction ................................................................................... 24

3.2 Sample Selection .......................................................................... 24

3.3 Pre-Evaluation ............................................................................... 25

3.4 Data Collection .............................................................................. 26

3.5 Introduction of Project Evaluation Form ........................................ 32

3.6 Proof of Concept ........................................................................... 33
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND SUMMARIZATION ................................. 34
4.1 Introduction .................................................................................... 34

4.2 General Owner Information ............................................................ 36

4.2.1 Construction Types ............................................................ 36

4.2.2 Experience ......................................................................... 37

4.2.3 Comparison to Typical Project ........................................... 39

4.2.4 Project Characteristics ....................................................... 39

4.2.5 Dollar Volume of Methods .................................................. 41

4.2.6 Possible Trends ................................................................. 43

4.2.7 Reasons for Use of Design-Build ....................................... 45

4.2.8 Summary of Category One ................................................ 47

4.3 Owner’s Performance Criteria ....................................................... 48

4.3.1 Project Characteristics Affecting Procurement Selection. ..49

4.3.2 Performance Criteria .......................................................... 51

4.3.3 Highest Ranked Criteria ..................................................... 54

4.3.4 Reasons Not Used on Most Recent Project ....................... 56

4.3.5 Summary of Category Two ................................................ 56

4.4 Decision Makers ............................................................................ 57

4.4.1 Decision Makers ................................................................. 57

4.4.2 Decision Maker's Experience ............................................. 58

4.4.3 Summary of Category Three .............................................. 58

4.5 Project Success ............................................................................. 59

iii

4.5.1 Success of Project ............................................................. 59

4.5.2 Comparison to Typical Projects .......................................... 62

4.5.3 Contributing Factors to Success ........................................ 63

4.5.4 Project Criteria Change ...................................................... 65

4.5.5 Summary of Category Four ................................................ 66

4.6 Chapter Summary .......................................................................... 66

5.0 DESIGN-BUILD CRITERIA EVALUATION FORM .................................... 68
5.1 Introduction ................................................................................... 68

5.2 Presentation and Discussion ......................................................... 69

5.3 Validation ...................................................................................... 79

6.0 CONCLUSION ......................................................................................... 85
6.1 Summary ....................................................................................... 85

6.2 Conclusion ................................................ ' .................................... 87

6.3 Recommendations ........................................................................ 90

6.4 Limitations ..................................................................................... 93
REFERENCES ................................................................................................... 95
APPENDIX A: PHONE SCRIPT ................................................................ 97
APPENDIX B: SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE .............................................. 99
APPENDIX C: SURVEY QUESTION ONE .............................................. 104
APPENDIX D: SURVEY QUESTION TWO ............................................. 105
APPENDIX E: SURVEY QUESTION THREE .......................................... 107
APPENDIX F: SURVEY QUESTION FOUR ........................................... 108
APPENDIX G: SURVEY QUESTION FIVE .............................................. 110
APPENDIX H: SURVEY QUESTION SIX ................................................ 112
APPENDIX I: SURVEY QUESTION SEVEN .......................................... 114
APPENDIX J: SURVEY QUESTION EIGHT ........................................... 116
APPENDIX K: SURVEY QUESTION NINE ............................................. 118
APPENDIX L: SURVEY QUESTION TEN .............................................. 120

iv

APPENDIX M:
APPENDIX N:
APPENDIX 0:
APPENDIX P:
APPENDIX Q:
APPENDIX R:
APPENDIX 8:
APPENDIX T:
APPENDIX U:

APPENDIX V:

SURVEY QUESTION ELEVEN ........................................ 122

SURVEY QUESTION TWELVE ....................................... 124
SURVEY QUESTION THIRTEEN .................................... 126
SURVEY QUESTION FOURTEEN .................................. 128
SURVEY QUESTION FIFTEEN ....................................... 130
SURVEY QUESTION SIXTEEN ...................................... 132
SURVEY QUESTION SEVENTEEN ................................ 134
SURVEY QUESTION EIGHTEEN ................................... 136
SURVEY QUESTION NINETEEN .................................... 138
0/3 METHOD SELECTION EVALUATION FORM .......... 140

Table 1:
Table 2:
Table 3:
Table 4:
Table 5:
Table 6:
Table 7:

Table 8:

Figure 1:
Figure 2:
Figure 3:

Figure 4:

LIST OF TABLES
Methods used in the past five to ten years ....................................... 44
Reasons that lead to design-build method selection ........................ 46
Project characteristics affecting design-build method selection ........ 50
Reason highest ranked criteria was used in selection process ........ 55
Evaluation of project success, and what constitutes a project .......... 61

Comparison of recent project success to typical successful project.63

Factors contributing to success ........................................................ 64

Design-Build Criteria Evaluation Form ............................................. 69
LIST OF FIGURES

Construction Type ......................................................................... 37

Facility Size of Recent Design-Build ........................................... 40

Percentage of Construction Methods by Dollar Volume ................ 42

Importance of Performance Criteria .............................................. 53

vi

1 .0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 STATEMENT! PROBLEM AREA

Private sector owners interested in project procurement have various
construction methods available to them, and each of these methods has various
selection criteria. The goal is to create a union between the needs of the owner
and the selection criteria of the construction method. Criteria selected by the
project owner needs to be identified for the potential success of future projects. It
is important to keep accurate historical records of past projects, and then use
that information and attempt to repeat success on future projects. This research
explores the criteria that large commercial and industrial owners use in the

private sector when selecting design-build as a construction method.

Design-build is quickly becoming a process that many owners are selecting for
project procurement. Research by Keith Molenaar (Molenaar 1995) indicates
that owners believe the primary advantage of design-build procurement is that it
shortens duration, but they judge its success more in terms of budget than
schedule. Molenaar explained that a project is considered successful if the
budget is controlled, but owners will use design-build for its repeated success in
controlling the length of a project. This repeated successful selection criteria of

design-build is examined further in this research paper.

When examining construction procurement methods, it is important to determine
what defines a successful project, in order to determine whether the selected
method will succeed. Victor Sanvido (Sanvido, 1992) has identified four critical
activities in organizing a successful construction project; as follows:
1. Assemble a cohesive team to plan, design and construct the project.
2. Put together contracts that encourage team behavior and allocate risk
fairly.
3. Recruit experienced personnel in all project phases, from design
through construction, to avoid problems due to inexperience.
4. Make information concerning designability, constructability and
operability for the project available to the project team. This
information is critical to the assembled team for a successful project;

without it the project will have insufficient direction.

Owners have expressed that main determinants of a successful project are
projects that are on budget, that conform to users’ expectations, and that are on
schedule (Molenaar, 1995). Success, as defined by owners, is considered
project-specific and will be explored in this research. The success of the design-
build method is attributed to an increased interest in meeting the owner’s needs,
which include better quality, continuous improvement in project delivery and
within the final product, allocation of risks and responsibilities to one capable
party, with better access to highly specialized, project specific experience and

expertise (Kwaku, 2000). Understanding the owner’s needs should be the

project team’s main concern, along with assembling a plan for following through

on those needs.

In order to understand an owner’s needs, it is important to look into the owner’s
capability to express his or her design-build needs properly. Public sector
design-build success is impacted by the following project characteristics crucial
to project success (Molenaar, 1995): well-defined scope, shared understanding
of scope, construction sophistication of owner, adequate owner staffing, an
established budget and a completion date. The criteria by which public sector
owners initially judge project success is based on whether the project stays
within the budget, conforms to the user’s expectations and adheres to a

schedule.

Definition and understanding of project scope is the most important element for
design-build project success, but the factor most important in the public sector
when choosing design-build is to shorten duration (Molenaar, 1995). Duration is
defined as the overall time in the schedule to complete the project’s construction;
this time may include design. Design-build may be used for fast-tracking a
project because it allows the design process to continue while the project is being
constructed, rather than having to complete one step before the other. The real
benefit in this process is the ability to involve the construction entity in the design

phase, for early procedural input.

1.2 GOALS] OBJECTIVES

The goal of this research was to identify the criteria private owners use in
selecting design-build as their project delivery method. To date, there has been
limited research into private sector design-build criteria selection. Most
information that has been gathered has been in the public sector, while the

following research addresses large private sector owners.

In a recent quantitative study by Douglas Gransberg (Gransberg, 1999)
concerning costs and schedules on public works in Massachusetts, Indiana,
Texas and Florida, Massachusetts had higher costs and longer schedules. The
state of Massachusetts insists on using the design-bid-build method. Compare
the situation in four states: Massachusetts, 3 unionized state with some of the
most restrictive contracting requirements in the nation; Indiana, a unionized state
that permits the use of an alternative project delivery method with A+B cost and
schedule bidding; Texas, a right-to-work state that allows limited use of another
alternative method with design-build; and Florida, a right-to-work state that
permits using almost any project delivery method on state public works. This
data was collected from 10 Massachusetts agencies on 926 projects totaling $1.1
billion to construct during the years 1988-1997. This information was compared
to similar data on 463 projects worth a total of $2.5 billion in Indiana, Florida and
Texas. Comparing escalations in project costs from the time of bid to
completion, the cost growth in Massachusetts averaged 1/3 more than Florida, 3

1/2 times higher than Texas and 9 times higher than Indiana. Comparing the

percent expansions of construction schedules, time growth averaged 55% in
Massachusetts, 17% in Florida, 12% in Texas and 6% in Indiana. The public
arena is still evolving from state to state, and this information is evidence that
when state construction agencies change their construction methods, the

taxpayers benefit.

Public officials must concentrate on their voters’ interest when supplying facilities,
since major concerns of their projects are cost related. Private sector method
consideration is channeled through company owners, rather than public officials.
These ownership differences provide a base for examining characteristics in the

private sector.

Objectives for this research include identifying and evaluating method selection
criteria. This information is valuable to the present industry in supporting
procurement decisions. This is also helpful to owners considering design-build
and its effectiveness for their personal needs. A portion of this thesis explored
owner background information, construction activity and experience, project
budgets and construction methods utilized by private sector owners. The building
types supporting design-build are recorded, such as industrial, office, highway,
and commercial building types. Aspects of design-build and selection decisions,
which make it an attractive method, are important pieces of information to
owners. These characteristics and the respective reasons for utilizing design-

build have been recorded and made available to owners interested in the design-

build construction method to determine whether it is the right method for their
project. Customers have reasons for making purchases, therefore matching the
customer with the product is essential for success. This thesis identifies the

selection criteria used by private sector owners in utilizing design-build.

This first chapter indicates that this research will explore the criteria that large,
private sector commercial and industrial owners use when selecting design-build.
Research has proven that owners find the primary advantage of design-build
procurement is to shorten project duration, which is defined as the overall time in
the schedule to complete the project. Owners have expressed that they
determine a project’s success by its ability to be on budget, conform to the user’s
expectations and be on schedule. These are all results that design-build can
provide, but it is important to have a well-defined understanding of the project’s
scope, which is established by the owner. Objectives for this research include
identifying and evaluating method selection criteria. Through this identification of
selection criteria of design-build, owners can make better decisions in their

selection of design-build as a procurement method.

2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 HISTORY:

Construction, as we know it, was based on the premise of the master builder,
which combined the architect and builder into one entity. This process was seen
on some of the world’s earliest and most renowned projects, such as the
Parthenon and the pyramids. In time these two professions separated. The
primary cause of this divergence of disciplines was the growing complexity of
projects, which resulted in the need for increased specialization and expertise
(Kwaku, 2000). Our society has become one of constant change in technology,
causing a need to split the architecture and construction entities. By breaking
into smaller pieces, each profession is better able to specialize, this trend can be
seen in construction, as well as many other professions. This separation allows

each profession to specialize as technology progresses.

In the past 20 years, contributing factors such as declining productivity, huge cost
overruns, increased disputes and litigation, and major construction failures (some
with great loss of life) have resulted in lower quality construction (Pocock, 1996).
These factors, as well as others, have caused the construction industry to
reevaluate its project delivery methods. With the recent utilization of alternative
construction methods, design-build has been a repeat performer among those

gaining popularity. The design-build method of delivery has seen an increased

resurgence of interest over the last decade and is the fastest growing project

delivery method in the construction industry today (Kwaku, 2000).

The traditional method of construction procurement, known as design-bid-build
(dbb), utilizes a contractor and architect separately. This construction method
was used almost exclusively until the 1960’s, when owners wanted more control
of project time and cost (Branca, 1988). This need for control pushed owners to
search for solutions to these problems. During the 1970’s, scheduling delays led
to legal problems. Separation of entities involved in the project increases gaps in
responsibilities and leads to potential litigation (Pocock, 1996). When the
architect and builder are separate, communication is lost between the two, and
they now act on their own, protecting themselves from liability and pointing

fingers elsewhere in the event of discrepancy.

New alternative methods, such as partnering, construction management and
design-build, are gaining popularity as alternatives to the traditional method of
project delivery. Today, there are three main types of project delivery methods:
design-bid-build (traditional method), construction management and design-build.
Owner’s demands for higher quality, innovative and cost-effective designs, less
risk, fewer delays, less litigation, and faster schedules are leading professionals
to seek these alternatives (ASCE, 1992). Due to the continued success of these
methods, the owners are increasingly utilizing them. The concept of “time is

money” rings true daily, and production processes must respond. Driven by new

technologies, competition and costs, the construction industry has evolved to
improved building design and construction methods, thereby adapting to the

current needs of the client (Zak,1999).

Pocock (Pocock, 1996) examined the performance of various project delivery
methods. This research examined the Degree of Interaction (DOI), which is
defined as the extent of interaction among designers, builders and project team
members during a project’s planning, conceptual design, detailed design,
procurement, construction and start-up phases. Alternative construction
methods, such as partnering and design-build, have higher average degrees of
interaction than traditional methods. DOI scores are ranked on a scale of zero to
one, with zero representing no interaction, and a one representing the most
interaction possible. Construction processes averaged the following ranking:
partnered .58, design-build .31, combination projects .60 and the traditional
method (design-bid-build) with a low score of only .086 (highest recorded for the
traditional method was only .27). Pocock showed that projects using alternative
approaches have significantly better performance than traditional projects.
Performance was measured in terms of cost growth, schedule growth, I
modifications per million dollars, and modifications due to design deficiencies
(Pocock, 1996). Design-build is a leader among alternative approaches and is

continuously gaining popularity with owners.

“The general trend (for design-build) now is in the public sector,” stated Jerry
Novacek (ENR Sep 1999), an associate in Zweig Whites Overland Park, located
in their Kansas office. He indicated that there was a five to six year cycle where
design-build took off in the private sector, and that cycle is found in the public
sector. Further work by Zweig White and Associates resulted in finding that
design-build clients are split evenly between public and private sectors. This
information leads to the understanding that the private sector was open to the
benefits of utilizing design-build before the public sector. Perhaps the “red tape”
of the public sector, and the general conservative nature, held it back. Once the

benefits could be seen, public officials were encouraged to utilize it as well.

Public and private owners want to maximize the success potential of their project,
but they also want to be sure that the final product serves its intended purpose.
The premise is that private sector owners are looking for the same general
results as public sector owners; both want projects on time and within budget.
Design-build is selected and utilized because of its repeated success. Brice Hill,
president and CEO of Dallas based Centex Construction Group, who has turned
almost exclusively to design-build, had this to say of it: “it encourages certain
definitive behaviors, as well as corporate behavior and culture, to create a better
working environment. These behaviors provide us with a tremendous
opportunity and new ways of looking at these opportunities and qualifying them.
We use our relationships to discover what a client wants, and what his needs are

for a successful project.” (DBIA Conference, 1999) Directing owners towards

10

new trends for project procurement generates new thought processes and
creativity for producing at accelerated rates, which in turn produces higher
revenue. If the construction industry is to provide products created to benefit
user’s needs, then understanding and delivering quality products should be a top

concern.

According to DBIA, design-build is expected to account for half of project
deliveries, both in the private and public sector, by the year 2005 (Dixon, 1998).
DBIA has petitioned the US. Department of Commerce to create a Standard
Industrial Classification code for design-builders, which is estimated to constitute
a $60 billion annual market (DBIA Conference 1999). This emphasizes the need
for setting standards in the design-build industry and understanding the growth
potential of design-build as well as other methods gaining interest. Many
problems have arisen from a lack of understanding, due to the relatively quick
switch from the traditional way of thinking. Perceptions have been formed, giving
these methods a bad reputation, as in this example by Sir Norman Foster of
Foster and Partners, a renowned architectural firm, who spoke of design-build
delivery as:
“The image which design-build conjures up is that of the worst possible
building, low in quality and of little or no architectural merit. The only
priority being the “bottom-line cost”. This image is the opposite of what I
believe the process of design-build should be delivering. Basically, the

best design skills should be combined with the best of construction, acting

11

in the client’s interests to produce a product of shared value for the

community and the users.” (Bennett, J., Pothecary, E., Robinson, G. 1996)
Design-build requires a cultural change from the defensive posture and “us
versus them” mentality of the traditional method (CH, 1991 ). This attitude is
slowly changing, and the change is needed for successful projects and satisfied

customers in the future.

2.2 DEFINITION I BACKGROUND:
Various researchers have defined design-build in similar ways. The University of
Reading Design-Build Forum has defined it as:
“Procurement routes that enable clients to employ one firm that takes
single point responsibility for delivering the required building and
associated services in accordance with defined standards and conditions.”
This definition emphasizes the importance of entering into one contract, which is
called “one-stop shopping”, for the owner, who handles complete project
oversight. Along with the benefits, there are also problems of now leaving the

owner without representation, which is explained further in this review.

Depending on the project, there are four general types of design-build contracting
accepted in the construction industry: builder as prime contractor,
architect/engineer as a prime contractor, a joint venture of the architect/engineer
and builder, and a design-build organization with in-house design and

construction expertise. The last type defines the basic concept of design-build,

12

having all team members in-house and working together; this also creates a
single point of responsibility for the owner. Some other combinations can create
tension, since one party has hired another, generally the contractor hiring the
architect. The contractor in this case controls the project, as well as having the
final design decision. This situation leads to the previous quote by Sir Norman
Foster, in that there is little architectural merit, since the builder financially

controls the project.

The greatest factor for using design-build is the single-point of responsibility
(Bennett, J., Pothecary, E., Robinson, G. 1996). This factor ties into the
continued pursuit in the modern industry to utilize total quality management and
its focus on the “team” approach. The principles of total quality focus on the
customer, involve everyone, continuously improve, are simple to understand and
represent common sense (Evans,1999). To meet the demands of building
owners, the industry has evolved into what we have today: A full team approach,
with professionals capable of establishing budgets, project scope and realistic
time lines at the very onset of the project (Zak,1999). These demands are
coming from owners, who are being pushed by their markets and demands in the
manufacturing arena. Due to such highly competitive markets, owners products

are being developed along side the facilities where they will be manufactured.

In the traditional method, the architect is hired by the owner and has a

responsibility to provide a design to best suit the job. However, with design-build,

the contractor generally hires the architect, rarely the other way around. This
leads to the design being controlled by the contractor’s Guaranteed Maximum
Price (GMP). If the project falls into financial trouble, the design can be modified
to accommodate the escalating prices. The owner may have a difficult time
following the project closely, without having a contracted representative on

his/her side.

For design-build to be successful, it is crucial that the owner issue a
comprehensive scope of work, this information that may include some or all of
the following: detailed space and equipment requirements, site surveys, soil
borings, outline specifications, budget parameters, and scheduling requirements
(Kwaku, 2000). This comprehensive scope of work is also needed for
competitive bidding between proposals, so that they may remain comparable.
The up-front costs associated with design are lost in the bidding process, which
pushes many contractors away from competing (ENR, April 1999). One solution
to this problem has been to compensate the bidder’s effort in preparing a bid for
the project, some offering incentives to the winning team. Another negative
aspect of design-build, according to the engineering firm of Grumman/Butkus, is
conflicts that arise from material and equipment specification. The materials and
specifications will change in order to compensate for increased prices in other
areas of the project, unfortunately to a lesser quality. This becomes a problem
for the owner, since the architect and builder are on the same team and are

watching out for their best interests.

14

2.3 SUCCESS

Advantages of design-build correspond directly to the disadvantages of
conventional design-bid-build (Tarricone, 1997). Further research by Bennett
provides evidence that design-build increases performance over traditional
procurement: construction speed by 12%, total project delivery speed by 30%,
cost by 13%, and 50% more certain to be completed on time and completed on
budget, or within 5% of the anticipated goal. Through a multivariate analysis,
Konchar had similar findings concerning the superiority of design-build: Design-
build led to a 4.5% lower unit cost than construction management (CM), and
design-bid-build by 6%. In the category of construction speed design-build was
7% faster than construction management and 12% faster than design-bid-build.
For overall delivery speed the percentages increased to 23% over CM and 33%
over design-bid-build. This reduction of delivery time saves project financing for
the owner, by reducing overhead costs of the construction. He believes design-
build significantly outperformed design-bid-build in every area except unit cost,
intensity, and environmental system quality. Design-build significantly
outperformed construction management in the areas of delivery speed and in
turnover quality, and construction management outperformed design-bid-build in
some areas. Design-bid-build failed to outperform the other two systems. Further
procurement comparison in the public sector gave the following results in a study
that examined the use of design-build and design—bid-build: the Navy reported a

15% cost savings and 12% time savings. A third fewer change orders were

15

encountered on 209 design-build projects undertaken by the Department of

Defense (Gransberg 1999).

Design-build provides superior consistency in aesthetic quality and overall better
aesthetic quality than traditional approaches (Bennett, J., Pothecary, E.,
Robinson, G. 1996). The Construction Industry Institute (Cll) research team
measured construction speed in terms of square feet of construction per month.
It found that design-build produced the highest median activity at over 9000 sq.
ft. in one month, and design-bid-build the lowest at 4,500 sq ft. Scheduling with
design-build had almost no delays on average, and design-bid-build schedules
experienced delays of an average 4.44%. Cost factors had designébid-build with
the greatest median cost escalation at 4.84%, followed by construction

management at 3.34% and design-build at 2.37% (Krizan, 1997).

Konchar believes that an integrated team on a design-build project is better
equipped to handle complex and aggressively scheduled, technology-driven
projects than less integrated teams such as ones found on design-bid-build
projects. In contrast, Kwaku has found the design-build model to be used
successfully both on extraordinarily complex facilities and on “straightforward”
office buildings. These differing opinions seem to be difficult to disprove, since
design-build has been found to be successful on both types of construction.
There are reasons that support each of these views, and why design-build is

better suited for a particular complex or simple building. In a complex

16

environment, the design-build team may work best on completing difficult tasks
and Konchar has concluded that this partnership reduces conflicts between the
parties involved. In contrast, this partnership of architect and constructor may
find that straightforward, repetitive office buildings become less complicated, due
to high volume of production. This will be a continuous debate in the industry,
since projects are being successfully completed that are both simple and

complex types.

2.4 SELECTION CRITERIA

Owners desire greater value from their buildings, which is the relationship of
usefulness or satisfaction to price (Evans, 1999). Bennett presented the
following thinking process and what owners hope to achieve through their
project. They can achieve a greater certainty of time and cost delivery, as well
as improved value by using a design-build approach. Single point responsibility,
Guaranteed Maximum Price, and avoidance of design and construction risks are
the principal reasons for utilizing the design-build approach. Many see this as a
result of single point responsibility, since the architect and contractor work
together. Many doors can be opened for process examination, since a
partnership has been formed. The two now work together, rather than against

each other, as in the traditional method.

Each project will initially present itself with different complications; for example,

some may need a project in a shorter schedule than thought possible with

17

traditional methods, or perhaps within a smaller budget. Private sector owners
use various selection criteria when selecting design-build, of which none are
specifically focused on design-build alone. Seven criteria were identified by
Songer (Songer, 1996) to be common with design-build selection: establish cost,
reduce cost, establish schedule, shorten duration, reduce claims, large project
size complexity, and constructability/ innovation. These seven criteria were used
in this research project’s survey questionnaire, as well as an eighth category

titled “other”, and owners were asked to rank them from most to least important.

Further research conducted by Kwaku (Kwaku, 2000) found three criteria that
owners might consider in their determination for utilizing design-build:
. Time constraints for delivery of the project
. The capability and experience of potential contractors with the design-
build process
. The capability (or inability) of the owner to manage the project, including
having personnel who are familiar with the design-build process to
oversee the project.
Kwaku does include the time constraint, but replaces cost concerns with
contractor experience and owner’s ability to manage. Songer’s (Songer, 1996)
criteria were selected by the researcher and used in this research for their broad
coverage of potential owner criteria. The data collected from this research may

be grouped into any of these seven criteria categories. Contractor experience

18

and owner’s ability to manage were utilized in this research, but covered in

general demographics of the private sector owner.

When selecting a construction procurement method, it is important to look at
what characteristics are involved in the project, and select accordingly. There
are three main project characteristics used as drivers for contract method
selection (Gordon, 1992). The first are project-drivers, which are characteristics
of the project itself, including time constraints, financial constraints, flexibility
needs, etc. Second are owner-drivers, defined as characteristics of the owner,
including construction sophistication, current capabilities, risk aversion, etc. The
final of the three are market drivers, which characterize the market, including

availability of contractors, current state of the market, size of project, etc.

A team concept is the primary function of the design-build method; without it
problems arise due to the separation of professionals. When architects and
builders do not work together toward a project’s three primary criteria- a quality
project, finished within a specific time frame, at a predetermined cost- the project
owner’s interest and goals are not met (Kwaku, 2000). These three criteria
include both cost and schedule, which are two of the biggest performers that
owners look for in completing a project, but these two are useless unless the
quality of the workmanship is upheld. The construction industry’s main objective
is to service and satisfy the client to the best of its capabilities. Without a

satisfied customer, the industry has failed in upholding its duties. The separation

19

of professionals leads to poor communication between parties, which can lead to

possible litigation.

2.5 OWNERS - PROCUREMENT METHOD SELECTION

In order to analyze the characteristics of the procurement method, as selected by

the owner, we need to look at the owner and his/her influence on the project.

Konchar explained that there are multiple variables describing the owner’s

influence on the facility delivery process, which he has assembled as follows:

Two types: private and public sector

Ability to restrain the pool of contractors and to qualify candidates

Ability to define scope may impact facility delivery process (Molenaar,
1995)

Experience with the facility type, also relates to their ability to define
scope. (Owners with experience and those without)

Experience with the chosen method of delivery is considered separately
from facility type experience.

Selecting a project team of architects and builders that best suit the facility
delivery process.

Relationship with the project team will have impact. (Sanvido, et al., 1990)
Capability of the owner to administer and manage the processes just
described. (Two contracts in a design-bid-build, reduced to one in design-

build.)

20

. Owner’s ability to make decisions. (The facility may stall while waiting for
reply or directive from owner's organization)
0 Owner’s attributes are key in their decisions to select procurement

method.

As design-build becomes an important project delivery method, owners should
have a clearly defined process of selecting an appropriate method for their
project, which is the initial step in the construction process. This process is
similar to purchasing a new car; the car must fit the criteria of the owner, such as
size, color, mileage, performance and cost. If these criteria fall outside the
customer’s range, the vehicle will not be an appropriate match. A satisfied
customer looks for a product that will satisfy his/her needs, and this satisfaction
results from providing goods and services that meet or exceed customer’s needs
(Evans, 1999). A construction method also has variables. The owner has an
idea of what they want in the final product, and the building construction method
must supply this product. Many outside factors affect this decision making
process, such as facility completion time, design complexity, building type and

project cost.

Procurement methods vary, as exemplified in the three dominant types in the
market today, the traditional method (design-bid-build), construction
management, and design-build. Each has different selection criteria, which

owners look for in procurement method selection. This research examines

21

private sector owners and their selection criteria in selecting design-build for

project procurement.

Selection criteria are those utilized by facility owners in construction procurement
method selection, and their construction method performance expectations.
These criteria may consist of cost or schedule issues, which tend to be heavily
selected by many owners. Other criteria may include reducing project claims and
litigation, dealing with large project size, complexity and

constructability/innovation.

Project owners make method selection judgments based on past performance.
Owners will look for different criteria, depending on the project, and what is
important. Certain construction methods produce predicted results better than
others, and it is important that these needs and the expected results are properly
matched for a successful project. In a recent project, a large private sector
owner had the following to say concerning early project planning:
“Development of performance criteria gave everyone a clear focus of the
larger picture of the project. The required end result was not simply a
facility for a certain amount of money with a certain number of production
lines. The level of performance was made more important and well known
and better understood.”
This project’s success was measured by its ability to maintain the performance

criteria and complete the work within the time and budget allowed. Design-build

22

was selected to take the responsibility for delivery and performance criteria, since
it was thought there was room for conflicting goals and potential adversarial

relationships with the traditional method of design-bid-build (Raco, Nelson 1993).

As stated in the introduction, there were seven criteria identified by Songer to be
common with design-build selection: establish cost, reduce cost, establish
schedule, shorten duration, reduce claims, large project size complexity, and
constructability/ innovation. Songer based these findings on an extensive
literature search. The researcher felt they covered a broad range of potential
criteria that may be used by commercial owners, and were therefore used on the
survey in this research. These seven were found to be common in literature
findings, with pieces of each explained as benefits of utilizing design-build.
Songer used these seven as a basis for design-build selection and what it is
capable of producing. The researcher agreed with these findings and as a result,
they became integrated into the survey questionnaire, which examined private

sector commercial owners.

23

3.0 METHODOLOGY

3.1 INTRODUCTION

This research collected data from owners in order to better understand their
criteria for utilizing design-build. Data on design-build performance criteria was
collected through a series of telephone interviews of large private sector owners
based in Michigan. Specific activities were: determination of sample, sample
pre-evaluation, survey, survey analysis, development of a project evaluation

form, form validation and conclusion.

3.2 SAMPLE SELECTION

The principal method for obtaining data was through interviews with project
owners, who are a part Of the Michigan Construction Users Council, Inc (MCUC).
This group is a collection of Michigan based organizations that facilitate large
commercial construction projects. Twenty-one private sector owners were

identified from the MCUC membership list.

Members of MCUC address issues on improving the construction process. The
MCUC assists in improving the quality and cost-effectiveness of a project by
taking action early in the planning stages. The organization is comprised of
public, quasipublic and private owners, who have an annual budget for new
construction, renovation and maintenance. The owners benefit from the

experience of more than forty other organizations across the country, helping in

24

utilizing the Construction Industry Cost Effective (CICE) principles and obtaining

timely information.

3.3 PRE-EVALUATION

Prior to developing the interview script, the researcher randomly selected five
members from the list for pre-evaluation. Information was gathered through a
brief phone interview concerning the company’s interest in participating, and in
deciding which interview method would work best for gathering information. This
call also aided in obtaining other connections at a company, since in some
companies there were multiple divisions within a company that are responsible
for construction. The response from all five companies was positive regarding
their participation, and some leads to other sources within their company were
provided. One contact, for example, had not utilized design-build, but made
reference to another contact within the company that had been involved with
design-build projects. Through this preliminary investigation, it was concluded
that all remaining members would require a pre-questionnaire phone call to
introduce the project and confirm that the contact is the correct person to
interview, as well as to gain any information not included on the list, such as

email addresses.

25

3.4 DATA COLLECTION

After completion of the pre-evaluation contact, a scripted telephone interview
approach was selected for consistency. Because of the small sample size, open-
ended interviews were feasible and used to collect data for qualitative analysis.
These interviews, lasting approximately fifteen minutes in length, were conducted
in person, unless the owner requested a phone interview, following the pre-
written phone script. The conversations were recorded if permitted by the
respondent; otherwise the researcher relied on written notes taken during the
interview. The data collection was targeted toward gathering groupable answers,
obtained from controlled open-ended questions. The answers to these questions
were later classified into sub-categories, where possible, under their respective
general categories. All answers were recorded in Appendix C through Appendix

U for review.

The interview had a repetitive, but open-ended format, using the same questions
for each owner. The questions were asked in order, but the researcher, at his
discretion, asked follow-up questions to probe and fully explore the respondent’s

answers.

The nineteen predetermined questions in the survey were placed into four

categories: general demographics, selected performance criteria, decision-

makers and success of the project. Each is explained below:

26

Category one, demographics, consisted of general owner information questions,
such as owner experience in construction, typical building type, experience with
facility type, cost of construction and volume constructed each year.

The second category, selected performance criteria, asked owners to indicate
the performance characteristics they used in selecting design-build. This may
vary between projects, since not all projects constructed within a company are

idenficaL

The third category collected information pertaining to company decision-makers
and whether one person, a department or possibly a committee formed for the
specific project makes construction method selection decisions. This provided

background on the mindset of those involved in choosing design-build.

The last category of the questionnaire investigated the success of the project

using design-build and its ability to satisfy the initial performance criteria fully.

This acquired information revealed the quality of this method as applicable to real
life situations, as well as the level of owner satisfaction with the chosen method.
Each of these four categories asked the owner to supply information concerning
their most recent project constructed using design-build, and then asked for

comparisons of this project to a typical project, to check for variances.

27

The voluntary questionnaire contained a statement of confidentiality, protecting
both the person giving information and the company they represented. In any
reporting of responses or data collected during this interview, the interviewee’s
name and company name, as well as any other identifying references, were
deleted. Information collected during the interview was reported in aggregate

with that of the other interviewees.

Results of the data collection survey included responses from all owners
contacted, regardless of procurement methods utilized. These recorded
responses to the survey are listed in appendixes C through U, which list each
question, as well as each respondent’s number and answer to the question. The

data collection analysis was limited to only those with experience in design-build.

There were twenty-one members on the MCUC list; of those seventeen
interviews were completed. The seventeen who completed the survey did so
after an initial phone conversation explaining the reason behind the call, which
enabled the researcher to get an email or fax number, and to set up a time for a
follow-up discussion regarding the questionnaire. All those who did not complete
the interview process were contacted in the initial phone call process, and had
been sent the survey questionnaire, but failed to respond. Repeated attempts
were made to take the data collection through an interview, but no further contact

could be made.

28

The data collection process was recorded on a spreadsheet, keeping track of the
last message sent, when the last actual contact was made, the date the survey
had been faxed or emailed, the date of the proposed interview, the actual
completed interview date, and also a column to note if design-build was not
utilized. Each owner’s file was updated with each attempt to contact, listing the
most recent date. After an interview was conducted, the date was recorded
under the correct column heading, and that owner was noted as being
completed. This aided the researcher in identifying who was completed, and
who required follow-up attention. The recorded dates reminded the researcher
when the last attempt had been made to contact the owners, so time could be
spaced between phone Calls. The researcher did not want to come across as
overly persistent, and alienate those owners whom he was asking for assistance.
Generally at least two days was left in between attempts; this gave the potential

interviewee a day to call back after the message was left.

A second sheet contained all those listed on the MCUC membership list with
addresses, phone numbers, fax numbers and member’s general information.
After the initial comact was made, email addresses and other important owner
information, such as secretary’s names and contact arrangements, were
recorded there. All names on the list have been suppressed to protect the
identity of each participant, as well as information supplied regarding their
company. Any taping of conversations was used solely for transcribing the

conversations, in the event that some information was not clearly written during

29

the discussion. Tapes were coded and destroyed upon completion of the data
collection process. Participants were asked if taping was acceptable; all asked

participants gave permission to record the conversations as requested.

Because of the small sample size, a statistical study of the data was not
applicable, so a qualitative analysis of the data was developed. The responses
were evaluated and placed into categories; the number of categories depended
on the given range of responses. All answers were recorded to assist in
validating the categories, as well as recording the approaches involved in

creating the categories.

All the information collected was written on a survey form for each interviewee.
When the interview was set, the date and time were recorded on a copied survey
and set aside until that date; this aided in keeping track of upcoming interviews.
These completed surveys were kept separate and noted as completed in the
order in which the interview took place. The collected information was organized
and placed into a spreadsheet. This master spreadsheet contained the data
from all the interviews and would aid in comparing information from the different

owners.
Each interviewee requested a telephone interview rather than in person, which

had many benefits and disappointments. The benefits included being able to

conduct more interviews than otherwise possible, in a shorter period of time, due

30

to no traveling around the state for data collection. Considering the distances
from the researcher to the owner’s facilities, versus the short duration of the

interviews, phone conversations were much more convenient.

This data collection period lasted much longer than originally anticipated, due to
the extra number of calls to be made. Downfalls associated with the phone
interview process included repeated calls needed to get through to the listed
owner representative (interviewee). After an initial contact was made, an email
address or fax number was obtained, so that the survey questionnaire could be
sent ahead of the follow-up interview. The interview time was arranged at the
interviewee’s convenience, generally within a week of the call, to allow time to
review and prepare for the questions. Many of these scheduled interview times
were met with a voicemail recording, so that the interview could not be completed
at that time. This meant another call to reschedule, and yet another for the
interview. Some second interview times were also missed, for various reasons,
which meant repeating the process once again. Numerous follow-up calls had to
be made to each owner representative before some questionnaires could be
answered. Six of the surveys were completed and emailed or faxed back, due to
the time constraints of the interviewee. At that point any further questions could
be quickly answered by telephone, rather than running through the entire phone

or personal interview process.

31

3.5 INTRODUCTION OF PROJECT EVALUATION FORM
The purpose of the interview survey was to collect data for use in development of
a Design-Build evaluation form (Appendix V). This form can assist other owners
and determine if design-build is the best method for project procurement. It was
expected that this form would use the following criteria to decide if design-build is
the correct method for a given project:

. Owner’s experience with construction methods and experience with

project type, schedule and cost, complexity of the project

. Simple or complex project type

. Negatives of design-build

. Owner trust

. Uncomfortable with design-build team not including owner

0 Partnership and who controls project, team should work together
The form was expected to consist of questions regarding project needs; the
owner would then select an answer with an accompanying numerical value.
These numerical values were to be totaled at the end of the form and related to
an answer key, which would suggest a possible construction method. This will
give criteria to judge the suitability of projects considered for design-build. During
pre-evaluation of the membership list, the researcher discovered that an
automotive company has put together an evaluation form for use in deciding
which construction method is best suited for their needs. This form was used as
a template form in this research. In this form, a point scale was assigned to the

questions, which suggested a method of construction based on the number of

32

points. The checklist created in this research focused on the possibility of
design-build as an appropriate construction method. This form differs from the
automotive company’s questionnaire, which suggested a variety of construction
methods.

3.6 PROOF OF CONCEPT

This form’s proof of concept was made through a second contact by telephone
with the sample group, respondents were asked for comments regarding the
project evaluation form. The form and the validation process were explained as
the deliverables of this research during the initial interview. The form was faxed
or emailed prior to contacting, so that the respondent could review it. The
researcher asked for comments on its effectiveness and how they, in their
experienced opinion, felt it could be of assistance to other owners. This would
enable the researcher to make adjustments to the form and aid in creating a

user-friendly format.

33

4.0 RESULTS AND SUMMARIZATION

4.1 INTRODUCTION

The sample group consisted of members associated primarily with large
commercial organizations, who invest hundreds of millions of dollars each year in
construction projects. The owners surveyed had an extensive background in
utilizing a variety of project delivery methods and provided an experienced view
of these delivery method selection criteria. Due to their ongoing need to
construct facilities, they typically track the cost effectiveness of their methods,

and have valuable experience to draw from in their successful paths.

Seventeen of the twenty-one members on the MCUC list were followed through
the data collection process. The remaining four members, for various reasons,
were unable to complete the survey. Those who could not be contacted for an
interview had potential for further interaction, but the lack of response on their
part led the researcher to believe there was no interest in furthering their
commitment. This led the researcher to believe that design-build was possibly a
method they failed to utilize and that they simply discarded the survey. Two of
the seventeen respondents surveyed had never used design-build, therefore,
they could not complete the survey. This resulted in fifteen who had responded
and were eligible to complete the questionnaire and follow through the data
collection process. Respondents six and seven were representatives of the

same owner, which had only constructed one design-build project. Rather than

34

duplicate this information, only respondent six was used in the analysis, reducing
the number used to fourteen respondents. For anonymity, all seventeen
respondents were assigned a survey number. This survey number, as shown in
the first column heading of the table, will refer to the respondents interviewed.
This numbering system will carry through the research, so the reader can easily
identify the respondent being discussed. As stated earlier, there were two
respondents that had not used design-build for project procurement, respondent
numbers four and nine. These respondents utilized other methods for
construction procurement, and since this research asks questions regarding their
most recent design-build project, their input was not considered in the analysis.
Respondent seven was in the same organization as respondent six, and that
company has only completed one design-build project, eliminating the need to
acquire the same information twice. Therefore, the contact was made, but no
information was collected from that respondent, since information on their only
design-build project had already been collected. This reduced the seventeen

contacted respondents to fourteen, who were eligible for the analysis.

Data from the remaining fourteen respondents was placed onto the spreadsheet.
This spreadsheet listed all answers given by an owner and allowed them to be
viewed together, for comparison purposes. The survey was broken down into
four categories, as explained in the methodology. Category one deals with
general demographics of the owner. Category two addresses selected

performance criteria, which they used in selecting design-build. The third

35

category addressed the decision makers in the organization, both for the recent
design-build project as well as a typical project. The last category questioned the

success of the recent project and compared this to a typical project success.

4.2 CATEGORY ONE

Category one consists of questions one through eight and addresses general
owner information. This category gives an owner and project background and
identifies project construction types, experience, facility characteristics, method
percentages and reasons behind method selection. Comparisons were made
throughout the survey between an owner’s most recent design-build project and

a typical construction project; this category compared facility characteristics.

4.2.1. CONSTRUCTION TYPES

This category started with general project and owner information, including the
contact person and email address, for further contact. Following this introductory
information was question one (Appendix C), which consisted of seven typical
construction types taken from Konchar’s research. The owner was asked to
select one that best fit their most recent design-build project. By using the most
recent project completed, any bias by the researcher or owner can be eliminated,
considering the project may or may not have been a success. (Many of the
building types recently completed using design-build utilized heavy industrial and
high technology as primary construction types.) These projects ranged from

automotive production and chemical processing plants, to automated warehouse

36

space, a research center and a staff-training center. Respondent five discussed
the only project that was a simple office addition; all others required a higher

level of technological construction knowledge.

In the fourteen useable responses, the respondents listed five of the seven
construction types on their most recent project. Seven responded that their
project was heavy industrial, three were high technology, two were simple office,

with one complex office and one light industrial. Refer to figure 1:

Construction Type

complex office-1
I light industrial-1

simple office '2 heavy industrial- ‘

I 7 1

high technology- I
3 .

Figure 1
These sample projects will be broken down in this research to explore design-

build as a procurement method and its outcome for success.

4.2.2 EXPERIENCE
Question two reviews the owner’s experience with the recent design-build

projects construction type. This question focuses on the owner’s experience with

37

this selected construction type (Appendix D). All of the companies have been
constructing for many years and have a great understanding of the procurement
process. Only respondent one had no experience with the construction type of
their most recent design-build project, which was a cancer research center. This
was a highly technological construction type, incorporating the latest in
technology from all major trades. The owner selected design-build for the ability
to have the construction entity provide preconstruction services within a
controlled environment. Three other owners, respondent numbers five, six and
sixteen, had a small amount of experience with their construction type, each one
in a slightly different situation. Respondent five generally produces large
processing plants and was in need of an office addition, a project type in which it
had a small amount of experience. Respondent six was in a similar situation in
that his/her firm mainly produced large industrial, but needed a high-tech training
facility. This project was financially based; they found the site, which was owned
by a developer who provided design-build services. Respondent sixteen was an
owner who constructs twenty thousand square foot warehouses using in-house
resources, but was in need of a two hundred thousand square foot warehouse.
This project was too large to be handled in-house, and they utilized design-build
for the low cost capability of a niche firm. The remaining owners were all

extensively experienced in the types they listed in the survey.

38

4.2.3 COMPARISON TO TYPICAL PROJECT
Question three compares the respondents latest project to a typical project type
(Appendix E). Respondents twelve and seventeen failed to answer this question.
Respondents one, five and six indicated that these were not typical construction

types. The remaining nine respondents considered this a typical type.

4.2.4 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
Question four asked respondents about the project characteristics of their most
recent design-build project (Appendix F). Question five then compared those
characteristics to typical project characteristics (Appendix G). These questions
asked for information concerning the number of floors, if the construction type
was new or a renovation, square footage, and specific building systems, such as
foundation and structure type, interior finishes, exterior enclosures, etc. These
answers ranged widely but were collected to see if there was any sort of pattern

in the make-up of a facility.

Eight of the recent design-build facilities constructed were one floor, with the
remaining six at two or more. The average for all was 1.8 stories; this excluded
one facility, since it consisted of six story silos and technically not useable floor
space. This was only slightly different from a typical project, for which

respondents reported five facilities with only one floor and nine with two or more.

39

In the area of new or renovated construction, the recently completed projects
were all new, with the exception of respondent eight, which was a renovation. In
contrast the typical projects varied, with six respondents involved in new
construction, three in renovations and four respondents constructing both types

in equal amounts.

Sizes of these projects ranged from four thousand square feet to six hundred
thousand square feet, these responses coming from owners five and ten. The
following chart shows a breakdown of square footages into seven categories,
each in one hundred thousand square foot increments. Figure 2 shows the
breakdown of facility size and the number of respondents that fell into that

category:

 

Facility Size of Recent Design-Build

600,000 sq ft and;

l

I 400000499000
‘ sq ft-1

   

200,000-299,000

sq ft-3 0-99,000 sq ft-8

I I I
l

100,000-199,000 “
‘( sq ft-1 ‘

Fifilréi 7' '

40

The largest percentage fell under one hundred thousand square feet. There was
no pattern in sizes, which was anticipated, since all companies are different and
will require various sized facilities to accommodate their needs. This question
showed somewhat the same results for the typical facilities, although three
respondents had typical facility sizes with a range of up to one million square

feet. The remaining numbers all had a wide range.

The specific building systems, which comprise the construction details and
assembly methods, varied in their characteristics. Each building system is
project Specific and depends on the project’s needs. Since many of the recent
facilities were one story, most were slab on grade. All remaining attributes:
foundation type, structure type, architectural interior finishes, exterior enclosures,
roofing, environment, electrical systems, controls and site characteristics were
examined. These all varied, because the construction types varied from office to
industrial. This variation is also caused by decisions of the architect and

engineer concerning what materials would be used.

4.2.5 DOLLAR VOLUME OF METHODS
Question six was designed to obtain information about the respondent’s design-
build experiences and practices (Appendix H). Respondent one failed to answer
this question, which addresses the percentage, by annual dollar volume, of each
construction method used. Information was sought regarding percentage of

project delivery by design-build, construction management, traditional design-bid-

41

build, or a hybrid method. A follow-up question was asked to determine if this
percentage was consistent over the past five to ten years. These percentages
allow the researcher to look at how much design-build is utilized in the large
commercial market, and if this has changed in recent years. Design-build has
become an increasingly important method in recent years, as seen in the
literature review section of this paper. The respondent companies' answers were
averaged and indicated that, by dollar volume, design-build is currently used
10.5%, construction management with 21.89%, and traditional design-bid-build
64.58%. Hybrids are also utilized, which are various combinations of these
three, as well as some others, are also used and constitute 19.15% of the

market. Figure 3 compares these responses to each other:

 

V w I

Percentage of Construction Methods, By Dollar Volume ‘

 

 

 

 

70
60 ‘
I g 50 I
l u:
5 40
S
e 30 I l
I :13 20 I
10 l——1 I I l
0
Design-Build Construction Traditional Design- Hybrid

Management Bid Build .
1 Construction Methods 1

r_ ., . 7 ,7 7, .7,

Figure 3
The large commercial market, due to their in-house design and engineering
capabilities, uses the traditional method heavily. They handle their construction

documents and then bid out the construction. This is due to the high level of

42

technical complexities in facilities required by the companies for specialized
projects. Many of the interviewees said they would use more design-build if they
could find firms that handled their needs. This is the situation, in some cases,
that led the owner to search for a firm capable of putting together a design-build
application. These owners are changing their production processes and need
new facility types to accommodate processes which they are not properly suited
to handle in-house. Respondents six, sixteen and seventeen have used design-
build for the first time on their most recent project. This shows potential for
increased future use of design-build, in the event that this first time was

experimental and the project was successful.

In researChing these four methods of procurement, respondent fifteen was the
only one to claim that design-build is utilized more than the other methods, with
33% of their total dollar volume. Design—build, construction management and
traditional design-bid-build split at 30% evenly with respondent ten, with the
remaining 10% a hybrid method. The remaining eleven respondents utilize the

other methods more than design-build.

4.2.6 POSSIBLE TRENDS
Question seven addressed the construction procurement methods used in the
past five to ten years, to determine any possible trends (Appendix I). This
question included respondents four and nine, since they will use design-build

heavily in the future, but they were not included in the remainder of the analysis

43

due to no experience at present. Respondent one did not answer this question.
The recorded trends, for these markets, shows that respondents two, five, six,
eight, twelve, thirteen, fourteen, sixteen and seventeen have been consistent in
their selections. They generally have been using the same percentage of each
method, and have not historically changed their procurement methods.
Respondents ten, eleven and fifteen are leaning towards an increase in design-
build and construction management, but did not set goals for the increase.
Respondents four and nine have stated that their use will increase to 80% in the
next five years; this is a rise from zero percent usage for both. One stated that
their decision to move into the design-build arena was encouraged by new
management, which is looking for new methods of constructing. Respondent
three will increase from a design-build usage of 1.5% to 85% in the next ten
years, due to an increased need to reduce project costs. Table 1 lists answers
given to methods used in recent years:

Table 1: Methods used in the past five to ten years

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Respondents
Number IAnswer
2 Consistent
3 Prefer DBB, next 10 yrs. 85% DB
'No 0/8 currently, will use 80% in next 5
4 ears
Consistent, using DIB last 15 yrs., a lot
5 of hybrid work
6 Benchmarking of all, typical DBB
Consistent, D/B constant

 

No 0/8 currently, will use 80% in next 5
ears

(0

 

 

 

44

 

D/B and CM have pulled from DBB due
10 to time constraints
More 0/3 in last 5 years, still project
pecific vs. standard used methods
11 spending on project type.
EBB, for large projects (30-50 million

 

 

 

nd up) use CM to manage project and

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

12 afety management
13 Consistent
14 Consistent
15 Leaningtowards CM and D/B
Has always been DBB, this is the first
16 0/3 project
17 Consistent

 

4.2.7 REASONS FOR USE OF DESIGN-BUILD
Question eight asked for factors that led to design-build method selection
(Appendix J). The two main reasons behind using design-build on these recent
projects were cost and cycle time reduction. These answers were given by most
of the respondents; some gave just one of the two, but both prevailed as primary
reasons. Respondent one wanted to incorporate the constructor and provide
preconstruction services within a very controlled environment. Respondent two
normally hires out the design of specialized projects, but in this case used
design-build for the whole project. Respondent eleven had a reduction of in-
house engineering services, allowing an opportunity to provide new services. To
paraphrase respondent fifteen, the selection of design-build is possible only
when they have a good job description, meaning a well-defined scope and price.

It is very important in the method selection process to look at the job description,

45

so that the boundaries can be set early, since they change frequently, and this

affects price escalations.

The traditional procurement method will work through the project design first
before taking it into the construction phase. This will allow the architect to
develop rough pricing during the design phase. Price, in this case, seldom
affects method selection, due to the need for quick project turnover. The daily
cost lost to zero production heavily outweighs construction cost, again due to the
nature of their companies and product. In one instance, building costs were
roughly twenty percent of the overall product manufacturing costs, a small portion
of total product costs. Table 2 includes paraphrases from all those responding to

question eight:

Table 2: Reasons that lead to design-build method selection

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Respondents

Number Answer
Alternate systems due mostly to the need
to have constructor providing
preconstruction services w/in a very

1 controlled environment.
When they must hire out design of

2 specialized projects, D/B isn’t utilized
Time constraints or some hybrid

3 modification

5 Cost and cycle time reduction
'Management and reporting of $200

6 million construction budget
Time reduction proven method selection

10 is project characteristics specific

 

 

 

46

 

Leveraging shrinking internal engineering
resources. Focus on core competency.
11 Reduced need for NE services overall.

 

12 Cost and speed of completion
Hybrid escalated due to new
philosophies by owners for quicker

 

 

 

13 roject times
Lack of in-house experience, found D/B
14 firm who specialized

 

Method selection depends on job
escription and will utilize D/B if they
have a good job description (well defined

 

 

15 cope and price).

Experienced lower costs for smaller
16 rojects
17 Cost effective

 

 

 

 

4.2.8 SUMMARY OF CATEGORY ONE
This first category covered general demographics, which included owner and
project information. This information gives an understanding of the owner’s
background and their reasons for selecting design-build. A majority of the
construction types selected were heavy industrial and high technology, which
many of the companies have been constructing for many years, so that they
have an extensive understanding of the procurement process. The project
characteristics varied depending on the type of project and their site conditions.
The typical project was one to two floors of new construction and was less than
one hundred thousand square feet. The specific building systems, which
included interior and exterior finishes, foundation and roofing types, structure,

and etc. varied depending on the construction type and owner’s budget for the

47

project. The respondents put their method usage into a percentage, based on
yearly dollar distribution: design-build is currently used 10.5%, construction
management 21.89%, and traditional design-bid-build 64.58%. Nine
respondents consistently used the same methods; six will increase design-build
and construction management utilization in the next five to ten years. The two
main reasons behind using design-build on these recent design-build projects

were cost and cycle time reduction.

4.3 CATEGORY TWO

Category two consists of questions nine through twelve and addresses owner’s
performance criteria. This category addresses project characteristics affecting
procurement selection, the performance criteria used in design-build method
selection, and reasons why it may have not been used on their most recent
project. Performance criteria were listed, and owners were asked to arrange
them in a numerical order of importance. They were also asked why their
highest valued selections were chosen, and asked to explain, if design-build
wasn’t utilized on their most recent completed project, why it was not used.
There were no comparisons made in this category, rather this category

addressed instead only recent design-build procurement.

48

4.3.1 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS AFFECTING PROCUREMENT

SELECTION
Question nine addressed how the project characteristics fromquestion four
affected the design-build procurement selection (Appendix K). The project
characteristics which affected the design-build procurement method varied
among companies, each of which seemed to have different needs. For instance,
there was a need for preconstruction input by reSpondent one for cost estimating,
a design to budget requirement, constructability consulting, value engineering to
stay within budget and a need to deal with project complexity issues. Other
respondents wanted to try a different method for cost reduction, or because in-
house resources were lacking, they needed to look into new methods.
Respondent eleven felt that their facility fit the “strategy” for design-build. A few
of the respondents answered that alternative methods for construction were
selected due to their ineXperience in construCting a new type of facility. Most of
these large companies are phasing out in-house resources and need viable
solutions for project procurement. Incoming new management is another reason
for these shifts in procurement methods, moving away from the traditional

design-bid-build.
These factors compel new decisions that those brought up in the traditional

methodology would not have considered. These owners also need to find

specialty design-build firms who can accommodate their needs. Table 3 shows

49

how the project characteristics, as cited by the respondents, affected the design-

build procurement selection:

Table 3: Project characteristics affecting design-build method selection

 

Respondents
Number Answer

Preconstruction cost estimating, design to
budget requirement, constructability
consulting, value engineering to stay w/in
1 budget, project complexity

Would like to find Design-Builder who
spgcializes in their needs

 

 

 

 

 

3 Wanted to try method for cost reduction
4 1N0 Design-Build

Selection process fits procurement by
5 written strategy

 

In-house staff not familiar with this type of
project, resources were issue, found site

6 which was developed by design-builder
Long term relationship with company familiar
with process, people, construction type, no

 

 

 

 

 

 

8 competitive process used
9 [No Design-Build
No time to wait on large projects, early
10 ecisions must be made
tilulti function office / lab / mini plant building
11 Fit strategy for design build.
12 None whatsoever

 

If they have resources in-house, Design-
Build will not be utilized. If resources are
low, Design-Build will be considered, but is
13 not the first choice.

Elo expertise in-house for facility

 

 

onstruction, had to out-source to specialty

 

 

 

14 ontractor out of state
Not at all, must have well defined scope for
15 Design-Build

 

 

50

 

For a recent warehouse project, design-build
was selected due to the experience and low-
16 cost execution of design-build niche firms.
Contractor selection based upon:
demonstrated expertise and track record for
successfulness. Items to be considered:
Eafety, cost, schedule, record for managing
nd working with trades

 

 

 

 

17

 

4.3.2 PERFORMANCE CRITERIA
Question ten asked the respondents to rank performance criteria numerically,
according to how they influenced their decision to use design-build on their last
project (Appendix L). The seven performance criteria and definitions in the
questionnaire are explained below. These criteria were identified in Songer’s
research. There is one criteria selection titled “other", which allowed owners to
fill in their own particular reSponse.
0 Establish cost- secure project cost, before the start of detailed design
. Reduce cost- decrease the overall project cost as compared to other
procurement methods
. Establish schedule- secure a project schedule before the start of detailed
design
. Shorten duration- decrease the overall project completion time as
compared to other procurement methods
o Reduce claims- decrease litigation due to separate design and

construction entities

51

. Large project size complexity- the project’s magnitude is too complex to
be managed through multiple contracts
. Constructability/ lnnovation- introduce construction knowledge into design
early in the process
0 Other— allowed respondents to give answer different from those above
These eight were arranged in order of importance, according to how much
influence they had in selecting design-build for their project. The results were
averaged and ranked against each other, giving the following order of
importance, including their overall average value with lowest value indicating the

most influence and highest value indicating the least influence:

shorten duration 2.08
reduce cost 2.55
establish cost 3.18
establish schedule 3.58

constructability/innovation 4.5
large size complexity 5.36
reduce claims 5.67
Figure 4 shows the averaged values, from most important to least important, the

numbers along the x-axis correspond to the numbers listed above:

52

Importance of Performance Criteria I

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6
2 E 5 I— F
«I g —‘
g o 4 . I
Q Q.
E E.
z .- 3
m In
° 8
: .2 .2
‘- to
1
I °
\ x .
s0 00" 0'” $6 s°° +52 x 9 I
{b 0 Q 0 40 \0 \0
6° 0 (a ‘0 o 0
6‘) ‘0\ 0° 0 00
{8’0 8’ $9 9 "$0 00 b\)
o 0 \‘ S '(1’ «9
é‘ \ 0° 9 I
e x e
\3 \3t
09
I 0°
‘ Criteria
Figure 4

Two respondents, eight and fourteen, filled in the “other" column, indicating
different reasons from those listed. The respondents indicated time and cost
reduction are the predominate criteria in selection of design-build as a project
delivery method. Constructability / Innovation was also an important criteria.
Project size / complexity and claim reduction were often cited in the literature
review as important reasons to use design-build but were not ranked highly by

these respondents.

53

4.3.3 HIGHEST RANKED CRITERIA
Question eleven addressed why the highest ranked criteria were used in the
selection process (Appendix M). Respondent eleven failed to answer this
question. Respondents eight, ten, twelve, thirteen and fifteen repeatedly
emphasized getting a product out as soon as possible, with cost being somewhat
of a concern. A lost day in production can result in large dollar loss, when
considering that production can run a twenty-four hour cycle. Another
respondent’s concern was to be able to get a product out before a competitor
stepped in and controlled the market for their product. Many of the buildings are
being designed at the Same time as the product. Respondent three and five
selected design-build for its aggressive schedule and budget constraints, as did
respondent six, who was also concerned with the scope management of the
project. Respondent five was also interested in having less to handle on their
end, rather than having to deal with both parties as in the traditional method.
Only respondent feurteen selected the “other" column as most important,
because they had no experience in this type, and the qualified design-builder
they found was the only specialized company capable of the unique construction
they needed. Selection of design-build by respondent one was to perform
miracles that the traditional methods won’t, and a “miracle” was defined as
anything they wanted, whenever they wanted it. Table 5 lists reasons, given by
the respondents, as to why they selected their highest ranked performance

criteria:

54

Table 4: Reason highest ranked criteria was used in selection process

Respondentslo‘
Number nswer
INeeds constructor at table to keep

project w/in limits and perform miracles
1 traditional methods don't

 

 

 

Projects are so large, difficult to get grip
2 on budget and schedule

Aggressive schedule and budget
constraints

4 No Design-Build
Cycle time and cost reduction, faster
and cheaper, less to handle on their

 

 

 

 

 

5 end.
Management of scope, schedule and
6 budget is very important to owner

 

Budget schedule- money allocated to
roject in a given year, must follow
pending schedule. Very important to
et product out as soon as possible.

on

 

9 No Design-Build

 

Auto industry is based on time, so time
10 of completion is highest priority

Speed of product to be manufactured in
facility was the reason for fast track

 

 

 

 

12 design and build delivery method.

To expedite process and get product out
13 as soon as possible

No experience, only experienced
14 ontractor _

 

anufacturing and get product out as

Ehorten duration of product
oon as possible.

15

16 Lower cost is the single biggest reason

For small projects or for owners with
17 limited resources

 

 

 

 

 

 

55

4.3.4 WHY NOT USED ON MOST RECENT PROJECT
Question twelve asks why design-build was not used on the respondent’s most
recent project, if it was not (Appendix N). Thirteen of the possible fourteen
answered this question; respondent eleven failed to answer. Respondents six,
eight, thirteen and sixteen replied that their not selecting design-build was due to
the availability of in‘house resources; this was the most common answer given.
Respondents ten, twelve and fifteen responded that there was poor definition in
the scope of work for the project, and therefore other methods were selected.
Respondents two and five both claimed a difficulty in finding a design-build firm
and attributed this problem to the poor marketing of available firms. Respondent
seventeen claimed that a higher cost associated with design-build procurement
was their reason for rejecting it, although this respondent’s criteria for
procurement did net include cost concerns; their main performance criteria
involved large project slze complexity instead. They typically select traditional
design-bid-build and will continue to do so. Respondent three also prefers
design-bid-build, whereas respondent one typically prefers construction
management rather than design-build. Respondent fourteen reported that
design-build projects were over budget in past projects and they now use

different methods as a consequence.

4.3.5 SUMMARY OF CATEGORY TWO
This category covered performance criteria used by owners in design-build

method selection. The project characteristics varied by owner, depending on

56

their needs. The average top ranking performance criteria were to shorten
duration and reduce cost, which were the criteria most often used in selecting
design-build. Reasons for this selection were due to the nature of what these
larger companies are producing and the need to get their products to the
consumers as soon as possible. In cases where design-build was not chosen, it
was most often due to adequate in-house resources; other reasons included poor

project scope and the difficulty of finding qualified firms.

4.4 CATEGORY THREE

Category three contains questions thirteen through fifteen, which address the
decision makers involved with construction procurement methods. These
questions ask who decided to utilize design-build, who typically would make a

method selection decision, and what is their experience in construction.

4.4.1 DECISION MAKERS
Question thirteen addresses who in the company decided to use the design-build
method for their most recent design-build project. This question is divided into
two categories, groups and individuals (Appendix 0). In four of the fourteen
responses, from respondents three, ten, thirteen and fifteen, the decision makers
were individuals. The remaining ten respondents reported team or group

decisions.

57

In question fourteen, which addressed who typically makes the method selection
decision, five of the fourteen respondents reported that individuals made their
selection decisions (Appendix P). Three of the respondents in question fourteen
were consistent with their answers given in question thirteen. The two remaining
were respondents one and six, who typically have an individual make their

method selection decisions.

In comparing these two questions together, nine of the fourteen reported having
the same person or team select the method procurement decisions for their
recent design-build project, as well as for typical projects. These questions
focused on the deciSion makers in the procurement process, to examine who

was responsible for the design-build decision.

4.4.2 DECISION MAKER’S EXPERIENCE
Question fifteen was designed to obtain information regarding the construction
experience of the decision makers (Appendix Q). This provided background
concerning their experience and knowledge in the construction arena and

revealed a wide range of years in construction project procurement.

4.4.3 SUMMARY OF CATEGORY THREE
This category sought information about the decision makers in the companies.
Teams made approximately two-thirds of the design-build decisions, with the

remaining one-third made by individuals. These results were very similar to the

58

typical project selection method. The experience of these people, as reported by
all respondents, was extensive. This category investigated the person(s)
responsible for the method selection decisions made by the owner. These
questions investigated the potential shift from those typically making decisions to
the possibility of new decision-makers investigating alternative solutions. Many
responded that their traditional method selection was due to older management,
and their inability to select alternative methods. This shift towards design-build
could be the result of different staffing who were reSponsible for method

selection.

4.5 CATEGORY FOUR

Category four contains questions sixteen through nineteen, which address
project success. These answers reported the respondents’ views on project
success. The answers cannot be supported with documentation. The degree of
success was not sought, juSt a yes or no answer. If their most recent design-
build project was a suct:ess, this category will compare its success to a typical
successful project. Factors that contributed to the success are sought to

determine what actually influenced this outcome.

4.5.1 SUCCESS OF PROJECT
Question sixteen addressed project success, and what would constitute project
success (Appendix R). Respdndent sixteen had not yet completed their design-

build project, and thus was unable to complete this category. The respondents

59

reported a high success rate, with twelve of the possible thirteen answers

positive.

Respondent thirteen gave the only negative response to design-build, because
the project failed in cost and schedule, owing to the design-builder’s lack of
technology resources. All positive responses reported the same definition of
success, which was that time and budget schedules were met. Although the
budget on respondent fourteen’s project ran over, they still considered it a
success because it came in on schedule. Respondent ten was extremely
satisfied, calling this a benchmark project, with the lowest cost per square foot
built within the organization. Some other qualifications were used in defining
success; respondent one commented that it was a design everyone loved and it
utilized quality construction. Respondent two also commented on the
exceptional quality, with high jobsite safety and zero claims. Respondents five
and fifteen used no recorded OSHA violations and overall safety as a definition of

success. Table 5 lists the responses to this question:

60

Table 5: Evaluation of project success, and what constitutes project
success

 

Respondents
Number Answer

Yes, under budget and ahead of
Ischedule, everyone loved design and
1 constructed quality

Yes, on time and budget, exceptional
quality, safe jobsite (no accidents), no

 

 

 

 

2 claims

Yes, on time and budget, acceptable
3 roject
4 No Design-Build

 

Yes, on time and budget, zero OSHA
recordables, operability- plant start up

 

5 and run properly
Yes, completed on schedule and within
6 budget

 

Yes, on time and budget, no disruptions
to ongoing operations, meeting job

8 requirements

9 |No Design-Build

Ees, extremely, time was met and was

 

 

 

vailable for next process. Cost per
quare foot was one of lowest.

 

10 Benchmark project
Yes, on time and on budget, customer
11 leased with the functionality.

 

Somewhat successful, Lessons learned
will be utilized for further successes with
12 Design and Build in the future

'No, failed in cost and schedule. Reason
for failure was a lack of technology

 

 

 

 

13 resource by design-builder.
es, but with problems. The facility
14 came in on schedule, but over cost.
Yes, on time and under budget, as well
15 as quality and safety.
llnitial project utilizing 0/3 not yet
16 completed.

 

Yes, on budget, on time, facility provides
return on investment that the funding
17 nalysis stated

 

 

 

 

61

4.5.2 COMPARISON TO TYPICAL PROJECTS
Question seventeen was asked to determine how the success of this recent
design-build project compared to that of a typical project (Appendix 8). .
Responses were broken down into three categories: more successful, typical and

less than typical success. Respondent seventeen failed to answer this question.

Six respondents, of the thirteen eligible responses, said that their design-build
project was a typical succesSful project. Five other respondents claimed that
their project was more successful than a typical success, and two responded that
their project was below the typical level of success. Respondent one stated that
utilizing design-build, which was a project type with which they had no
experience, was extremely trouble free and highly successful. Only respondents
thirteen and fourteen said that this project was not up to a typical success.
Respondent thirteen had both cost and schedule overruns, and fourteen said that
this was a little less than typical, due to cost overruns, but was successful in
meeting schedule requirements. These results show that of the thirteen
respondents, eleven are as successful or more successful than a typical project.
Table 6 compares their most recent design-build project success to a typical

project success:

62

Table 6: Comparison of recent project success to typical successful project

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Respondentsl

Number Answer

1 High- extremely trouble free
2 More successful

3 Tracks well

4 'No Design-Build

5 typical

6 Bigger deal than with most projects
8 typical

9 No Design-Build

10 time and cost are typical

11 typical

 

About the same; although the delivery
method has a small impact, the quality
of the individuals on the team is the
ultimate reason as to whether the

 

 

 

 

12 roject is a failure or a success.
13 Should come within cost and schedule
A little less than typical, due to cost
14 overruns.
Never miss the schedule, must be able
15 to react to changes
Better results in regard to cost and
16 schedule

 

 

 

 

4.5.3 CONTRIBUTING FACTORS TO SUCCESS
Question eighteen asks what factors contributed to the success of this recent

design-build project (Appendix T). There were three respondents who failed to

63

answer this question. ReSpondents one, five, six, eleven, twelve and seventeen
responded that a strong team and teamwork between members contributed to
the success of this project. Respondent eleven commented favorably on daily
interaction throughout the duration of the project between the owner’s project
team and the design-build contractors. Respondents five and eleven also
mentioned early sc0pe definition as a contributing factor to the team
performance. Two respondents, eight and fifteen, stated that the relationship
between the owner and constructor contributed to the success, as well as the
experience of the contractor in previous work completed for that owner. Answers
from respondents two, three and ten were the following: less responsibility for the
owner, close procedural fellow-up, and being able to accommodate changes
contributed to project success. Table 7 lists the factors that contributed to their

recent design-build project success:

Table 7: Factors contributing to success

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Respondentsl
Number Answer
1 «Outstancmg PM and engineer
Own personnel weren't walking
2 'obsite, less for owner to supervise
3 Follow prdCedures closely
4 |No Design-Build
trong project team, followed global
5 trategy, scope locked in early
Users acceptance, management of
6 SIS/B

 

 

 

64

 

Close interactions with owner,
understanding requirements, history
and experience w/ contractor

 

“No Design-Build

 

10

Ability to reach items in cost
effective manner, changes were
made to process and had to
accommodate flexibility and
reaction time

 

11

Project Team & Design Build
contractors’ daily interaction for the
duration of the project. Same
definition of success factors listed
above for both. Monitoring progressi
as job progresses & reportirg

 

12

Good quality designer and builder

 

13

Was not a success

 

15

Il'hey have limited their General
Contractor list to six, these all have
a good knowledge of how they
operate and are well adapted.

 

17

 

Good scope definition in sufficient
detail for good cost estimating, good
team work between owner and
roject team

 

 

Question nineteen asked if the criteria changed through the course of the project
(Appendix U). Two of the respondents did not answer this question. Ten of the
possible twelve responded that the criteria did not change through the course of
the project. Respondents ten and thirteen both reported criteria changes.
Respondent ten stated that there were adjustments in the structural loading,

which in turn changed the project’s characteristics. Respondent thirteen, who

4.5.4 PROJECT CRITERIA CHANGE

65

 

also stated that the project was unsuccessful, said that the criteria changed from

schedule to cost criteria.

4.5.5 SUMMARY OF CATEGORY FOUR
This last category has given information concerning project success, and what
constitutes project success to the respondents. Twelve of the thirteen responded
that their recent design-build project was a success, and that schedule and
budget were the leading factors in this definition of success. In comparing this
project to a typical successful project, eleven were found to be as successful or
more successful than a typical project. Leading contributing factors to this
success were strong team and teamwork, early scope definition, relationship

between the owner and constructor, and prior experience of the contractor.

4.5 CHAPTER SUMMARY

This chapter presented the data collected from this research, which sampled
large commercial owners in the private sector and addressed their understanding
of utilizing design-build as a construction procurement method. This data gave
insight into owners’ project types and characteristics, their performance criteria,
the decision-makers’ experience and project success. This collective information
establishes project indicators useful to owners considering design-build as a

procurement method.

66

There appears to be a positive future for design-build, considering that six of the
fifteen respondents claim that they will use it increasingly in the next five to ten
years. Another contributing factor is the high success rate of these recently
completed projects, since twelve of thirteen respondents considered their project
to be a success, with eleven of thirteen responses being as successful or more
successful than a typical project. All these respondents had extensive
experience in construction and therefore had knowledge in procurement

methods.

The information collected in this chapter has been broken down into four groups
of responses that accounted for owners’ selection of design-build. Reasons for
not selecting design-build were considered equally important, since these
reasons will also assist owners in understanding what is needed for design-build
to be effective. The groups were formulated after examination of the survey
responses. Categories one and three of the survey gave general owner and
decision maker’s information, which assisted the researcher in understanding the
respondent’s background. Categories two and four supplied information that
assisted in putting together the evaluation form. These reasons will be utilized in

the Design-Build Criteria Evaluation Form, which is addressed in chapter five.

67

5.0 DESIGN-BUILD CRITERIA EVALUATION FORM

5.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter introduces the Design-Build Criteria Evaluation Form, and explains
its purpose. This form was designed to assist owners who were interested in
utilizing the design-build procurement method. It evolved from the data in this
research, which was collected from large commercial owners in the private

sector.

This form will aid owners interested in using design-build as a procurement
method of construction. The owners can reference the form with their project
information to decide whether design-build may be a procurement solution. The
purpose behind this form is to allow potential design-build users to evaluate their
project and better understand the criterion that best matches this method. This
form will not make a design-build procurement decision, but rather allow the
owner to understand the performance criteria that design-build may be more
successful at completing. The owner’s question of whether design-build may be
a viable solution for their project may now be a more informed and educated

decision, based on specific project information.
It was decided that this form should take on the attributes of the survey and

respond to the data collected from the owners, which reflects the respondents’

needs and what has previously been successful on recent projects. The form

68

Includes criteria that are based on the results given in the data collection, which

are further discussed in this chapter.

5.2 PRESENTATION AND DISCUSION

The form, as seen in Table 8, is comprised of two sections, which consist of
project characteristics and organization information. The form is preceded by an
introduction that explains the purpose, content and evaluation process involved
in its utilization. These are all concerns for owners interested in utilizing design-
build as a procurement method. Criteria, such as, project scope and definition,
single point of accountability, schedule and budget were addressed in this form.
The information contained in this form is explained following Table 8. This form
was sent to the owners who responded to the survey for their response regarding

its effectiveness in their organization.

Table 8, Design-Build Criteria Evaluation Form

Introduction

This form has been divided into two sections, which include project
characteristics and company information, which will both aid in indicating if
design-build is a favorable construction procurement method. This form has
been designed to assist owners, who have an interest in design-build, but are
unsure if they can benefit from its use.

Section One:

Section one of this form utilizes project characteristics found to be useful in the

procurement of design-build projects. Please review each item of this form and

69

indicate the importance level. Responses are based on a scale ranging from one
to five, five being the highest level of importance. Please select one that relates
to your project characteristics for the design-build criteria listed.

Section Two:

Section two of this form utilizes information concerning your organization, such
as general demographic and procedural methods. There are five responses
ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree. Please select the response

that best reflects your organization.

Please complete both sections, and then evaluate your answers. If your answers
tend to group on the left side, design-build may be a favorable method for your
project. If the answers group more to the right side an alternate method, such as
construction management or design-bid-build, may be more effective. If answers
are a balanced response of both sides, it is up to the owner to decide which
items are more important and what method will accommodate their needs, based

on an informed decision.

The form is intended to act as a guide, however the person evaluating should
decide for him or herself whether their criteria tend to favor design-build. It is
assumed that persons filling out this form understand and have experience in

different construction procurement methods.

70

10

11

12

13

14

SECTION one: Highly important

Project Characteristics: 5 4

Reduce project duration

Prepare overall project schedule early in
design phase

Early procurement of critical materials
with long lead times

Ability to fast track (start construction before
construction documents are finished)

Integration of construction expertise with
architectural expertise early in the project

Single point of accountability (by hiring one
firm to handle design and construction)

Constructability reviews during design phase

One team working together on specialized
and technical project types

Established working relationship between
architects and contractor

Reduced number of communication lines
between parties involved in project

Ability to proceed with project prior to having a
completely defined project scope and definition

Incorporating value engineering, life cycle
costing and innovation by construction entity
early in development

Establish early, and more accurate
project budget

Ability to lock into Guaranteed Maximum Price
before architect finishes documents

71

No importance

Design-Build Criteria Evaluation Form

SECTION TWO:

Strongly Somewhat No Somewhat Strongly
Organization Information Agree Agree Opinion Disagree Disagree

1 Owner is qualified to act as organization’s
representative for design and construction

process

2 Owner utilizes experienced in-house
construction department

3 Owner can make decisions based on
extensive construction experience

4 Owner has formal interview process to
qualify design-build firms

Owner has strong design scope and
5 detailed

project specifications

6 Owner does not require third party project
oversight

7 Owner feels comfortable with design-build
team constructing facility without third

party supervision

8 Owner policy does not restrict use of
design-build

Table 8, Design-Build Criteria Evaluation Form

Section one contained project characteristics. These are the characteristics that
owners use in considering design-build as a construction procurement method.
The first four project characteristics on the form address project schedule. These
include reducing project duration, preparing a project schedule early in the

design phase, early procurement of critical materials with long lead times and the

72

ability to fast track. Reducing project duration was the highest ranked
performance criteria found in this research. The responding commercial owners
are generally constructing heavy industrial and high technology facilities, with
quick construction turnover needed for efficient development of products. The
manufacturing market is designing products at the same time the facilities for
their production are designed. Design-build is a method capable of producing at
this accelerated pace. Another important design-build criteria was the ability to
prepare a project schedule early in the design phase, due to the construction
entity being incorporated early in the project. This also allows critical materials to
be ordered, which are known to have long lead times in procuring. There are no
job delays associated with traditional methods, since materials are ordered
before construction documents are completed and put out to bid. Fast tracking
the project, which is a method of completing a portion of the design and starting
construction even before the rest of the project is finished. For example,
completing the foundation plans and starting to dig before the remaining
packages are finished would be fast tracking. Design-build can accomplish this

since the contractor is already on the job and ready to begin.

Items five through nine addressed both parties involvement in the project. This
included the following criteria: the integration of construction expertise with
architectural expertise early in the project, single point of accountability,
constructability reviews during the design phase, one team working together on

specialized and technical project types and an established working relationship

73

between architects and contractor. Integrating both parties was discussed in the
scheduling portion of the form, due to its ability to reduce schedule, but there
may be other reasons an owner would want to have both teams working together
from the start. The construction entity brings their expertise together with the
designer’s expertise during the design phase, allowing them to work as a team
and understand each other’s concerns for the completed project. On projects of
technical and specialized nature, this early integration can also be a benefit. This
also allows the contractor to address constructability issues associated with the
design, reducing expensive construction methods and materials later in the
construction pro¢ess. This integration also creates a single point of
accountability for the owner, who now has one contract for the project’s
completion, rather than the traditional two. An established, long term working
relationship between the architect and constructor reduces conflicts that can later

develop between the two.

The next characteristic addresses the importance of reduced communication
lines between those parties involved in the project. Design-build is a combined
contractual agreement between the architect and the builder. This union
removes some communication lines typical of a traditional method, by eliminating
the separate contract between the architect, builder, and project owner.
Reducing these communication lines can produce a more efficient process for

project procurement.

74

Criteria thirteen addresses owners considering design-build and their need for
well-defined project scope in early project stages. This was found in the
literature review, as well as from the survey responses as to why design-build
was selected and what contributed to the success of the project. Owners stayed
away from this method if scope and project definition were not clearly defined

early, and stated that traditional procurement worked better in that situation.

It may also be a benefit of the owner to incorporate value-engineering, life cycle
costing and innovation into the project early in the design phase. This is one
more element that design-build is able to incorporate due to the assistance of the
contractor at an early stage. The value engineering and the construction
innovation will assist at the current stages by adding value to the design and
construction method expertise. Life cycle costing examines the money needed
to maintain the facility in the future, long after the construction has been
completed. It may be wise to invest more funds now in the project cost due to

the overall savings further through the course of building operations.

The last two project characteristics addressed project budget. Item fifteen was
the ability to establish an early project budget, followed by the ability to lock into a
Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) at an early stage. Data collected indicated
scheduling to be slightly more utilized than budget, which the researcher feels
may be different in the smaller commercial market, where companies need to

also be conscious of the project budget.

75

This concludes section one, which addresses project characteristics, and the
range of importance each item had on an owner’s project. This range, from high
to no importance, will assist the owner in making a project specific decision, this
differs from section two, which allows the owner to address the organization’s
characteristics. It could be argued that many of the items listed could achieve
similar results by using an architect/engineer (A/E) or a construction manager
(CM). This research is based on a typical situation, and not using special
circumstances in which the NE or CM is contracted to accommodate a particular
item for the owner, such as an early project budget or constructability reviews
during the design phase. This typical situation consists of an architect following a
traditional scope of work, including design and construction drawings, which

focus on producing documents for the builder to construct.

The second section contains eight items, which address organization information.
This information describes the owner, and whether they agree or disagree on
those listed, as to how these items pertain to their organization. This range
varies from strongly agrees to strongly disagrees, as well as a “no opinion”
category placed in between them. The first item addresses the owner’s
qualifications to act as his or her own representative for the design and
construction process. By hiring a design-build firm, there becomes a need for

owners to oversee the design-build team and be able to address problems that

76

take place during the course of the project. This requires experience in

construction that allows them to direct and resolve.

The second item addresses the utilization of experienced in-house construction
staffing. This may depend on whether or not the owner has the availability of
these staffing resources. In many cases, this in-house staff is responsible for
overseeing the project on behalf of the owner. If the owner does not have in-
house staff to utilize and must answer no opinion, then the following item
indicates that the owner can make decisions based on an extensive construction

experience, in order to direct the construction team.

A formal interview process is needed in selecting a design-build firm, since this
will be the one team to put the project together. This is also needed in a
traditional method, but the owner will have the assistance of the architect in
selecting a qualified constructor for project completion. Owners must be

knowledgeable in design-build, in order to correctly interview a design-build firm.

In order to protect themselves during the construction process from costly
change orders, an owner must put together a well-defined project scope and
detailed specifications. This lays a strong foundation for the project and gives
the architect and builder project direction. Without a well-defined scope, there
are many gaps in what the owner may expect as a final outcome. These

inconsistencies will require changes to be made, which generally are costly. In

77

the accelerated schedule of design-build, the owner should go into the project

knowing exactly what he/she wants, allowing nothing to be left out.

Owners may not require third party oversight, which they are able to utilize in a
traditional method, since the owner has contracts with both parties and can direct
their actions. The architect, in a traditional contract, will also act as a
representative for the owner, who is knowledgeable in the construction process.
The owner may contract with a consulting party, perhaps a construction

manager, for project oversight and to represent the owner.

Although the third party oversight may not be a requirement, the following item
addresses the owner’s comfort level with the design-build team constructing
without the owner having third party supervision. If the owner fails to feel
comfortable with the design-build team working without their supervision, due to
the single contract with both parties, then a more traditional approach may work
better, unless the owner feels comfortable with hiring a separate third party
overseer, such as a construction manager. There needs to be trust between the

parties, if the owner fails to supply supervision, for a solid relationship.

The last item addressed that the owner does not restrict the use of design-build.
Design-build is a method gaining in recent popularity, but some companies are
using the same methods they have been for many years. This may be the result

of seasoned managers not interested in considering alternate methods. This

78

may not be a written policy, but it management will not consider it, for whatever

reason, then it may take some time before an opportunity will present itself.

Section two addressed organizational information, and asked the owner to agree
or disagree with the items presented. This asked the owner to evaluate his or
her own organization, and decide if design-build may work in their working
environment, based on their own information. Design-build can work in a variety

of environments, but may be better suited for specific purposes.

5.3 VALIDATION

The eligible respondents who responded to the initial survey questionnaire were
asked to review this form. Upon completion of the survey, the interviewee
explained to the respondent how their answers would be used in developing a
project evaluation form. This design-build evaluation form would become a tool
valuable to owners interested in utilizing design-build, as well as to design-build
contractors. This form would assist owners in deciding if design-build is a
potential procurement method for their project, also for design-build contractors
The form was created and pre-evaluated with two vice-presidents of a large
Detroit, Michigan based construction company, who also handle architectural and
development services. The form was given to them without verbal instructions,
just as the respondents would be receiving it. The idea was that the forms
introduction would explain how the form is to be filled out and evaluated upon

completion. Both made comments on their comprehension of the form’s

79

instructions, as well as the content of the form’s body. These comments gave
the researcher outside opinions of the form before distribution to the sample
group. Revisions were made based on these comments, which included
sentence structure and grammar, form content and evaluation instructions. One
project characteristic was eliminated, since it was too similar to another
characteristic already listed. Two other items on the form were reworded, since

their intended meaning was unclear.

After the form was revised, it was sent out to the fourteen survey respondents by
email and fax. Of those fourteen, seven responses were received by email.

Only respondent six had Changed jobs and left no forwarding address, this
resulted in undeliverable email, and was sent back to the researcher. The
remaining six reviewed the form and commented on its content and ability to
assist owners. The researcher received these comments, and incorporated them
into the final draft. Follow-up phone calls were made to those who were
unresponsive, one week after the reviews were due. One reSponse was
received as a result of these phone calls. The following responses were received
from the survey respondents, and are listed in the order the researcher received

them.
Respondent two claimed that the overall form was a “good set of documents”. A

comment was made in regards to number fourteen in section one. It was further

stated that, ”In addition to guaranteed maximum price, it is extremely important

80

for us to have a guaranteed completion date and a guarantee that whatever is
build will work right the first time.” This was considered, although design-build is
the only method that can lock into a guaranteed maximum price before the
architect finishes the construction documents. The traditional method can
guarantee the project cost, but only after the documents are completed and they
are brought onto the project. A construction manager can budget the project, but
cannot guarantee a final cost. The key to that characteristic is the timing of the
price guarantee. The guaranteed completion date was added to the form, since
design-build can also provide schedule before the architect finishes, since they
are already part of the team and familiar with the project’s requirements. This
respondent passed the form onto others in the company for their input as to how

this might benefit them as well.

Respondent fourteen stated that the form looks “fine”, and said that “section two
might be better than section one, answers to those questions would make you
move to design-build as an option.” This was somewhat confusing since the
sections were separate due to their content, section one addressed project
characteristics and section two organization information. The two were both
needed for understanding the owner and their specific project needs, and the
order in which they were listed had no bearing into their design-build decision-
making process.

Respondent eleven asked if the researcher had considered using a weighted

scoring system to numerically value an answer. This was thought to potentially

81

rank answers and assign appropriate values to the answer, which might
”automate” the decision making process. This technique had been considered
early in the forms development, but it was felt that the evaluation system selected
would better assist, and not be as direct as a numbering system. In this
evaluation, the owners can easily identify answers that may not support design-
build, or follow the pattern of other answers. The researcher wanted to stay
away from automating answers, and rather allow the respondents to decide the

importance of the listed item, and decide how answers compare to others listed.

Respondent thirteen reviewed the form and stated, “they do serve the intent as a
guide to aide in the decision-making process.” This response gave no criticisms

to the form, but did find the document to be of assistance.

Respondent ten reviewed the data and stated, “I think it looks good. I am
looking toward to trying it out on our next real life project evaluation. I

will also be reviewing it with our purchasing department as soon as time allows.”
This was another positive response, but without criticism. Many of these large
companies rely on their purchasing department for funds for their projects, and
having them incorporated into the decision making process can be very useful.
These departments are knowledgeable in construction processes, and may also

find this type of document useful.

82

Respondent one stated, “It would seem that only questions 6, 8 and 10 have any
merit in terms of selecting D-B over CM. All of the other questions have the
ability of being equally provided with D-B and CM. 1 think your real question is
how do these desires compare with the same abilities in a traditional

design-bld award-construct environment.” The form introduction stated that this
form may assist owners in deciding if design-build may be a favorable method for
their project, andthat construction management and the traditional method are
available as other sources of project procurement. The researcher would agree
that project characteristics six, eight and ten are design-build specific, but would
disagree that the remaining characteristics are of equal merit in selecting design-
build and construction management. Construction management shares many
attributes with design-build, but there are also many differences between the two.
The main difference found in design-build is that the contractor, responsible for
constructing the project, is brought into the project during the design phase. This
allows for early procurement of materials that the contractor will need,
construction can start without having a completed set of drawings, the project
has an established team early in the project and there is a maximum guaranteed

price or schedule early in the project.

The introduction further explained that the form is intended to act as a guide, and
that the person evaluating the form should decide for him or herself whether their
criteria tend to favor design-build. It is assumed that persons filling out the form

understand and have experience in different construction procurement methods

83

and can sort through the attributes of both. This form introduces criteria that

design-build utilizes, but the criterion is not limited to design-build only.

84

6.0 CONCLUSION

6.1 SUMMARY

When constructing facilities, owners can select from various procurement
methods. This research addressed the performance criteria of large commercial
owners in the private sector who have utilized the design-build method. By
understanding the performance criteria utilized in this selection process, owners
may be assured a successful design-build experience. Design-build is quickly
gaining popularity among both public and private owners, who are looking for
alternative solutions to their traditional procurement methods. One of the main
reasons behind this increase in popularity is design-build’s ability to shorten
project duration, because it incorporates both the design and construction teams

into one entity.

The main goal was to identify the criteria that owners use in design-build method
selection. The respondents were to numerically rank the seven criteria taken
from Songer’s research, which included the following: establish cost, reduce cost,
establish schedule, shorten duration, reduce claims, large project size complexity
and constructability / innovation. The highest-ranking criteria, which was an
average of all respondent’s answers, was to shorten project duration. Reducing

project cost was selected as the second highest ranked performance criteria.

85

Project success was also addressed, to indicate whether the performance criteria
were properly selected. Respondents were asked for their definition of success
and also if their most recent design-build project fit this description. Success was
defined as a project that was both on time and within budget, by all those
responding. With the exception of two, all remaining projects utilizing design-
build were found to be successful under this description. One project failed in
both areas, and another project failed in budget, but was still considered as
successful since it met the schedule requirements. There were other definitions

of success that accompanied these two, which are shown in Appendix R.

To understand an owner’s ideas of success, it is important to also know the'
needs of the owner. This information was addressed in several ways, first in
gaining a general knowledge of the owner and his or her background, as well as
his or her project background. Molenaar specified several project characteristics
that were crucial to project success: well-defined scope, shared understanding of
scope, owner’s sophistication in construction, adequate owner staffing,
established budget and completion date. This research addressed these
characteristics in the survey questions. Budget and schedule were answers
found repeatedly in the following categories: the highest-ranking criteria for
owners selecting design-build, the majority of reasons leading to design-build
method selection and the respondents’ definition of a successful project. Defined
scope and project definition were also used as reasons for design-build method

selection, as well as factors contributing to project success. Each of the

86

respondents had extensive backgrounds in construction, which enabled them to

make knowledgeable procurement decisions.

6.2 CONCLUSIONS

This research concluded that the highest ranked performance criteria utilized by
the respondents interviewed was to shorten duration. The second highest
ranked criterion was reduction of project cost. These were both utilized in
selecting design-build as a construction procurement method. These criteria, as
well as others identified in design-build method selection, were used in

completing the design-build criteria evaluation form.

The design-build criteria evaluation form was developed to assist owners
interested in design-build, who may be inexperienced in different construction
methods. This form addresses performance criteria of design-build useful in
making a procurement selection decision. Owners can review the questions on
the list pertaining to design-build and evaluate their answers by their answer
location on the importance level of the form. This form used items consisting of
project characteristics and owner’s organization information. Owners whose
answers group to the left side of the form are favorable for utilizing design-build,
based on the conclusions from the collected data in this research. Answers
grouping toward the right side of the form may want to consider alternate
methods, such as construction management or traditional design-bid-build.

These alternate methods have their own performance criteria, not examined in

87

this research, which may be more beneficial in successfully completing project

needs.

Once the process of procurement has been selected, it is important to
understand some difficulties associated with utilizing design-build. Problems
were addressed regarding the ability to locate qualified design-build firms with
the staffing resources to handle the type of project an owner needs, while
performing technical project design and construction. Firm specialization is
essential for many technical projects, which were identified by many of the
respondents in this research. An extensive search to find suitable firms to select
from, with the experience to successfully complete the project type, may be
required. It was stated by respondent two that there was little marketing by
design-build firms that specialize in technical project types. This has potential for
further research, which can address methods for locating the appropriate firm

with specific project requirements.

There were other identified results not incorporated into the method selection
form, but were important pieces of information for potential design-build users.
This information is addressed below and should be considered if design-build is a

potential procurement method.

Owners lacking a clear project scope would be encouraged to utilize a more

traditional method, where the architect and owner can work together to develop a

88

defined scope of the project, before sending documents to bid. Bidding
documents are critical for project pricing, therefore, it is crucial to list project
requirements in the specifications prior to design. This will eliminate high change
order costs that will come up later in the project, since these issues were not
considered early in the project. If the owner was still insistent on utilizing design-
build, it would be beneficial for him or her to hire a consultant, whether this
person is within the design-build firm or from an outside source to assist in

organizing the owner’s ideas and assembling the project program.

Firms should be qualified for the project type they are being considered to
construct, which is an important process for owners in search of potential firms.
Finding qualified firms, that have completed similar project types, will ensure an
understanding of the owner’s criteria and the firm’s ability to complete the project
type desired. The potential design-build team should have an understanding of
the detailed project scope and definition, which will aid in reducing potential

problems.

Many owners utilize the traditional design-bid-build construction method due to
the availability of in-house staff to provide design and engineering services.
These staffing resources had difficulty accommodating any projects outside of
their typical scope. Many felt that their own staff was the best qualified for their
own work and would not consider outsourcing the work unless it was absolutely

necessary. Today, many of these companies are downsizing these engineering

89

and construction divisions. They are looking for alternate solutions which provide
similar results. Many traditional method projects are performed with in-house
staffing, which may include architects, engineers or construction personnel. At
times, this in-house staff may not be available, since they are needed on other
projects. Design-build was utilized for its ability to perform without in-house staff
support. Although other methods can be utilized without availability of in-house
staff, the single point of accountability found in design-build reduced the number

of contacts needed and reduced the complication of maintaining projects.

Other repeated in-house problems were, in-house inability to handle project size

and their lack of experience within an unfamiliar project type. ln-house staff were
also unable to perform on larger scale projects, thus causing a need to outsource
to design-build firms. Typical projects were smaHer in scale and easier to handle
with current staff. ln-house staffing also lacked the experience to construct new
project types, such as high technology and heavy industrial, since they are

knowledgeable in a specific project type typically constructed by the company.

6.3 RECOMMENDATIONS

Throughout this research, the researcher came across many opportunities for
further investigation in other areas related to this topic. These opportunities
presented themselves as this research progressed and were collected

separately.

90

An area of future research would involve conducting a statistical study approach.
Major insights can be identified for later studies utilizing random sampling and
statistical methods. Future research might involve a follow-up of this qualitative
research with quantitative statistically based research. This research dealt with a
small sample group, which was not conducive to quantitative study. More
statistical analysis would support the findings of this research, which lacked

numerical results.

Another area of research addresses the high number of respondents who stated
that it was difficult to locate appropriate design-build firms to accommodate their
project types. These owners are constructing new facility types with new
technology, with which their in-house resources are unfamiliar. Due to poor
marketing by the design-build firms, it is difficult to locate specialty firms for
producing these high technology projects. Somehow these two groups, owners
and design-build firms, need to find each other. The design-build firms must
market themselves better so that customers can find them. Research can then
be done to find out what types of specialty firms are available and what
marketing approaches they are currently using. The deliverable would be to
describe the various specialty firms and put together marketing ideas for them to
pursue, based on owner’s needs and their past locating practices. The owners of
one company in the survey that failed to find design-build a success said it was

due to a lack of technology on the design-builder’s part. Many of those firms are

91

not fully qualified and fail to produce in a true essence of the capabilities of what
design-build has to offer. The researcher’s opinion is that there are many firms

claiming to be design-builders, but are doing so just to jump on the “bandwagon”
of success that design-build is creating. Both builders and owners in the industry

need to be properly educated, to ensure claims match what is expected.

Further difficulty in this research was defining the complexity of the projects used
in answering the questionnaire and how this affected the design-build process
and its success. Research can analyze owners’ projects and the level of
difficulty involved in each project’s procurement. Results could perhaps give
insight into the success of design-build with respect to a specific building type

with varying complexities.

This research focused on the design-build criteria selection of large commercial
owners. Additional research can explore smaller commercial companies and
compare the collected data with those presented here. The researcher feels that
the performance criteria of smaller owners may differ from those of the larger
owners, due to the available resources associated with large commercial
companies. These resources would be in-house engineering and construction
staff, financial support of large projects, as well as the turnover time of producing
an entire product. Time was an extremely important element in start to finish

production, which was handled with large construction budgets. This may not be

92

possible in smaller companies, where the budgets for production do not allow

accelerated schedules.

This research addressed owners in the private sector and their concerns for
method selection. Potential research lies in the investigation of public sector
concerns for construction procurement and the comparison of the two sector's
needs. Public officials and private sector owners have different concerns for
project procurement, mainly due to the ownership of the facility. Public officials
spend money allocated to their projects, whereas private owners are spending
their own money, and overspending can draw from their personal profits. These
differences of public and private may be directly related to the selected

performance criteria.

6.4 LIMITATIONS OF RESEARCH

This research was limited by the geographical location of the sample group. This
sample was taken from the Michigan Construction Users Council, which is a
Michigan-based organization of large commercial owners who invest sizeable
amounts of money in each construction year. This group was selected because
it is comprised of owners, which was the targeted audience for this research.
The group is found from state to state, but the Michigan chapter was utilized due
to the location of the researcher. Respondents in other geographic regions may
respond differently to this survey, due to varying conditions that would change

their selection criteria. The 21 companies were some of the largest commercial

93

companies in the state, with the exception of a few. These large companies
included automotive manufacturers, chemical manufacturers and pharmaceutical
companies. Due to the size of these companies, their answers may be different

than those of smaller, privately held companies.

94

REFERENCES
Journal Articles:

Ahuja, A. (Jun 1999). “Design-build from the inside out” Consulting-Specifying
Engineer. Denver

Beck, P. (Jul 1997) “The design-build tug of war” Consulting-Specifying
Engineer. Denver

Design-Build Institute of America’s 1999 “Professional Design-Build Conference”
(Dec 1999). “Design-Build is the Draw” Building Design & Construction

Dixon, J. (Oct 1998) “DBIA sets agenda for pushing design-build in the market
place” Engineering News Record, New York ‘

ENR (Sept 1999) “Design Firms See Design-Build Growing But They Remain
Wary” Engineering News Record, New York

ENR (June 1998) “The Top 100 Design-Build Firms” Engineering News Record
New York

Friedlander, M. (Jul 1999). “In defense of designer-led design-build”
Consulting-Specifying Engineer. Denver

Gegenheimer, C. (May 1998). “When Design Build Loses” Consulting-Specifying
Engineer. Denver

Gransberg, D. (December 1999). “Change Procurement Laws” Engineering
News Record, New York

lchniowski, T. (Feb. 1998). “Prison System Embraces Design-Build”
Architectural Record, New York

Konchar, M. (Nov/Dec1998). “A Comparison of United States Project Delivery
Systems” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Reston

Krizan, W. (Nov. 1997). “Design-Build has Cost, Time Edge” ENR, New York
McKew, H. (Jul 1999). “Single Source Solutions” Engineered Systems, Troy

Raco, G. and Nelson, K. (August 1993). “Performance criteria in new plant
design.” Beverage Worid

95

Sanvido, V., Grobler, F., Parfitt, K., Guvenis, M. and Coyle, M. (March 1992),
”Critical Success Factors for Projects," Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, ASCE , Vol. 118, No. 1, , pp. 94 to 111.

Songer, A. and Molenaar, KR. (1996). “Selecting design/build: Public and private
sector owner attitudes.” Journal of Management In Engineering 12(6), 47-53.

Tarricone, P. (Jan. 1997). “Project delivery comes in all flavors” Facilities
Design and Management, New York

Tenah, K.u (March 2000). “The Design-Build Approach: An Overview” Cost
Engineering, Morgantown

Tulacz, G. (June 15, 1998) “The Top 100 Design-Build Firms, Construction
Management for Fee Firms, Construction Management at Risk” Engineering
News Record New York

Zak, P. (Aug 1999). “Project delivery: Change is good...sometimes”
Consulting-Specifying Engineer. Denver

Textbook:

Evans, J. (1999) The Management and Control of Quality — James R. Evans,

William M. Lindsay - 4th Edition South-western College Publishing, Cincinnati,
Ohio

Thesis and dissertations:

Bennett, J., Pothecary, E., Robinson, G. (1996). “Designing and building a world-
class industry.” Rep. No. ISBN 07049 1170 1, University of Reading, Reading,
UK.

Konchar, M. (1997). “A Comparison of United States Project Delivery Systems,”
Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA

Molenaar, K. (1995). “Appropriate project characteristics for public sector design-
build projects,” MS Thesis, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO

Pocock, J. (1996). “The relationship between alternative project approaches,

integration, and performance,” Phd dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-
Champaign, Ill.

96

APPENDIX A

Phone scrigt

Hello, my name is Jeff Pfeifer. I’m currently working on my thesis research in
construction management at Michigan State University in the area of design-
build.

I received your name through the membership list of the Michigan Construction
Users Council. The purpose behind this phone call is to request an interview to
collect information. This research focuses on owner’s selection criteria used in
choosing design-build to construct their projects.

I would like to set up an interview with you, at your convenience, and go through
the questionnaire. The interview would preferably be in person, but could be
covered over the phone. I could also email or fax you a copy of the questions, so
you can look it over and know what to expect.

The questions are primarily open-ended and shouldn’t take more than fifteen
minutes of your time. It will consist of four general parts, and with your
permission I would like to record the session. Your responses will be used with
other owner’s answers to put together a project evaluation form.

In any reporting of reSponses or data collected during this interview, your name
and company name, as well as any other identifying references, will be deleted.
Information collected during the interview may be reported in aggregate with that
of the other interviewees, or may be reported as quotations or paraphrases with
all names or other identifiers deleted.

Do you have time early next week?

-No personal interview is possible, continue with text following for phone
interview possibilities:

Since the personal interview is not possible, can we set up a time at your
convenience to go through the survey over the phone, it would be very helpful for
this research.

~Phone interview script, describing questionnaire:

The purpose behind this interview is to collect information. This research
focuses on owner’s selection criteria used in choosing design-build to construct
their projects. This questionnaire shouldn’t take any more than fifteen minutes of
your time and is of no financial cost to you.

Your participation is voluntary, you may refuse to answer certain questions or
discontinue at any time. In any reporting of responses or data collected during

97

this interview, your name and company name, as well as any other identifying
references, will be deleted. Information collected during the interview may be
reported in aggregate with that of the other interviewees, or may be reported as
quotations or paraphrases with all names or other identifiers deleted.

If you should have any questions regarding participation in this study, please
contact David E. Wright, University Committee on Research Involving Human
Subjects (UCRIHS) chair at 517-355-2180.

The data collection will be in the form of a structured interview, targeted toward
gathering groupable answers. The answers to these open ended questions will
be later classified into sub-categories under their respective general category,
condensing them down from all received answers.

The questions will be placed into four categories:
1. general demographics

2. decision-makers

3. selected performance criteria

4. results of the selection

The goal of this intervlew survey will be to develop a project evaluation form.
These recorded results can assist owners in the prlvate sector for determining if
design-build is the best method for project procurement, given owner and project
needs.

I would now like to go into the questionnaire, is it OK with you if I record this
phone call? Taped information will be destroyed following transcription.

Survey Questionnaire

98

APPENDIX B
SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
Fonrvard:

The purpose behind this interview is to collect information. This research
focuses on owner’s selection criteria used in choosing design-build to construct
their projects. This questionnaire shouldn’t take any more than fifteen minutes of
your time and is of no financial cost to you.

Your participation is voluntary, you may refuse to answer certain questions or
discontinue at any time. In any reporting of responses or data collected during
this interview, your name and company name as well as any other identifying
references will be deleted. Information collected during the interview may be
reported in aggregate with that of the other interviewees, or may be reported as
quotations or paraphrases with all names or other identifiers deleted. If you
should have any questions regarding participation in this study, please contact
David E. Wright, University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects
(UCRIHS) chair at 517-355-2180 or Tim Mrozowski, project advisor, at 517-353-
0781 for questions.

This survey will be used to obtain comparable information from the private sector
owners and allow the researcher to explore “other” relevant leads.

Same question format will be asked of all owners, but different follow-ups can be
used at discretion of the researCher.

Category one
Demographics, will consist of general owner information questions, such as

owner experience in construction, typical building type, experience with facility
type, cost of construction and volume constructed each year.

Company (Owner) Name:
Contact person: email address:

Note: The following questions are for your most recent project completed using
design-build, followed by a comparison of a typical project completed. If this is
your only project using design-build, please indicate and move onto the next
question.

99

From the following construction types, select the one that would describe your
project:

Typical construction type (developed from Konchar through process result):
Highway and road

Light Industrial- repetitive, low unit costs, fewer and smaller cost overruns
Heavy Industrial '

High technology- aggressive schedule and flexibility for handling changes,
high unit costs

Multi story dwelling

Simple office

Complex office

.‘19’9‘ :PP’NT"

Please describe your experience with this construction type:

How does this construction type compare to your typical project?

Please complete the following facility characteristics of your most recent design-
build project. (Konchar 1997):

number of floors

construction type (new or renovation)

size (gross building square footage)

specific building systems (foundation type, structure type, architectural interior
finishes,

exterior enclosures, roofing, environment, electrical systems, controls and site
characteristics).

How do these characteristics compare with your typical project?

number of floors

construction type (new or renovation)

size (gross building square footage)

specific building systems (foundation type, structure type, architectural interior
finishes,

exterior enclosures, roofing, environment, electrical systems, controls and site
characteristics).

100

What percentage of your construction projects, by dollar volume, uses the
following methods?
Methods Used Dollars Spent each year
Design-Build
Construction Management
Traditional Method (Design-Bid-Build)
Hybrid or other (describe)

Methods used in the past five, ten years (to record possible trends)?

Were there reasons that led to this method selection?

Category Two
Selected performance criteria will ask the owners to indicate the performance

characteristics they used in selecting design-build.
This information is from your most recent project utilizing design-build described
above.

How did the project characteristics from above affect the design-build
procurement selection?

Please numerically arrange the following performance criteria according to how
their influence was used in selecting design-build for your project.

Rank from 1-8, (1 is most important, 8 is least important).
(Selection factors taken from Songer)

Establish cost- secure a project cost before the start of detailed design
Reduce cost- decrease the overall project cost as compared to other
procurement methods

Establish schedule- secure a project schedule before the start of detailed
design

Shorten duration- decrease the overall project completion time as

DBL—.113

compared to other procurement methods

[:1

Reduce claims— decrease litigation due to separate design and
construction entities

101

1:] Large project size complexity- the project’s magnitude is too complex to
be managed through multiple contracts

[:1 Constructability/ lnnovation- introduce construction knowledge into design
early in the process

[I Other

Why were the highest ranked criteria used in the selection process?

If design-build was not used on your most recent project completed, what were

the reasons for not using it?

Catergory Three

Gives information pertaining to the company decision-makers. Method selection
decisions may be made by one person, a department or possibly a committee
formed for the specific project. This will give background on the mindset of
those involved in choosing design-build, and perhaps some information on their

thoughts.

Who in your company decided to use the design-build method for this project?
Who typically makes the method selection decisions?

What is the decision-maker’s experience in construction?

102

Category Four
These questions will address the success of the project(s) using design-build and

did design-build satisfy the initial performance criteria correctly. This will be the
details of the initial criteria and how well it worked to accomplish the desired
results.

Was this project a “success”, and what constitutes project success?

How does the success of your most recent project compare to a typical

successful project?

What factors contributed to this success?

Did the criteria change through the course of the project? (cost became the
focus, rather than schedule)

If so, is this project still considered a success?

103

Question 1.

APPENDIX C

Typical construction type

Respondents
Number

1

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

Answer

High technology

Heavy Industrial

Simple office -educational
No D/B

Simple office

High technology
Repeated Answer

High technology

No D/B

Heavy Industrial

Complex office
Heavy Industrial

Heavy Industrial

Heavy Industrial
Heavy Industrial
Light Industrial

Light and Heavy Industrial, High
Technology

104

Question 2.

APPENDIX D

Please describe your experience with this construction type:

Respondents
Number

1

2

10

11

12
13
14

15

Answer
None

30+ years
30+ years

No D/B

Small amount of office construction, most
construction projects are chemical plants

Little experience, decision based on financial
Repeated Answer

110+ years in high tech for company

No D/B

Many years, used number of times

Typically utilize/leverage in house engineering for
production facilities / process engineering. Utilize
local design build firms (2) for architectural work
supporting office / lab complexes.

Extensive experience in this type, although this is
the first manufacturing facility that we have utilized
Design-Build.

15 years, 98% heavy industrial
31 years

27 years

105

16

17

Extensive experience constructing smaller
facilities, no experience with greater size of this
facility.

Utilizing design-build for steel manufacturing and
processing facility had not been done before.

106

APPENDIX E

Question 3.
How does this construction type compare to your typical project?

Respondents
Number Answer
Not typical, administration and
1 educational facilities are typical
2 typical
3 typical for administration
4 No D/B
5 Not typical, chemical plant work is typical
Not typical, renovation to equipment
6 buildings is typical
7 Repeated Answer
8 typical
9 No D/B
10 typical
11 typical
12 No Answer
typical, this type of facility is 70% of what
13 they construct
14 typical
15 typical

Lower unit cost, due to economy of

scale, lower complexities in design

standards (typical is much smaller in
16 scale).

17 No Answer

107

APPENDIX F

Question 4.
Please complete the following facility characteristics of your most recent design-
build project:

Respond.
Number Answers

number construction size
of floors type (S.F.) specific building systems

steel frame, precast panels,
soph. MEPs, expensive finishes,
1 5 new 75,000 b/u roof

warehouse, flat floor, slab on

grade, pre. Engin. Structure,

single memb. Flat roof, high tech
2 1 new 200,000 automation

strip footings, slab on grade, gyp.
Part, brick, steel studs, strip

3 2 new 44,000 windows
4 No D/B No D/B No DIB No D/B

standard office type- block
5 1 new 4,000 exterior on slab

slab, structural steel and brick,
6 2 new 44,000 painted gyp., carpet, 6 acre site
7 NA NA NA NA

slab on grade, terrazzo floors,
roof- single membrane, new air
8 1 renovation 100,000 handling

9 No D/B No D/B No D/B No D/B

caissons, metal siding, heavy

steel frame, concrete sill wall,

electrical substations, energy
10 1 new 600,000 management system

108

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

new

new

new

new

new

new

new

70.000

408.000

44,000

10,000

250,000

200,000

15,000

109

spread footing, slab on grade,

stucco and brick ext. w/ metal

siding, skylights, office/lab and
mini plant facility

spread footings, single ply roof,
steel siding, complete electrical
system with back-up
transformers, complete energy
management system

spread footings, steel structure,
no interior finishes

mat foundation, 7' concrete slab
foundation, 6 story silos were slip
formed, metal sided conveyor
building

spread footing, steel truss and
column, precast concrete and
metal siding, b/u roofing

tilt up concrete panel
construction, minimum
architectural finishes, 45 mil
EPDM roof, light industrial zone,
low voltage transformer for city
power, good soil

foundation-reinforced concrete,
steel frame, metal stud with

drywall

APPENDIX G

Question 5.
How do these characteristics compare with your typical project?

Respond.
Number Answer

number of construction

floors type size building systems
1 5
2 30+ both varies varies

large Brick and structural steel,
3 3, varies both powerplants with metal skin
4 No D/B renovation 500-200000 varies
5 1 No D/B No D/B No DIB
6 1 new varies Typical office construction
Existing communication
7 NA renovation 5000-50000 equipment buildings
1-2 per

project of

floor
8 renovation NA NA NA

Sophisticated control
renovation- system, high tech, stainless
90%, new- 1000-1mill. steel and glass piping,

9 No D/B 10% buildings automated valves
10 1 No D/B No D/B No D/B

multi-floor

process/pro Both, primarily
11 d. facility new 20000-1 mill. industrial bldg. system

Equipment varies due to
large scope of processing
12 One Both varies and production

110

13

14

15

16

17

34 floors

56 floors

1

multi-story
(varies)

small
facilities-
vanes

new

new

new

new

both

vanes

5000-6000

1 0000

100000-1
mill

20000

111

Spread footings, single ply
roof, steel siding, complete
electrical system with back-
up transformers, complete
energy management system

Spread footings, steel
structure, no interior
finishes, cooregated metal,
membrane roof, extensive
electrical systems

Spread footings, structural
steel frame, b/u roof or
poured deck

Foundations depend on site
conditions

Tilt-up conc. panel const.,
min. arch. finishes, 45 mil
EPDM roof, light ind. zone,
low voltage trans. for city
power

APPENDIX H

Question 6.
What percentage of your construction projects, by dollar volume, uses the
following methods?

Respondents
Number Answer
Design-build Construction Traditional
(DIB) Mgmt (CM) (088) Hybrid
1
2 1 % 35% 35% 29%
3 1.5% 2% 95% 1.5%
4 No D/B No D/B No D/B No D/B
5 10% < 2% 90%
Zero, only D/B
6 project 5% 90% 5%
7 NA NA NA NA
8 10% 90% 0%
9 No D/B No D/B No D/B No D/B
10 30% 30% 30% 10%
11 20% 80%
12 15% 85%
13 6% 80% 14%

112

14

15

16

17

Average

10%

33%

0%

0%

10.50

10%

25%

0%

0%

21.89

113

70%

10%

100%

100%

64.58

10%

32%

0%

0%

19.15

APPENDIX I

Question 7.
Methods used in the past five, ten years (to record possible trends)?

Respondents
Number Answer
1 No Answer
2 Consistent
3 Prefer DBB, next 10 yrs. 85% DB
No D/B currently, will use 80% in
4 next 5 years
Consistent, using DIB last 15 yrs., a
5 lot of hybrid work
6 Benchmarking of all, typ. DBB
7 Repeated Answer
8 Consistent, D/B constant
No DIB currently, will use 80% in
9 next 5 years
DIB and CM have pulled from DBB
10 due to time constraints
More D/B in last 5 years, still project
specific vs. standard used methods
11 depending on project type.
DB8, for large projects (30-50 million
and up) use CM to manage project
12 and safety management
13 Consistent

114

14

15

16

17

Consistent
Leaning towards CM and D/B
Has always been DBB, this is the

first D/B project

Consistent

115

Question 8.

Respondents
Number

10

11

12

13

14

APPENDIX J

Answer

Alternate systems due mostly to the need to
have constructor providing preconstruction
services w/in a very controled environment.

When they must hire out design of
specialized projects, D/B isn't utilized

time constraints or some hybrid modification
No D/B

Cost and cycle time reduction

Management and reporting of $200 million
construction budget

Repeated Answer
No Answer

No D/B

Time reduction proven, method selection is
project characteristics specific

Leveraging shrinking internal engineering
resources. Focus on core competency,
Reduced need for NE services overall.

Cost and speed of completion

Hybrid escalated due to new philosophies by
owners for quicker project times

Lack of in-house experience, found D/B firm
who specialized

116

15

16

17

Method selection depends on job description.
Will utilize D/B if they have a good job
description (well defined scope and price).

_ Experienced lower costs for smaller projects

Cost effectivenes

117

Question 9.

APPENDIX K

How did the project characteristics from above affect the design-build
procurement selection?

Respondents
Number

10

11

12

13

Answer

Preconstruction cost estimating, design to budget
requirement, constructability consulting, value engin. to
stay w/in budget, project complexity

Would like to find D/B who specializes in their needs

Wanted to try method for cost reduction
No D/B

Selection process fits procurement by written strategy

In-house staff not familiar with this type of project,
resources were issue, found site which was developed
by design-builder

Repeated Answer

Long term relationship with company, familiar with
process, people, construction type, no competitive
process used

No D/B

No time to wait on large projects, early decisions must
be made

Multi function office / lab / mini plant building. Fit
strategy for design build.

None what so ever

If they have resources in-house, D/B will not be utilized.
If resources are low, D/B will be considered, but is not
the first choice.

118

14

15

16

17

No expertise in-house for facility construction, had to
out-source to specialty contractor out of state

Not at all, must have well defined scope for D/B

For a recent warehouse project, design-build was
selected due to the experience and low-cost execution
of design-build niche firms.

Contractor selection based upon: demonstrated
expertise and track record for successfulness. Items to
be considered: safety, cost, schedule, record for
managing and working with trades

119

APPENDIX L

Question 10.
Please numerically arrange the following performance criteria according to how

their influence was used in selecting design-build for your project.

Construct
Respond. Est. Reduce Est. Shorten Reduce Large size -ability/
Number cost cost sched. duration claims complexity lnnov. Other

1 1 5 2 na 4 3

2 1 3 2 4 6 5 7

3 2 1 3 4 6 7 5
No

4 D/B

5 5 2 4 1 6 7 3

6 4 2 5 1 7 6 3

7 NA

8 1 2 3
No

9 D/B

10 2 4 3 1 7 6 5

11 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

12 4 3 2 1 7 5 6

120

13 5 2 4 1 3

14 1
15 2 5 3 1 4 6 7
16 5 1 4 2 4 8 6
17 4 3 1 2

Average 3.18 2.55 3.58 2.08 5.67 5.36 4.50 2.00

121

Question 11.

APPENDIX M

Why were the highest ranked criteria used in the selection process?

Respondents
Number

10

11

12

13

Answer

Needs constructor at table to keep project
w/in limits and perform miracles traditional
methods don't

Projects are so large, difficult to get grip on
budget and schedule

Aggressive schedule and budget
constraints

No D/B

Cycle time and cost reduction, faster ands
cheaper, less to handle on their end.

Management of scope, schedule and
budget is very important to owner

Repeated Answer

Budget schedule- money allocated to
project in a given year, must follow
spending schedule. Must get product out
as soon as possible, very important.

No D/B

Auto industry is based on time, so time of
completion is highest priority

N/A

Speed of product to be manufactured in
facility was the reason for fast track design
and build delivery method.

To expedite process and get product out as
soon as possible

122

14

15

16

17

No experience, only experienced contractor

Shorten duration of product manufacturing
and get product out as soon as possible.

Lower costs is the single biggest reason

For small projects or for owners with limited
resources

123

APPENDIX N

Question 12.
If design-build was not used on your most recent project completed, what were
the reasons for not using it?

Respondents
Number Answer

Prefer CM over D-B because the parties report to me
instead of creating an opportunity to allow a constructor to
over bear the NE and prevent important construction quality
or design quality issues to be kept from the owners review

1 and consideration. *

Used to dealing with contractor, difficult for own people to
2 stay away from job, little marketing for D/B
3 Not considered, prefer DBB
4 No D/B

Using d/b on all office projects, cannot find design-builder to
5 handle high tech projects

Typical projects are small (<50K). Have selected NE and
6 GCs that are allowed to do their work
7 Repeated Answer
8 Resources internally to do yourself
9 No DIB

Three sided construction, difficult project, needed definition
10 up front, D/B won't allow for up front
11 No Answer

124

12

13

14

15

16

17

Design-Build used as a single point responsibility for an
Owner to go to for any and all items. The downside is you
have to define as much as you can up front so as not to pay
a premium after award. This is difficult for projects that are
process (manufacturing) driven or for Owners that are used
to or allowed to change the design as they go.

Resources were available. Consider themselves to have the
best in-house technology resources for their market.

Bad experiences in past projects

Didn't have a well defined scope for D/B

The project was much smaller in scale and is tradionally

handled in-house.

Generally higher cost

125

APPENDIX 0

Question 13.
Who in your company decided to use the design-build method for this project?

Respondents
Number Answer
1 Facilities organization
2 Warehouse Group-Department
3 District Manager
4 No DIB
Project team and procurement
5 function
Project team, consisting of
6 finances and eng. Team
7 Repeated Answer
8 Engineering Dept.
9 No D/B
10 Interviewee and boss
11 Project team
Projects Group in association
12 with owner
13 Project Manager
Operations people, users gave
14 input

126

15

16

17

Interviewee

Joint decision in engineering

Engineering Dept.

127

Question 14.

APPENDIX P

Who typically makes the method selection decisions?

Respondents
Number

10

11

12

13

14

Answer

Interviewee

Purchasing and Design Eng.
Committee team and RVP w/ user

No D/B

Project team and procurement
function

Project manager recommends
approach

Repeated Answer

Management of eng. Group, PM
or director

No D/B
Interviewee

Project team

Project group’s project
management
leadership/supervision

Project! Construction Manager
(Combination of both)

Engineering Dept-consists of
construction and engin. people

128

15

16

17

Interviewee

Engineering

Engineering Dept.

129

Question 15.

APPENDIX Q

What is the decision-maker’s experience in construction?

Respondents
Number

10

11

12

13

14

Answer

20+ years

Buyers have a lot of
purchasing, but no
contracting exp.

Very extensive

No D/B

varies, 0-25 years on team

20+ years

Repeated Answer

Minimum 5 years

No D/B
11 years, prior background in
architecture

Extensive

30—40 years

Quite extensive

Extensive

130

15

16

17

27 years

Extensive

Extensive

131

Question 16.

APPENDIX R

Was this project a “success”, and what constitutes project success?

Respondents
Number

10

11

12

13

Answer

Yes, under budget and ahead of schedule,
everyone loved design and constructed
quality

Yes, on time and budget, exceptional
quality, safe jobsite (no accidents), no
claims

Yes, on time and budget, acceptable project

No DIB

Yes, on time and budget, zero OSHA
recordables, operability- plant start up and
run properly

Yes, completed on schedule and within
budget

Repeated Answer

Yes, on time and budget, no disruptions to
ongoing operations, meeting job
requirements

No D/B

Yes, extremely, time was met and was
available for next process. Cost per square
foot was one of lowest. Benchmark project

Yes, on time and on budget, customer
pleased with the functionality.

Somewhat successful, Lessons learned will
be utilized for further successes with Design
and Build in the future

No, failed in cost and schedule. Reason for
failure was a lack of technology resource by
design-builder.

132

14

15

16

17

Yes, but with problems. The facility came in
on schedule, but over cost.

Yes, on time and under budget, as well as
quality and safety.

Initial project utilizing D/B, not yet
completed.

Yes, on budget, on time, facility provides
return on investment that the funding
analysis stated

133

Question 17.

APPENDIX S

How does the success of your most recent project compare to a typical
successful project?

Respondents
Number

10

11

12

13

Answer

High- extremely trouble free

More successful

Tracks well

No DIB

typical

Bigger deal than with most projects

Repeated Answer

typical

No DIB

time and cost are typical

typical

About the same; the delivery method
although it has a small impact, the
quality of the individuals on the team
is the ultimate reason as to whether
the project is a failure or a success.

Should come within cost and
schedule

134

14

15

16

17

A little less than typical, due to cost
overruns.

Never miss the schedule, must be
able to react to changes

Better results in regard to cost and
schedule

No answer

135

APPENDIX T

Question 18.
What factors contributed to this success?

Respondents
Number Answer
1 Outstanding PM and engineer
Own personnel weren't walking jobsite, less
2 responsible for owner to supervise
3 Follow procedures closely
4 No D/B
Strong project team, followed global strategy,
5 scope locked in early
6 Users acceptance, management of SIS/B
7 Repeated Answer
Close interactions with owner, understanding
8 req., history and experience w/ contractor
9 No D/B

Ability to reach items in cost effective manner,
changes were made to process and had to
10 accommodate flexibility and reaction time

Project Team & Design Build contractors daily
interaction for the duration of the project. Same
definition of success factors listed above for
both. Monitoring progress a job progresses &

11 reporting.
12 Good quality designer and builder
13 Was not a success

136

14

15

16

17

No answer

They have limited their GC list to six, these all
have a good knowledge of how they operate and
are well adapted.

No answer

Good scope definition in sufficient detail for good
cost estimating, good team work between owner
and project team

137

Question 19.

APPENDIX U

Did the criteria change through the course of the project?

Respondents
Number

10

11

12

13

Answer

No criteria changes, although focus
almost always shifts as project is
executed

No

No

No D/B

N0

N0

Repeated Answer

No answer

No D/B

Yes, Structural loading changed,
which changed project
characteristics

No, although budget drove a few
decisions late in the project.

No, criteria changes (scope of work)
but not the reasons for utilizing the
design and build delivery method.

Yes, started with schedule, resulted
in cost criteria

138

14

15

16

17

No

No, keeping the schedule was
project driver

N/A

No, cost and schedule are both
important and did not change

139

APPENDIX V

Design-Build Method Selection Evaluation Form

Introduction

This form has been divided into two sections, which include project
characteristics and company information, which will both aid in indicating if
design-build is a favorable construction procurement method. This form has
been designed to assist owners, who have an interest in design-build, but are
unsure if they can benefit from its use.

Section One:

Section one of this form utilizes project characteristics found to be useful in the
procurement of design-build projects. Please review each item of this form and
indicate the importance level. Responses are based on a scale ranging from one
to five, five being the highest level of importance. Please select one that relates
to your project characteristics for the design-build criteria listed.

Section Two:

Section two of this form utilizes information concerning your organization, such
as general demographic and procedural methods. There are five responses
ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree. Please select the response

that best reflects your organization.

Please complete both sections, and then evaluate your answers. If your answers
tend to group on the left side, design-build may be a favorable method for your

project. If the answers group more to the right side an alternate method, such as

140

construction management or design-bid-build, may be more effective. If answers
are a balanced response of both sides, it is up to the owner to decide which
items are more important and what method will accommodate their needs, based

on an informed decision.

The form ls intended to act as a guide, however the person evaluating should
decide for him or herself whether their criteria tend to favor design-build. It is
assumed that persons filling out this form understand and have experience in

different construction procurement methods.

141

10

11

12

Design-Build Criteria Evaluation Form

SECTION ONE: Highly important

Project Characteristics: 5 4

Reduce project duration

Prepare overall project schedule early in
design phase

Early procurement of critical materials
with long lead times

Ability to fast track (start construction before
construction documents are finished)

Integration of construction expertise with
architectural expertise early in the project

Single point of accountability (by hiring one
firm to handle design and construction)

Constructability reviews during design phase

One team working together on specialized
and technical project types

Established working relationship between
architects and contractor

Reduced number of communication lines
between parties involved in project

Ability to proceed with project prior to having
a

completely defined project scope and
definition

Incorporating value engineering, life cycle
costing and innovation by construction entity

142

No importance

early in development

13 Establish early, and more accurate
project budget

14 Ability to look into Guaranteed Max. Price
before architect finishes documents

SECTION TWO:

, , _ Strongly Somewhat No Somewhat Strongly
Organization Information Agree Agree Opinion Disagree Disagree

1 Owner is qualified to act as organization
rep. for design and construction
process

2 Owner utilizes experienced in-house
construction department

3 Owner can make decisions based on an
extensive construction experience

4 Owner has formal interview process to
qualify design-build firms

5 Owner has strong design scope and
detailed project specifications

6 Owner does not require third party
project oversight

7 Owner feels comfortable with D/B
team constructing facility without third
party supervision

8 Owner policy does not restrict use of
design-build

143

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

IIIIIIIIIILIIIIIIIIIIBIIIII(17111111