Comparison of Cost and Time Performance

of Design-Build and Design-Bid-Build

Delivery Systems in Florida
R. Edward Minchin Jr., M.ASCE 1; Xiaoxiao Li 2; Raja R. Issa, F.ASCE 3;
and Gary G. Vargas 4
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by ROBERTSON ENGINEERING & on 09/07/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: The choice of construction delivery system is one of the most important decisions that a public highway agency will make
with regard to a highway, bridge, or transit construction project. Although several research projects have been conducted on the subject
of comparing costs and project duration, there has been no study that statistically analyzes these factors specifically for transportation
projects, much less one that eliminates the largest variable of all: different public agencies. The objective of the research reported in
this paper was to determine which of two delivery methods, design-bid-build (DBB) and design-build (DB), delivers highway and bridge
construction projects at the lowest cost and in the shortest time period, and to back up the findings with a rigorous statistical analysis of the
data. Data were taken from the databases of the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) and arithmetically and statistically compared
through Levene’s test, the independent samples t-test, the Welch unequal variances t-test, and the Mann-Whitney U test. In fact, this paper’s
unique contribution is its rigorous statistical analysis of data gathered directly from FDOT, comparing the performance of the two delivery
systems in Florida over a finite period of time. In this comparison, DBB projects performed significantly better in terms of cost according
to all statistical and arithmetic tests. DBB projects did not compare as favorably in terms of duration. Some tests showed a statistically
insignificant advantage to the use of DB over DBB, whereas other tests showed no difference between the two. Other public agencies can
replicate the research and determine whether the same findings hold true in their situation. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000746.
© 2013 American Society of Civil Engineers.
CE Database subject headings: Design/build; Bids; Project management; Costs; Florida; Comparative studies.
Author keywords: Delivery system; Design-bid-build; Design-build; Project; Cost; Duration; Comparison; Contracting.

Introduction
All construction was once performed by using a form of the design-
build (DB) delivery system. In the 1920s and 1930s, knowledge
of construction materials and methods grew at a rapid pace as a
result of significant research, mostly sponsored by the American
Association of State Highway Officials, now known as AASHTO.
With this new knowledge came specialization, and with speciali-
zation came the design-bid-build (DBB) project delivery system,
which dominated horizontal construction in the US for decades.
In 1998, it became easier to procure federal funding for projects
by utilizing alternative delivery systems if the use of those delivery
1
Rinker Associate Professor of Construction, Rinker School of Building
Construction, Univ. of Florida, 304 Rinker Hall, Gainesville, FL 32611
(corresponding author). E-mail: minch@ufl.edu
2
Graduate Assistant, Cornell Univ., 1601 Hasbrouck Apts., Ithaca,
NY 14850. E-mail: xl423@cornell.edu
3
Holland Professor of Construction, Rinker School of Building
Construction, Univ. of Florida, 304 Rinker Hall, Gainesville, FL 32611.
E-mail: raymond-issa@ufl.edu
4
Senior Project Manager, Balfour Beatty Construction, 1020 Cultural
Park Blvd., Cape Coral, FL 33990. E-mail: gvargas@balfourbeattyus
.com
Note. This manuscript was submitted on July 24, 2012; approved on
May 29, 2013; published online on June 1, 2013. Discussion period open
until December 23, 2013; separate discussions must be submitted for in-
dividual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Construction Engi-
neering and Management, © ASCE, ISSN 0733-9364/04013007(5)/
$25.00.
systems was in compliance with the states’ own contract procure-
ment statutes.
The allure for fast-track construction processes like DB was a
result of growing impatience on the part of the public with the
lengthy process for highway and bridge construction that usually
accompanies the DBB delivery system. Florida began their DB pro-
gram with a state-funded $50 million pilot program in the early
1990s, hoping to convince the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) to grant federal funds for the construction of highways
and bridges using the DB delivery system. The pilot program
was successful, and in 1996 FDOT received federal funds to use
the DB system for the first time. Since 1996, DB has become a
commonly used tool for the construction of Florida’s highways
and bridges.
The objective of the study was to compare the performance of
the two most used delivery systems employed for highway and
bridge construction by FDOT. This was accomplished by a rigorous
statistical analysis of data gathered directly from the FDOT website.
Preliminary estimate values, contract award price, actual cost, origi-
nal contract duration, and final duration of completed FDOT high-
way and bridge projects, chosen at random, comprised the data
that were gathered and analyzed; a comparison of these represents
the questions of the study. Levene’s test, the independent samples
t-test, the Welch unequal variances t-test, and the Mann-Whitney
U tests were all performed on the data. The specific data were
chosen because these are the most important parameters, outside
of quality, for measuring the effectiveness of the two project deliv-
ery systems.

© ASCE 04013007-1 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

 Literature Review
Several early studies found that DB outperformed DBB in cost
and schedule performance (Songer and Molenaar 1997; Molenaar
and Songer 1998; Konchar and Sanvido 1998).
Gransberg and Senadheera (1999) conducted a national survey
of 15 DOTs; the results showed DB to be the alternative method
commissioned by all surveyed DOTs. Through further analysis, the
authors were able to identify three different systems that were used
to advertise and award DB. The low-bid, adjusted score, and best
value systems were compared to identify their strengths and weak-
nesses. The key was found to be matching the proper method with
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by ROBERTSON ENGINEERING & on 09/07/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
the appropriate project type. This paper educated the team about
different aspects of DB.
Molenaar et al. (1999) studied the emergence of DB into the
public segment of the industry as it replaced traditional DBB.
Their work analyzed each party’s responsibility with regard to
the delivery system and explains the procurement process and the
structure of this particular method. This paper, too, educated the
authors about the DB process.
Chan et al. (2002) sought specific project conditions that
could help to increase success rates of projects when using DB.
The author pointed out that measures of success are defined by
three factors—time, cost, and quality—but believed that a more
comprehensive metric should be established. This paper solidified
the understanding that time and cost make up two-thirds of the
measures for comparing delivery systems.
Ibbs et al. (2003) provided a comprehensive analysis of 67
global projects from the database of the Construction Industry
Institute. The results showed that DB projects may not provide
all of the benefits to project performance that advocates claim.
The study found that time saving was a definitive advantage of DB
project delivery, but the positive effects of cost and productivity
changes were not convincing. This paper influenced how this basic
research question was stated and how data were gathered and
analyzed. Its conclusions, which were different from most similar
studies, aided this study by freeing researchers from the absolutes
that can corrupt a research effort.
Shr and Chen (2004) studied the growing popularity of
incentive/disincentive bidding for highway construction. This
method was found to shorten the contract time by making it diffi-
cult for the contractor to not accelerate the project. The authors
developed a quantitative model to establish reasonable incentive
or disincentive rates based on construction cost and time. However,
like the low bid method, incentive/disincentive contracting may
cause the quality of the final product to decline if the incentives are
aimed only at time reduction. This paper provided education on
ways that agencies influence contract duration.
El Wardani et al. (2006) studied a total of 76 DB projects and
identified correlations between the procurement processes and the
overall performance of the projects. The studied procurement meth-
ods were sole source, qualification based, best value, and low bid
selection. This study underpins the concept that the study of deliv-
ery systems is important and relevant in improving the quality of
transportation construction.
Scott (2006) pointed out the problem associated with low bid in
DB: instead of receiving the benefits of cost control, most of the
time it will result in a decrease in the quality of the final product.
This paper illustrated how nuances and tweaks of an established
system like DB can result in different outcomes than might have
otherwise been experienced.
Gransberg et al. (2008) addressed the issue of quality assur-
ance concerning DB as it relates to transportation projects. One of
the disadvantages of DB is the lack of control over the detailed
© ASCE 04013007-2
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
components of construction, which requires the agency to form
a more comprehensive method to ensure the quality of the work.
A survey from the report demonstrated the different ways in which
state transportation agencies have successfully controlled quality
by focusing on all aspects of the construction phases; however,
this does not seem to be the case for all agencies. In the same
year, Gransberg and Windel (2008) pinpointed the issue of com-
municating the quality requirements of public agencies on DB
projects. The study found that some owners tend to rely on the
qualification evaluation process rather than being proactive on
the issue. There are still many improvements that are not yet used
by most agencies that can enhance the performance of DB; many
agencies still use traditional DBB exclusively or have not utilized
DB to its full advantage. These papers, written much later than
some of the others, provided education on the newer discoveries
in the DB process.
Hale et al. (2009) compared the performance of DBB and DB
to determine whether one project delivery method is superior with
regard to time and cost. Similar military buildings were used as
two samples of projects delivered with each of the two delivery
methods. DB projects were proven to be superior in performance
in almost every measure.
Touran et al. (2009) published a paper on an evaluation process
that is able to help agencies to identify the suitable delivery sys-
tem for use in specific projects. The paper identifies 24 key con-
cerns that will determine the ideal delivery system. The 24 key
concerns were studied by the authors and helped to frame the
study, although the aim of this research was not to develop a guide
or model for choosing the best delivery system for a given set of
circumstances. No reports of research performed or data compared
or compiled by any public transportation agency was found in the
literature search.
Method of Research
The aim of the research was to gain a better understanding about
the relative performances of the DBB and DB delivery systems.
To better understand the performance of the DBB system, the
Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) was asked to pro-
vide two statistics that are closely tied to the potential success of
any project: cost and duration. These measures were shown be-
cause the literature shows that these, along with quality (materials
and workmanship), are the most important measures to most public
transportation agencies (Ibbs et al. 2003; Chan et al. 2002).
Within the cost category, three components were compared:
original cost estimate, awarded bid amount, and final cost of the
project. The duration category focused on the original contract
duration and the final duration. Thirty projects, using each of the
two delivery systems (60 projects total), were chosen at random
from the FDOT database. Each project was $7 million or greater
in contract amount and constructed between 2002 and 2010.
Almost all of these projects included both bridge and asphalt high-
way paving work. This allows for a comparison between the two
delivery systems based on the two major types of work done by
FDOT (bridges and asphalt paving) for the whole cost range of
DB projects awarded by FDOT.
Preliminary Data Analysis
First, a simple preliminary analysis was conducted on each set of
data. The preliminary analysis was cursory and arithmetic in nature.
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
 Design-Bid-Build Projects
Among the 30 projects investigated, the largest difference listed
on any project between the original cost estimate and the awarded
amount was 130.21%. The SD for the amount of error between
original cost estimates and the awarded amounts is 32.68% and
the average error is 12.55%. The same analysis was conducted
to compare the original cost estimates and the final costs. The data
show an average error of 20.42% and a SD of 40.14%. The largest
difference for this set of data was 154.64%, which came from the
same project that provided the largest difference between the origi-
nal cost estimate and the awarded amount. The SR 826/Palmetto
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by ROBERTSON ENGINEERING & on 09/07/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
the final cost listed. Therefore, those projects were not included in
the statistical analysis. Outliers in the remaining group were the
same two projects. Once the outliers were removed, the SD became
103.06% and the average error fell to 45.30%.
In the comparison between the contract duration and final du-
ration, nine of the 30 samples did not have the final duration listed,
and thus, were not included in the statistical analysis. The project
with the greatest difference had a 92.50% discrepancy. The average
error was 20.20%, and the SD was 25.40%. Unlike the DBB proj-
ects, which all exceeded the contract duration, there were three
projects that were completed early with DB, including one with a
difference of −17.20% (all calculations were based on the original

Expressway South project, which showed the largest difference

in both categories, seems to be the only extreme outlier for this estimated cost and contracted duration).
set of data. The statistics are greatly reduced when this data point In terms of cost, the results of the preliminary analysis indicated
is removed. that DBB is the more reliable method. The discrepancies among the
The amount of error between actual durations and contract original estimate, awarded bid, and final cost are significantly lower
durations was also studied. The largest difference was 86.00%. than those of DB. The comparison of duration between the systems
On average, the projects exceeded the contract duration by yielded minimal differences.
23.00% with a SD of 18.40%. Unlike the cost analysis, which
sometimes had a negative error value, indicating completion within
budget, all the projects exceeded their contract durations by at Statistical Analysis
least 2.74%.
An independent samples t-test was conducted to compare the per-
cent error between the original estimate and the awarded contract
Design-Build Projects amount for DB and DBB highway construction projects. The mean
FDOT provided data on 30 projects that occurred between the value and SD of the percent error between original estimate and
years of 2002 and 2010 and had either original estimates or original awarded contract amount were calculated as shown in Table 1 for
contract amounts exceeding $7 million, including original cost DB (mean ¼ 108.47, SD ¼ 284.03) and DBB (mean ¼ 12.55,
estimate, awarded bid amount, final cost, original contract duration, SD ¼ 33.24) highway construction projects. As shown in Table 2,
and final duration. the variances of the DB and DBB projects were not the same; the
In all of the provided DB projects, the largest variation between significance level of the Levene’s test was p ¼ 0.004 (<0.05) with
the original cost estimate and awarded amount was 1,380.00% tð31.905Þ ¼ 1.897, p ¼ 0.067 (>0.05) (two-tailed). The magni-
more than the estimated cost. This was followed by an 807.70% tude of the differences in the means [mean difference ¼ 50.575,
difference on another project. As a result of these two outliers 95% confidence interval (CI): −7.103 to 198.957] was moderate
in the data, the SD for the error between the original cost estimates (eta squared ¼ 0.057).
and the awarded amounts was 284.00% and the average error was Similarly, an independent samples t-test was conducted to
108.50%. Once the two outliers were removed, the SD became compare the percent error between the original estimate and final
95.70% and the average error was reduced to 42.80%. When com- contract amount for DB and DBB highway construction projects.
paring the original cost estimates to the final cost, the SD for The mean value and SD of the percent error between original es-
the amount of error was 324.30% and the average was 135.40%. timation and final cost were calculated for DB (mean ¼ 135.371,
However, in this group of comparisons, nine projects did not have SD ¼ 324.304) and DBB (mean ¼ 20.423, SD ¼ 40.138) high-
way construction projects. The variances of the DB and DBB proj-
ects were unequal; the significance level of the Levene’s test was
Table 1. Mann-Whitney U Test Statistics
p ¼ 0.004 (<0.05) with tð22.517Þ ¼ 1.690, p ¼ 0.105 (>0.05)
Error between Error between Error between (two-tailed). There were no significant differences between the
original estimate original estimate contracted percent error of the original estimate and the final cost of the DB
and awarded and final duration and DBB projects. The magnitude of the differences in the means
contract contract and final (mean difference ¼ 114.948, 95% CI: −25.925 to 255.821) was
Parameter amount (%) amount (%) duration (%)
moderate (eta squared ¼ 0.053).
Mann-Whitney U 401.000 275.000 278.000 As stated, the authors removed 9–11 projects from the DB sam-
Wilcoxon W 866.000 740.000 554.000 ples as outliers or due to lack of project duration data. On the other
z −1.115 −1.256 −1.202 hand, the DBB sample had just one outlier. This made the sam-
Asymptotic 0.265 0.209 0.229
ple sizes unequal. In addition, it was found that the variances
signature (2-tailed)
of DBB and DB samples were not equal for two of the metrics.

Table 2. Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances: Independent Samples Test for Original Estimation and Awarded Contract
95% CI of the
difference
Signature Mean Standard error
Status of variances F Signature t df (2-tailed) difference difference Lower Upper
Equal variances 9.171 0.004 1.837 60.000 0.071 95.927 52.215 −8.517 200.372
No equal variances 1.897 31.905 0.067 95.927 50.575 −7.103 198.957
Note: F = F-statistic; t = t-statistic; df = degrees of freedom.

© ASCE 04013007-3 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

 This is problematic because the t-test is not robust toward dif-
ferences in variance and unequal sample sizes at the same time.
One potential solution is to randomly select an equal sample size.
Another possible solution is to use another statistical test such as
Welch’s test, which is not sensitive to equality of the variance and
sample size.
Another independent samples t-test was conducted to compare
the percent error between the original and awarded contract amount
for DB and DBB highway construction projects. SPSS, version 21,
was used because it performs a Student’s t-test and a Welch un-
equal variances t-test simultaneously and provides output for both
(Ruxton 2006).
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by ROBERTSON ENGINEERING & on 09/07/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
The mean value and SD of the percent error between original
and awarded amount were calculated for DB (mean ¼ 108.47
SD ¼ 284.03) and DBB (mean ¼ 12.55 SD ¼ 33.24) highway
construction projects. The variances in the percent error between
the original and awarded contract amount for DB and DBB projects
were not the same: the significance level of the Levene’s test was
p ¼ 0.004 < 0.05.
There was no significant difference between the percent errors
for DB and DBB projects [tð31.905Þ ¼ 1.897, p ¼ 0.067 > 0.05
(two-tailed)]. The magnitude of the differences in the means
(mean difference ¼ 50.575, 95% CI: −7.103 to 198.957) was mod-
erate (eta squared ¼ 0.057) (Pallant 2011).
A nonparametric Mann-Whitney U test does not require data
normality. Nonparametric Mann-Whitney U tests (Pallant 2011)
were conducted to test for differences among the percent error
between the following parameters for DB and DBB highway
construction projects: original estimate and awarded contract
amount; original estimate and final contract amount; and contracted
and final duration. The results of the Mann-Whitney U tests are
shown in Table 1. The results revealed no statistically significant
difference in the percent error between the original estimate and
the awarded contract amount for DB (median ¼ 3.03, n ¼ 32)
and DBB (median ¼ 6.01, n ¼ 30): U-statistic (the area ‘under’
the receiver operating characteristic 〈http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Receiver_operating_characteristic〉 curve) U ¼ 401, z-statistic
(normal distribution with a mean of ‘zero’) z ¼ −1.115, p-value
p ¼ 0.265 > 0.05, coefficient of correlation r ¼ 0.14. The dif-
ference in the n-values (32–30) was because two of the DBB
values were more than three SD from the mean and eliminated
as outliers. Similarly, the results indicated no significant difference
between the original estimate and final contract amount for DB
(median ¼ 16.69, n ¼ 23) and DBB (median ¼ 11.95, n ¼ 30):
U ¼ 275, z ¼ −1.256, p ¼ 0.209 > 0.05, r ¼ 0.17. Finally, the
results also indicated no significant difference between the con-
tracted and the final project duration for DB (median ¼ 12.56,
n ¼ 23) and DBB (median ¼ 18.25, n ¼ 30): U ¼ 278,
z ¼ −1.202, p ¼ 0.229 > 0.05, r ¼ 0.17. The difference in the
n-values (30–23) in this case was because, in addition to the
two outliers in the previous (original versus awarded) test,
nine DBB project files in the FDOT database did not include a
final (actual) cost.
Regarding time (duration) performance, the statistical tests
showed little to no difference between the two systems. This does
not mean that the DBB system gets the project from conception to
operation as quickly as DB. Given the project duration assigned
before each project, the performance of DB is the same, or slightly
better than DBB (depending on the test results consulted), at com-
pleting the project on time. Regarding cost, the DBB method was
shown to be (again, depending on the test results consulted) the
same or better than the DB method, both in preliminary estimate
versus award price and preliminary estimate versus final (actual)
price. The test that theoretically takes all of the quirks of the data
© ASCE 04013007-4
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
set into account (Mann-Whitney) shows no significant difference
between the two delivery systems in time or cost.
Conclusions
In this comparison, DBB projects performed significantly better
in terms of cost and not quite as well in terms of duration. The
preliminary arithmetic analysis indicated that the DBB method
outperformed the DB method for contractors’ performance in meet-
ing contract cost and for the accuracy of preliminary cost estimates;
the duration comparison among the systems showed minimal dif-
ferences and a slight edge for DB.
To further understand the data obtained at this level, Leven’s
Test and an independent samples t-test were conducted to com-
pare the percent error between the original estimation and awarded
contract amount for DB and DBB highway construction proj-
ects. The magnitude of the differences in the means (mean
difference ¼ 50.575, 95% CI: −7.103 to 198.957) was moderate
(eta squared ¼ 0.057) in the percent error between original cost
estimation and awarded contract price. Similarly, with the amount
of error that occurred between the original estimate and final
contract amount, the magnitude of the differences in the means
(mean difference ¼ 114.948, 95% CI: −25.925 to 255.821) was
moderate. The magnitude of the differences in the means for the
original estimate and final contract amount (mean difference ¼
−0.299, 95% CI: −15.05 to 9.08) was very small (eta squared ¼
0.048). Therefore, the statistical analysis mostly confirmed the
conclusions of the preliminary finding (arithmetic analysis) that
the DBB method was more consistent and reliable in matters of
cost than the DB method. There was a slightly, although signifi-
cantly, better showing by DB in the mean of the percent error in
the group statistics for contracted duration versus final duration.
Because of concerns that the t-test is not robust toward dif-
ferences in variance and unequal sample sizes at the same time,
Welsh’s test was executed. Welsh’s test examines the same statis-
tical issues, but is not affected by data sets with unequal sample
sizes and differences in variance at the same time. Mann-Whitney
also examines the same statistical issues and is not affected by a
lack of normality in the data sets. Therefore, because the normality
of the data was in question, the Mann-Whitney test was executed.
The results of all five tests (including the arithmetic analysis) were
not contradictory regarding the differences in the performance of
the two delivery systems in the areas of cost and time. The tests
showed little to no difference between the two systems in the area
of time (duration) performance. This does not mean that the DBB
system gets the project from conception to operation as quickly
as DB. The data do not necessarily indicate that to be the case.
The data do indicate that, given the project duration assigned to
each project at the time that construction begins, the performance
of DB is the same or slightly better than DBB (depending on the
test results consulted) at completing the project within the assigned
project duration. Regarding project cost performance, the DBB
method was shown to be (depending on the test results consulted)
the same or superior to the DB method, both in preliminary esti-
mate versus award price and award price versus final (actual) price.
The test that theoretically takes all of the quirks of the data set into
account (Mann-Whitney) shows no significant difference between
the two delivery systems in time or cost.
This paper’s unique contribution is its rigorous statistical analy-
sis of data gathered directly from FDOT over a finite period of time,
comparing the performance of the DB and DBB delivery systems
in Florida. Several research projects have been conducted on the
subject of cost and project duration comparisons; there has not,
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
 until now, been a study that statistically analyzes these factors spe-
cifically for transportation projects. This study also eliminates the
largest statistical variable of all: different public agencies.
Several previous studies have concluded that DB outperformed
DBB in cost and schedule performance (Songer and Molenaar
1997; Molenaar and Songer 1998; Konchar and Sanvido 1998;
Hale et al. 2009). This study only corroborates the schedule part
of these findings, which may be explained by the fact that three
of these studies were conducted 15 years ago. Perhaps since the
introduction of DB, those performing DBB projects have learned
how to do things better by observing or participating in DB proj-
ects. Another possible explanation is that all four of these studies
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by ROBERTSON ENGINEERING & on 09/07/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
used data from projects other than transportation construction.
It was later than 1998 when DB was widely used for transportation
construction in the US. FDOT was and is a leader in the DB move-
ment and FDOT had its first DB project funded by the FHWA in
1996, when these studies would have been in the data gathering
stage. The study by Hale et al. (2009) used military buildings.
Finally, not all of the literature points to superior performance
by DB. Ibbs et al. (2003), in a later study, agreed with the findings
of this study; that is, with the superior performance by DB in sched-
ule performance, but not in cost performance.
Limitations and Recommendations
A future study utilizing more data is recommended. Although sets
of 30 are statistically relevant, more projects would assure a higher
degree of normality. Also, it was very difficult to collect all the data
needed on projects. Nine of the 30 DB project data sets did not
include project duration. This can be overcome, perhaps, by selling
the research project to the agency with the point that the author
can continue to revisit the agency for more data to replace faulty
data such as these. It is recommended that, if possible, the study be
conducted using data from a single agency, as with this study. This
keeps the large variable of different agencies out of the study. It is
recommended that agencies other than FDOT replicate the study
and determine how the two delivery systems perform, relative to
one another, in their states.
References
Chan, A. P., Scott, D., and Lam, E. (2002). “Framework of success criteria
for design/build projects.” J. Manage. Eng., 18(3), 120–128.
© ASCE 04013007-5
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
El Wardani, M., Messner, J., and Horman, M. (2006). “Comparing procure-
ment methods for design-build projects.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage.,
132(3), 230–238.
Gransberg, D. D., Datin, J., and Molenaar, K. (2008). NCHRP synthesis
376: Quality assurance in design-build projects, Transportation Re-
search Board of the National Academics, Washington, DC.
Gransberg, D. D., and Senadheera, S. P. (1999). “Design-build contract
award methods for transportation projects.” J. Transp. Eng., 125(6),
565–567.
Gransberg, D. D., and Windel, E. (2008). “Communicating design quality
requirements for public sector design/build projects.” J. Manage. Eng.,
24(2), 105–110.
Hale, D., Shrestha, P., Gibson, G., and Migliaccio, G. (2009). “Empirical
comparison of design/build and design/bid/build project delivery
methods.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 135(7), 579–587.
Ibbs, C., Kwak, Y., Ng, T., and Odabasi, A. (2003). “Project delivery
systems and project change: Quantitative analysis.” J. Constr. Eng.
Manage., 129(4), 382–387.
Konchar, M., and Sanvido, V. (1998). “Comparison of US project delivery
systems.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 124(6), 435–444.
Molenaar, K. R., Songer, A., and Barash, M. (1999). “Public-sector
design/build evolution and performance.” J. Manage. Eng., 15(2),
54–62.
Molenaar, K. R., and Songer, A. D. (1998). “Model for public sector
design-build project selection.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 124(6),
467–479.
Pallant, J. F. (2011). SPSS survival manual, 4th Ed., McGraw-Hill,
New York.
Ruxton, G. D. (2006). “The unequal variance t-test is an underused alter-
native to Student’s t-test and the Mann–Whitney U test.” Behav. Ecol.,
17(4), 688–690.
Scott, S., III (2006). “Best-value procurement methods for highway con-
struction projects.” NCHRP Rep. 561, Transportation Research Board
of the National Academies, Washington, DC.
Shr, J. F., and Chen, W. T. (2004). “Setting maximum incentive for
incentive/disincentive contracts for highway projects.” J. Constr. Eng.
Manage., 130(1), 84–93.
Songer, A. D., and Molenaar, K. R. (1997). “Project characteristics for suc-
cessful public-sector design-build.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 123(1),
34–40.
SPSS version 21 [Computer software]. IBM Corporation, Armonk,
NY.
Touran, A., Molenaar, K. R., Gransberg, D. D., and Ghavamifar, K. (2009).
“Decision support system for selection of project delivery method
in transit.” Transportation Research Record 2111, Transportation
Research Board, Washington, DC, 148–157.
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.