A comparative analysis of procurement methods used on competitively tendered office projects in the UK

Muriro, A; Wood, GD
English
Array
JObject
The proliferation of procurement methods used for construction projects has inevitably\ud resulted in comparisons being made between the performances associated with each of\ud them. The challenge for researchers in this field has been largely to do with how to\ud compare procurement systems on a like-for-like basis.\ud In addition the focus of previous studies has tended to be mainly on the critical success\ud factors as assessed at the post-contract stage with less consideration of the effective\ud benchmarking or measurement of success used in assessing the differences between\ud systems and projects. Because of the limitations in previous studies it is perhaps not\ud surprising that, to-date, there seems to be no general consensus on the optimum\ud procurement method to be adopted for similar construction projects.\ud With this in mind this paper compares empirical information related to the successful\ud tender for procurement methods used in competitive tendering of office projects in the\ud United Kingdom (UK). It uses numeric/quantitative indicators such as construction\ud costs, construction speed, construction time and intensity of construction. Several\ud research techniques were used to achieve this goal. The research data was obtained from\ud the BCIS database. The tender analysis data gathered was grouped in frequency\ud distribution tables to facilitate rigorous examination, checking, interpretation and\ud statistical significance testing. Based on this synthesis the paper provides empirical\ud evidence that design and build (D&B) tendered office projects performed better in terms\ud of construction costs, unit costs, construction speed and intensity of construction. This is\ud despite the fact that projects tendered under D&B method were more complex, of\ud greater value and larger than those tendered using traditional methods.

Download from

Cite this article

BibTeX

Chicago

IEEE