International Journal of Project Management 26 (2008) 164173

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijproman

Problems encountered by owners of designbuild projects in Singapore

Florence Yean Yng Ling
a

a,*

, Benjamin Huat Meng Poh

Department of Building, National University of Singapore, 4 Architecture Drive, Singapore 117566, Singapore
Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore, Singapore Changi Airport, P.O. Box 1, Singapore 918141, Singapore

Received 20 October 2006; received in revised form 30 March 2007; accepted 4 April 2007

Abstract
Even though designbuild (DB) arrangements have several advantages, project owners are not using them to a large extent. This may
be due to some inherent problems that owners face in their DB projects. This study investigates the problems and diculties that Singaporean owners face in DB projects and how project managers can help them overcome these problems. Data were collected from public and private sector owners using a structured questionnaire via post and email. The collected data were subjected to statistical analyses.
The results show that owners face signicant problems in the whole development process of DB projects, especially during tender preparation and evaluation stages. Owners that do not have in-house project management face signicantly more problems than those with
in-house expertise. Generally, there were no dierences on the problems faced by the public and private sector owners. Recommendations are made on how project managers can help owners overcome some of the problems they face in DB projects.
2007 Elsevier Ltd and IPMA. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Managing projects; Procurement; Design-build; Owners; Problems

1. Introduction
Many studies have compared the advantages and disadvantages of designbuild (DB) with the traditional designbid-build (DBB) procurement system. DB project delivery
method brings various design disciplines and construction
together, and this is supposed to minimize incidents of
re-works that result in cost and time savings for the owner
[1]. However, there seems to be no signicant growth in the
use of DB in Singapore [29]. Except for 2004 when it registered 23%, the percentage of building projects procured
through the DB route in Singapore had languished below
20% between 1997 and 2006 [29]. The reasons may be
because project owners feel that they need to bear more
risks, DB facilities are not of high quality, and maintenance
issues are not adequately considered [2].

Corresponding author. Tel.: +65 65163444; fax: +65 67755502.

E-mail address: [email protected] (F.Y.Y. Ling).

0263-7863/$30.00 2007 Elsevier Ltd and IPMA. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2007.04.001

The aim of this paper is to investigate how project managers can help Singaporean owners overcome the problems
they face in DB projects. Under this aim, the specic objectives are: (1) to explore the severity of problems faced by
owners of DB projects during tender preparation, tender
evaluation, design and construction stages; (2) to compare
the severity of problems of faced by public and private sector owners, and those with and without in-house project
management expertise; and (3) to suggest ways in which
project managers can help owners overcome the problems
they face in DB projects.
The study is important because if project managers can
help owners overcome the problems they face in DB projects, more owners would be willing to use this procurement
route, which has demonstrated superior performance in several areas. Past studies have shown empirically that the use
of DB procurement results in a superior time performance
[3,4]. DB projects have been found to produce equal and
sometimes more desirable quality performance than DBB
arrangement [3].

F.Y.Y. Ling, B.H.M. Poh / International Journal of Project Management 26 (2008) 164173

2. Key stages of designbuild process

2.1. Tender preparation
After the decision is made to procure a project using the
DB route, owners and their project managers need to prepare the Request for Proposal (RFP) document that
describes owners needs. The RFP should contain a welldened and comprehensive scope of work, which is one
of the critical success factors of a DB project [5]. It should
specify in detail aesthetic and performance criteria such as
technical, functional and workmanship quality. It should
also require bidders to submit quality management plans
[7]. The scope of work is determined from the owners
brief. The quality of the owners brief has a great impact
on the quality of the design and the end product, and the
success of DB projects [6].
DB project delivery is more labour-intensive and technically demanding for the owners than DBB [8]. For owners
who do not possess any knowledge of the construction
industry, the DB route may not be advisable [9]. This is
because owners would face many problems if they are
not experienced enough to produce a brief that is clear
and comprehensive.
Owners competencies that aect DB project success
include their capability in managing DB projects, their
understanding of DB project scope and being able to
clearly articulate end-users needs [10]. Owners who have
competencies such as being knowledgeable, enlightened
and having initiative would facilitate project-based
integrated teams [11], leading to higher DB project
performance.
The DB tender document has to reect clearly the owners requirement and hence, it is important that it is prepared by a person with appropriate skills. Owners who
are not technically inclined can actually approach external
consultants such as project managers to help them procure
DB projects. Alternatively, owners can also employ professionals under their payroll for the purpose of managing
their intended project if it is more ecient to do so.
2.2. Tender evaluation
Selection of an appropriate DB contractor is important
because the success of a DB project depends very much on
contractors characteristics [10,12]. For example, if design
builders have high technical expertise and health and safety
management capability, owners are likely to be more satised [13]. Competent designbuilders have knowledge in
design development, innovative techniques and materials,
capability in project management and a thorough understanding of the design process [10].
Compared to DBB projects, it is more dicult to evaluate DB tenders because of the need to evaluate both price
and design. DB tenderers oer dierent systems and services, and provide limited amount of information for evaluation [14]. Great diculty can be experienced in

165

evaluating tenders if the owners brief is ambiguous and

does not communicate his precise wishes to the contractor
[15].
In the public sector, owners are constrained to select the
lowest bidder, except in exceptional cases. This approach
may be valid in simple and straightforward situations,
where a clear idea of costs and conditions has been established due to the repetitive nature of works and similarity
in working environments. However, it may be invalid in
most situations, because the award of a contract to a bidder based on lowest price alone may result in a false economy [16].
Owners also need to evaluate whether consultants
engaged by DB contractors are acceptable, in particular
the quality of designers. Criteria for evaluation include
consultants nancial capacity, level of expertise, experience in design skills and track record in DB tenders [17].
A systematic approach needs to be established to resolve
the diculties faced in evaluating DB tenders. Models for
DB contractor prequalication and bid evaluation have
been designed. These include single-stage contractor selection, two-stage contractor selection, two-stage prequalication and short listing of bidders and DB bid evaluation
[16]. Owners who are not construction experts may have
diculty choosing which contractor to engage.
2.3. Design stage
After the DB contract is awarded, the construction manager (i.e. project manager representing the DB contractor)
has many important roles to play which he normally does
not have in traditional DBB projects. He has to be responsible for both the design and construction and their integration [18].
Besides technical capability, team work among project
team members is important so that DB projects can reap
the advantages of good coordination and ease of decision
making [6]. Teamwork engenders good relationships which
lead to team integration [11]. Integration is especially
important for designers who are more familiar with the
DBB route.
Measures to encourage DB usage should therefore also
focus on integrating members into the project team to
engender single focus and culture of cooperation [19]. Project integration has a signicant, positive impact in balancing project constraints and producing DB project success
[20].
Owners may also be weary that their exclusions from
DB team discussions, due to absence of privity of contract
with the designbuilders consultants, may compromise
quality. For a start, in DB projects, designers are not
required to take care of owners interests. In fact, they
are urged to think like a contractor [21]. Design decisions
are sometimes inappropriately inuenced by contractors,
who in some cases are not familiar with design issues [8].
To encourage more owners to choose the DB route, there
is a need to include them in relevant discussions.

166

F.Y.Y. Ling, B.H.M. Poh / International Journal of Project Management 26 (2008) 164173

In some projects, DB contractors have failed to provide

care and attention to understand owners requirements
[22]. Communication is sometimes a problem because once
the DB contract is awarded, owners may be out of the loop
and all design and construction decisions and trade os are
internal to the designbuild team and do not involve owners [8]. Owners and designbuilders need to have a good,
proper and comprehensive checking and communication
system to ensure design is coordinated and construction
complies to brief [23].
2.4. Construction stage
One drawback of DB is that owners feel they lose control of the design and construction processes, and may be
taken advantage of by designbuilders whenever the latter
has the opportunity to do so [23]. The loss of control is
mainly due to the absence of overall design and construction supervision from the owner in a DB contract [24].
One solution to resolve this is for the owner to appoint
at least one consultant [25]. Although the owners representative will be appointed to provide certain input in and control of the design and construction of the works, the DB
approach generally contemplates less day-to-day intervention than is present under a DBB approach.
The standard of service experienced by owners during
the construction stage of DB projects has been found to
be less than satisfactory [22]. Contractors may have failed
in some instances to deliver what they have promised,
and their service quality performance did not meet owners
expectations [28].
3. Knowledge gap
From the literature review and exploratory interviews
conducted, several problems that owners may face at various stages of a DB project were identied (Table 1). It is
not known how severe these problems are, and the extent
to which they prevented more owners from adopting the
DB procurement system. It is also not known whether
owners in the public and private sectors face the same
problems. The eldwork was undertaken to determine the
more critical problems faced and how project managers
could play a role in helping owners overcome these
diculties.
4. Research method
This research adopted the quantitative method because
numbers represent values and levels of theoretical constructs and concepts, and the interpretation of numbers
is viewed as strong scientic evidence of how a phenomenon works [30]. Quantitative research can produce
knowledge by capturing and translating objective reality
into testable hypotheses, in the form of statistical analyses. The general quantitative research approaches are:
experiment, archival research, eld study and opinion

research. This study adopted opinion research to nd

out the problems that owners faced in DB projects.
Experiment is not suitable because real life experiences
of owners had to be sought. Archival research is not
appropriate because most owners in Singapore do not
document their problems and how these were solved.
Field study was not used as this research focused on
completed DB projects to know the problems faced in
all stages of project development.
Data collection techniques for quantitative research
include semi-structured interview questions and surveys,
both of which were adopted in this study. After the literature review, exploratory interviews were conducted with
three DB project owners to uncover other problems that
they faced. These interviewees were owners in-house project managers who had at least ve years of working experience in the construction industry, and had managed at
least two DB projects. An industry wide survey was conducted to collect primary data from a sample so as to capture the main characteristics of the target population and
make inferences [31].
Data for the survey were collected using a structured
questionnaire. A ve-part questionnaire was designed.
The rst section comprised demographic questions. The
second to fth parts comprised a list of problems likely
to be encountered by owners in tender preparation, tender
evaluation, design and construction stages of DB projects.
The respondents were asked to rate the extent to which
they agreed with each statement, where 1 = strongly agree,
2 = agree, 3 = neither agree nor disagree, 4 = disagree, and
5 = strongly disagree. Respondents were also invited to
state other DB-related problems and rate them.
The population frame for this study comprised public
and private sector owners in Singapore. Questionnaires
were sent by post and emails to 50 randomly selected public
sector owners. Another 50 questionnaires were sent to randomly selected property developers representing private
sector owners. The industry wide survey was conducted
in 2005.
5. Data analysis
t-Test of the mean was carried out with the help of the
Statistical Package for Social Sciences software (SPSS) to
nd out whether the owner-population would agree that
the problems faced in dierent stages of DB project implementation were signicant. For each attribute, the null and
alternative hypotheses were set out below. l is the population mean, and l0 was xed at 3 because by denition given
in the rating scale, ratings below 3 (i.e. 1 and 2) represented
respondents agreement with the problem.
Null hypothesis H0: l P l0. The decision rule was to
accept H0 when p P 0.05. Therefore, when the calculated
t value has signicance of P0.05, it is concluded that the
issue is not a signicant problem to the owner.
Alternative hypothesis H1: l < l0. The decision rule was
to accept H1 (and reject H0) when p < 0.05 and the t value

Table 1
Problems faced in designbuild arrangement
No.

Problem faced

Overall
mean

Std.
dev

t-Test
t

Pte
mean

No PM
mean

ANOVA 2
F

Sign.
(2 tail)

11

12

13

14

1
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8

Tender preparation
Owners lack knowledge and experience
Owners lack relevant manpower and resources
Owners lack legal advice and assistance
Communication with end users to meet their requirements is lacking
Insucient time to prepare tender documents
Information to draft tender documents is lacking
Level of information to be provided in tender document is uncertain
Scope of works is uncertain

2.463
2.345
2.537
2.855
2.691
2.472
2.836
2.255

0.93
1.00
0.97
0.93
0.88
0.80
1.03
0.73

4.263
4.835
3.523
1.158
2.607
4.813
1.176
7.618

0.000*
0.000*
0.000*
0.126
0.006*
0.000*
0.123
0.000*

2.68
2.30
2.74
2.70
2.20
2.75
3.10
2.45

2.34
2.37
2.43
2.94
2.97
2.30
2.69
2.14

1.696
0.063
1.261
0.863
11.75
4.130
2.092
2.336

0.199
0.802
0.267
0.357
0.001*
0.047*
0.154
0.132

2.89
2.66
2.86
2.55
2.41
2.74
3.59
2.31

2.00
2.00
2.19
3.19
3.00
2.19
2.00
2.19

16.12
6.424
7.129
7.235
6.742
6.953
79.36
0.358

0.000*
0.014*
0.010*
0.010*
0.012*
0.011*
0.000*
0.552

2
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6

Tender evaluation
Owners lack knowledge and experience to evaluate tender
A well-established tender evaluation system is lacking
Too many proposals to evaluate
Insucient time to evaluate tenders
Owner unsure if selected contractor is appropriate
Owner unsure if selected contractor would give value for money

3.093
2.600
2.818
2.491
2.545
2.519

1.15
1.05
1.22
1.10
1.02
0.96

0.590
2.833
1.107
3.363
3.321
3.612

0.279
0.003*
0.137
0.001*
0.001*
0.001*

2.90
2.40
2.85
2.58
2.40
2.60

3.21
2.71
2.80
2.44
2.63
2.47

0.883
1.150
0.021
0.187
0.641
0.227

0.352
0.288
0.885
0.667
0.427
0.636

3.00
2.59
3.03
2.63
2.52
2.62

3.19
2.62
2.58
2.35
2.58
2.42

0.370
0.010
1.968
0.873
0.047
0.517

0.546
0.919
0.167
0.355
0.830
0.475

3
3.1
3.2

Design stage
Contractors detailed design does not meet owners expectations
Contractor submits claims for items not clearly stated in the tender
documents
Contractors consultants are not competent
Contractors consultants, subcontractors and suppliers are not participating
in technical discussions with owners
Insucient communication between owner and contractors consultants,
subcontractors and suppliers
Owners need to bear more risks in approving design and drawings

2.981
2.745

1.11
1.25

0.123
1.510

0.452
0.069

2.90
2.25

3.03
3.03

0.169
5.330

0.682
0.025*

3.00
2.38

2.96
3.15

0.016
5.719

0.900
0.020*

2.755
2.566

1.19
1.20

1.499
2.630

0.070
0.006*

2.68
2.63

2.79
2.53

0.102
0.087

0.751
0.770

2.93
2.78

2.56
2.35

1.271
1.735

0.265
0.194

2.519

1.08

3.285

0.001*

2.58

2.49

0.091

0.764

2.64

2.38

0.772

0.384

2.600

0.993

2.989

0.002*

2.90

2.43

2.976

0.090

2.48

2.73

0.854

0.360

2.691

1.22

1.886

0.033*

2.90

2.57

0.929

0.339

2.62

2.77

0.202

0.655

2.491

1.02

3.716

0.000*

2.20

2.66

2.655

0.109

2.17

2.85

6.660

0.013*

2.691
3.056

1.23
1.24

1.863
0.331

0.034*
0.371

3.00
2.75

2.51
3.24

2.021
1.980

0.161
0.165

2.66
2.79

2.73
3.36

0.051
2.932

0.822
0.093

3.6
4
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4

Construction stage
Delays in commencing work because under-estimated time needed to obtain
statutory approvals
Owners unsure if contractors method statements or shop drawings are
adequate
Owners unsure of the extent they should check on contractors
Low price certainty for owners because of more change orders

10

With PM
mean

3.5

Sign.
(2 tail)

3.3
3.4

ANOVA 1

F.Y.Y. Ling, B.H.M. Poh / International Journal of Project Management 26 (2008) 164173

Public
mean

Sign.
(1 tail)

Note. Means calculated from 5-point ratings (1 = strongly agree; 5 = strongly disagree). t-Test value (l0) is set at 3.

167

168

F.Y.Y. Ling, B.H.M. Poh / International Journal of Project Management 26 (2008) 164173

is negative. Thus, when the calculated t value has signicance of < 0.05, it is concluded that the issue is a perceived by owners to be a signicant problem in their
DB projects.
To compare the perception of problems faced by public (group 1) and private (group 2) sector owners, analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted. In this test,
H0: l1 = l2; and H1: l1 6 l2, where H0: there is no
signicant dierence between perceptions of public and
private sector owners; and H1: there is a signicant difference between perceptions of public and private sector
owners.
It is also important to investigate if owners face fewer
problems if they have in-house project managers. A second
ANOVA was conducted to test H0: l3 = l4 and H1:
l3 6 l4, where H0: there is no signicant dierence in the
perception of severity of problems faced by owners with
(group 3) and without (group 4) in-house project managers; and H1: there is a signicant dierence between perceptions of owners with and without in-house project
managers.
6. Characteristics of the sample
From the 100 sets of questionnaires sent out, 55 usable
forms were received, representing a response rate of 55%.
The good response rate may be because of the three
reminders that were sent to them, and respondents were
able to conveniently return completed questionnaires via
email. Thirty-ve (64%) and 20 (36%) of the respondents
belonged to the private and public sectors respectively.
The skew towards private sector is consistent with the prole of procurement system in Singapore whereby the public
agencies used signicantly lesser DB than private sector
[29]. Twenty-six (47%) respondents did not have in-house
project management and DB expertise while the rest 29
(53%) had. The almost equal ratio of those with and without project management expertise allows for an unbiased
investigation of the concerns of these two groups of respondents. Twenty-two (40%) respondents were professionals,
18 (33%) were upper management and 15 (27%) respondents were middle management. Upper management provides a macro view, while professionals and middle
management are the people who are at the project sites,
dealing with day to day issues and problems. The spread
from professionals to upper management makes the views
of dierent strata of owner organizations to be represented
in this study.
7. Results
The rst objective of this study was to explore the severity of problems faced by owners of DB projects. The results
of the t tests show that owners perceived that they faced
signicant (p < 0.05) problems managing all the four stages
of DB projects (see Table 1, columns 56). These problems
are summarized in Table 2 (column 2).

The second objective was to compare the severity of

problems faced by dierent groups of respondents. Results
of the rst ANOVA show that public and private sector
owners signicantly (p < 0.05) diered in their perception
of severity of problems in only three of the 24 (13%) areas
(Table 1, column 10). These are items 1.5, 1.6 and 3.2.
Results of the second ANOVA show that owners with
and without in-house project management expertise faced
signicantly (p < 0.05) dierent problems in nine of the
24 (38%) areas (Table 1, column 14).
The third objective was to recommend measures to help
owners overcome the problems they face in DB projects.
The recommendations for project managers and owners
to overcome some of the problems faced in DB projects
are summarized in Table 2 (last column).
The results are discussed in the next section. The discussion is based on the statistical results in Table 1 and recommendations in Table 2.
8. Diculties during tender preparation
The t-test results in Table 1 showed that owners perceived that they face six signicant problems during the
tender preparation stage (Table 1, items 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.5,
1.6 and 1.8).
Owners felt that they lacked knowledge and experience
in preparing tenders for DB projects (item 1.1). Those
without in-house project management expertise felt this
more keenly (F = 16.12, p = 0.000). Indeed, owners competencies aect DB project success [10]. Owners without
in-house project managers may be unfamiliar with the
technical aspects of the works. It is recommended that
owners engage project managers as early as possible so
that the necessary information is reected in the tender
documents.
Owners also felt that they lacked relevant manpower
and resources (item 1.2), and legal advice (item 1.3) to prepare tenders for DB projects. Again, those without inhouse project managers felt these more acutely
(p = 0.014). Previous studies have shown that tender preparation is the most critical element of DB success [5]. It is
recommended that owners with no in-house project managers engage project managers and/or quantity surveyors
to help them prepare DB tender documents and RFP,
decide on conditions of contract to be used and level of
information to be provided to tenderers.
The RFP must be adequately prepared [32]. It should
describe owners needs and the scope of work in a clear
and comprehensive manner. This includes what the owner
wants, critical components, major key issues such as risk
allocation, and requirements of creativity and innovation
from DB contractors. The projects needs should be stated
in concrete, measurable results. It should also contain contractor selection criteria, which should be open, fair, clear
and realistic.
The results suggest that there is insucient time to
prepare tender documents (item 1.5), with public owners

F.Y.Y. Ling, B.H.M. Poh / International Journal of Project Management 26 (2008) 164173

169

Table 2
Summary of recommendations
No.

Problems

1
1.1
1.2
1.3

Tender preparation
Owners lack knowledge and experience
Owners lack relevant manpower and resources
Owners lack legal advice and assistance

1.5

Insucient time to prepare tender documents

1.6

Information to draft tender documents is lacking

1.8

Scope of works is uncertain

2
2.2

Tender evaluation
A well-established tender evaluation system is lacking

2.4

Insucient time to evaluate tenders

Set up a tender evaluation system

Use project management tools such as CPM to plan and schedule the activities

2.5

Owner unsure if selected contractor is appropriate

2.6

Owner unsure if selected contractor would give value for

money

During tender submission, request contractors to provide: quality specic qualications and life cycle cost
Require contractors to maintain the built facility for a prolonged period of time

3
3.4

Design stage
Contractors consultants, subcontractors and suppliers
are not participating in technical discussions

3.5

Insucient communication between owner and

contractors consultants, subcontractors and suppliers
Owners need to bear more risks in approving design and
drawings

3.6

Recommendations
Engage a PM early (for problems 1.11.3)
Get the PM or consultant quantity surveyor to prepare tender document, RFP,
advise on conditions of contract to be used and level of information to be provided
to bidders (for problems 1.11.3)
RFP should be adequately prepared (for problems 1.11.3)
Management should set realistic deadlines and avoid publishing the completion date
before it is rmed-up
Use project management tools such as CPM to plan and schedule the activities
PM to advise on type of information and level of detail to be provided in the tender
document
RFP should not contain a large amount of design
Get the PM to identify complete scope of works
Set up a tender evaluation system
Learn from best practices adopted by other rms

Pre-qualify designbuild teams

Scrutinize contractors nancial capacity and track record
Obtain references from other owners, consultants, sub-contractors and suppliers
Select a contractor whom the owner trusts

Built into the contract that technical discussion with owners must be attended by
contractors design consultants
Allow for direct communication between owners and consultants in the contract,
followed by written conrmation with contractors
Specify the type of submissions needed
Engage a professional to review contractors submissions
Provide in the contract that contractors duties and responsibilities are not diminished by owners approval

4
4.1

Construction stage
Delays in commencing work because under-estimated
time needed to obtain statutory approvals

4.2

Owners unsure if contractors method statements or shop

drawings are adequate

Specify the type of submissions needed

Engage a professional to review contractors submissions
Provide in the contract that contractors duties and responsibilities are not diminished by owners approval

4.3

Owners unsure of the extent they should check on

contractors

Focus on the safety aspect of all works in the checking

Take into account the statutory approval period from planning stage
Provide oat in the program for resubmission to authorities to meet their
requirements

facing this signicantly more acutely than private owners

(p = 0.001). Those with in-house project managers felt this
more sharply than those without (p = 0.012), perhaps
because those who have out-sourced tender documentation
to consultant project managers have passed the risk to
them. In-house project managers may have diculty meeting the deadline given by their management to call tenders.
To overcome this problem, it is suggested that management
set realistic deadlines and for public sector projects, to
avoid publicizing the completion date before it is more

rmed-up. In addition, project management tools should

be used to plan key activities.
Private sector owners and those with no in-house project
managers perceived that information to draft DB tender
documents is lacking (item 1.6). Those with no in-house
project managers further felt uncertain about the level of
information to be provided in the tender documents (item
1.7). Studies have found that if the owner provides more
design, the unit cost of DB projects may be higher because
owners may not propose cost eective designs [13]. It is

170

F.Y.Y. Ling, B.H.M. Poh / International Journal of Project Management 26 (2008) 164173

recommended that project managers advise owners on the

PM to advise on type of information and level of detail to
be provided in the tender document.
Owners appeared to be uncertain about the scope of
works to be included in the DB tender document (item
1.8). Previous studies had emphasized that a higher scope
denition would lead to lower cost and schedule growth
[26]. However, owners should resist the temptation to oer
solutions and focus instead on expressing their needs and
requirements [32]. Owners need to have a precise understanding of the DB project scope before preparing the
RFP [10]. It is not dicult to determine the major works
that should be included in the contract. The diculty lies
with what other works would be necessary to compliment
the main scope of works. During the exploratory interview,
a project manager gave the example of preparing the DB
tender document for design and construction of new roads.
The major scope of work encompassed the preparation of
the sub-grade and laying of the road-mix. The question
was whether it was necessary for owners to ascertain all
the minor associated works such as road diversion and
relocation of facilities. It is recommended that project managers help owners identify the complete scope of works to
avoid ambiguity and providing contractors with opportunity to claim after the contract is awarded.
9. Diculties during tender evaluation
The t-test results in Table 1 show that owners perceived
that they face four signicant problems during the tender
evaluation stage (items 2.2, 2.4, 2.5 and 2.6). The ANOVA
results (Table 1, columns 10 and 14) show no signicant
dierence between the ratings of publicprivate owners,
and those with-without in-house project managers.
Owners felt that it is dicult to evaluate DB tenders
because a well-established tender evaluation system is lacking (item 2.2). Following from this, they were uncertain
which tenderer should be selected (item 2.5) to give them
value for money (item 2.6). The selection of a DB contractor is a critical and vital task because the success level of
any construction project depends largely on the basic philosophy of the right person for the right job [16]. Contractor characteristics have also been found to be the key
determinants that aect the performance of DB projects
[10,12].
The main diculty in tender evaluation is the diculty
in comparing and evaluating dierent designs. This is
unlike in traditional DBB procurement where owners are
able to compare apple to apple and in most of the cases,
the contract is awarded to the lowest bidder, especially in
public sector projects. In a DB project, it is dicult and
not logical to apply the same concept as there are dierent
proposals at dierent prices.
The situation is even made worse when there is an
urgency to meet completion deadlines set by higher management. Insucient time during tender evaluation (item
2.4) was found to be another signicant problem. If an

organization does not have a proper tender evaluation system in place, the time taken to award the tender is inherently longer.
Project managers must pay close attention to contractor
selection in order to ensure that the dierent aspects of DB
project performance are achieved [12]. The project managers must possess management and procurement capabilities
to make judgments on a best value rather than lowest
price basis, to select DB oers, to develop project requirements, to assess project progress and quality, and to monitor payments [8]. Owners should use an independent and
experienced evaluator or evaluation team; share results
with aected parties; and be prepared to defend their decisions [32]. The evaluation team should have expertise in
architecture, engineering, nance and project management.
It is recommended that project managers set up a systematic tender evaluation system for DB projects. There
is no need to reinvent the wheel, as models for DB contractor prequalication and bid evaluation are available [16].
Using existing models, best practices adopted by dierent
owners could be incorporated. From there, the tender evaluation system can be progressively rened to suit an owners organizational needs.
The system should consider pre-qualication of bidders,
evaluation of bids that provide the best combination of
costs and value for owners, selection criteria and weighting
of criteria [27]. Pre-qualication is important to reduce the
number of proponents to three or four to allow better competition in the second phase [32]. Even with a scientic system, it is important to select DB teams which owners trust,
so that a team approach can be cultivated.
Tenderers should also be asked to submit their nancial
results and track records, to help project managers determine their suitability to be awarded the DB project. Project
managers should also cross-check the contractors past
performance with other owners, sub-contractors and
suppliers. They should require DB bidders to submit quality-specic qualications on both the design and construction members of their teams [7]. These include a record of
quality performance and quality-specic individual credentials, so that quality risks of DB projects are reduced.
To help owners get value for money, project managers
should evaluate life cycle costs, instead of just the initial
capital cost. In practice, owners perception of value for
money is usually limited to the construction cost, especially
speculative property developers of residential projects.
Ultimately, end-users are the ones who pay for the running
cost. Unfortunately, the cheapest solution in terms of construction costs is almost always accepted with aesthetics
and life cycle cost seldom entering into the equation [9].
For example, performance of mechanical and electrical systems in factory projects using DB route has been found to
be signicantly lower than those using DBB [4]. In private
sector projects, performance of building elements of DBB
projects is also signicantly better than DB [4]. The lower
level of performance may indicate a lack of emphasis on
life cycle costs by DB contractors. It is therefore

F.Y.Y. Ling, B.H.M. Poh / International Journal of Project Management 26 (2008) 164173

recommended that contractors be asked to provide life

cycle costs with their proposals, so that the overall costs
of contractors proposals are known. Alternatively, DB
contracts could be congured to require DB contractors
to operate and maintain the project for some period (say
up to ve years) after construction completion [7]. This
may make DB contractors keener to minimize life cycle
costs.
10. Diculties during design stage
The t-test results in Table 1 shows three signicant problems faced by owners during the design stage (3.4, 3.5 and
3.6), with no signicant dierence between the ratings of
publicprivate owners, and those with and without inhouse project managers in these matters. One of the major
problems perceived by owners during design stage is the
lack of participation of contractors consultants, sub-contractors or suppliers during technical discussion between
contractors and owners (item 3.4).
The purpose of a technical discussion is to resolve design
issues. Technical discussions would not be fruitful if the
DB contractor, being a generalist, is unable to clarify or
conrm some aspects of the design with owners. It is recommended that the contract species that DB contractors
relevant designers and specialist subcontractors attend
technical meetings with owners in the presence of DB contractors. While owners have the chance to participate in
technical discussions, they should not use these sessions
to introduce changes or new requirements after awarding
the DB contract [32]. Owners should get involved without
getting in the way [32].
It is important that owners and the whole DB team are
included in the loop throughout the project and that the
DB team fully understands owners needs. However, owners felt that there is insucient communication between
them and DB contractors team due to the absence of contractual relationship between owners and contractors
design consultants, subcontractors and suppliers (item
3.5). Contractually however, besides the DB contractors,
owners are not allowed to deal directly with other members
of the project team because of lack of privity of contract. A
DB contractor may not allow owners to negotiate with his
consultants and subcontractors in his absence because this
may lead to design changes and consequently cost increase.
In reality, for design matters, it is sometimes more ecient
for owners project managers to communicate with contractors designers, instead of DB contractors themselves
because a DB contractors core expertise is in construction
rather than design. The message passed down to consultants via the contractor might be distorted along the way
and causes misunderstanding. It is recommended any direct
communication with sub-contractors, suppliers and consultants be followed up with a written conrmation to the
main contractor, copied to all relevant parties. Of course,
such an arrangement would have to be agreed upon at
the onset of the project, or provided for in the contract.

171

In DB projects, contractors would submit their drawings to owners for approval. Owners felt that they bear
more risks because they need to approve DB contractors
design and drawings (item 3.6). It is recommended that
owners do not hold designers to the traditional standard
of submission requirements for reviews, revisions, and
resubmissions as it would be counterproductive and may
cause project delay [32]. Moreover, owners may not be
able to evaluate if the submissions are adequate, but for
the sake of not delaying the project, they may approve
the submission so as not to let contractors have an opportunity to claim for extension of time. Unfortunately, if the
design proves to be inadequate later, DB contractors may
put the blame on owners who approved the proposal, and
they may even request for a variation order. It is recommended that the owner assigns his most knowledgeable
project manager to work with DB contractors and their
design team members.
The next issue is the status of owners approval; does the
approval absolve DB contractors from their tness for purpose and/or reasonable skills and care responsibility? It is
recommended that project managers include in the tender
document that owners approval of any design does not
modify or dilute DB contractors responsibility and liability. The general obligations of contractors are still to be
fully responsible for the design and tness for purpose. In
addition, owners should engage professional project managers to review the submissions. Though this may add cost
to owners, it may save owners from spending more time
and money in disputes later.
11. Diculties during construction stage
The t-test results in Table 1 show three signicant problems faced by owners during the construction stage (4.1, 4.2
and 4.3). The ANOVA results show no signicant dierences between the perception of public and private sector
owners.
The results show that owners sometimes under-estimate
the time needed to obtain statutory approvals (item 4.1).
Owners may not be aware that statutory approvals may
take weeks to obtain, thereby delaying physical construction start date, resulting in schedule over-run. It is recommended that project managers advise owners to take into
the account the period for obtaining statutory approvals
right at the planning stage so that a realistic completion
date can be set. Owners should also note that government
authorities may add other requirements which would mean
resubmissions and further delays to the project.
Another problem encountered was when contractors
submit shop-drawings or method statements to owners
for approval and owners are unsure whether the submissions are satisfactory (item 4.2). This is similar to item
3.6 above. The danger of giving approvals is that some of
the risks may be passed to the owner. Project managers
should advise owners to be selective in what they would
like to approve. For example, they do not have to approve

172

F.Y.Y. Ling, B.H.M. Poh / International Journal of Project Management 26 (2008) 164173

technical proposals such as method statement, as long as

the design meets it original intent.
The third problem faced was that owners are unsure the
extent to which they are allowed to check on contractors in
a DB project environment (item 4.3). One of the disadvantages of DB is that owners lose the benet of designers
independent construction oversight and monitoring on
the owners behalf, thereby losing the system of checks
and balances between designers and contractors [8]. To
what extent is the owner allowed to check on contractors
in a DB project environment? Over-checking would restrict
the contractor to innovate and may have cost implication if
the owners representative insists on works being carried
out in a certain way. Under-checking or lax supervision
may tempt contractors to take short-cuts and compromise
on quality. Owners should avoid treating DB projects as
DBB [32]. It is recommended that owners check on contractors in safety matters. As long as the works being carried out are safe, owners should not intervene. This is to
ensure the single point of responsibility rests with the DB
contractor.
12. Conclusion
This study investigated the problems that owners faced
when they used the DB procurement system (Table 1). At
each stage of the project development cycle, owners faced
signicant problems. More problems are experienced by
owners at the upstream of a DB project such as during tender preparation and evaluation. These include diculty
faced in preparing tender documents and selecting the most
appropriate contractors.
Generally, the problems faced by owners are widespread across the construction industry in Singapore.
There are no major dierences in the problems faced by
owners in the public and private sectors. As regards owners
with and without in-house project management expertise,
the results show that owners without in-house project management expertise face signicantly more problems especially at the upstream of the project, ie during tender
preparation stage. For example, they felt inadequate in
terms of knowledge and experience on DB, lacked manpower, resources, legal advice and assistance to prepare
tender documents, and unsure about how much information and scope of contract that should be specied in the
tender.
This study has several limitations. Firstly, the responses
gathered from owners were based on their perceptions,
which is subjective. Secondly, dierent respondents may
have dierent views about the anchors of the rating scale.
If two respondents rated 3, they may still not face the same
level of diculty for the issue identied. Lastly, the composition of the public sector (n = 20) and private sector
(n = 35) respondents was not on equal. Thus, there may
be biases in the comparison. In future, more sets of data
could be collected from the public sector so that a more
balanced comparison can be made.

This study recommended ways in which project managers could help owners surmount some of the problems they
face in DB projects (Table 2). The recommendations are
underpinned by the advice that owners should engage project managers either as in-house employees or external consultants to help them implement their DB projects. The
cost that they incur in project management fees would be
insignicant compared to the savings that they get from
having a well-designed and built DB facility.
References
[1] C21 Steering Committee. Construction 21: re-inventing construction.
Singapore: Ministry of Manpower and Ministry of National Development; 1999.
[2] Ling YY, Khee HY, Lim KSG. The reasons why owner prefer to
procure more projects based on design-bid build than design and
build. J Constr Procurement 2000;6(2):13546.
[3] Konchar M, Sanvido V. Comparison of US project delivery systems.
J Constr Eng Manage 1998;124(6):43544.
[4] Ling FYY, Kerh SH. Comparing the performance of designbuild
and design-bid-build building projects in Singapore. Archit Sci Rev
2004;47:16376.
[5] Songer AD, Molenaar KR. Project characteristics of successful public
sector designbuild. J Constr Eng Manage 1997;123(1):3440.
[6] Akintoye A. Design and build: a survey of construction contractors
views. Constr Manage Econ 1994;12:15563.
[7] Gransberg DD, Molenaar KM. Analysis of owners design and
construction quality management approaches in design/build projects. J Manage Eng 2004;20(4):1629.
[8] Fahmy S, Jergeas GF. Designbuild delivery system on trial. AACE
Int Trans 2004:PM11.17.
[9] Ndekugri I, Church R. Construction procurement by the design and
build approach: a survey of problems. In: Taylor RG, editor.
Proceedings of CIB W92 procurement systems. North meets South:
Developing Ideas; 1996. p. 45262.
[10] Chan APC, Ho DCK, Tam CM. Design and build project success
factors: multivariate analysis. J Constr Eng Manage 2001;127(2):
93100.
[11] Kumaraswamy MM, Ling FYY, Rahman MM, Phng ST. Constructing relationally integrated teams. J Constr Eng Manage 2005;131(10):
107686.
[12] Ling FYY. How project managers can better control the performance
of designbuild projects. Int J Project Manage 2004;22:47788.
[13] Ling FYY, Chan SL, Chong E, Ee LP. Predicting performance of
designbuild and design-bid-build project. J Constr Eng Manage
2004;130(1):7583.
[14] Nahapiet H, Nahapiet J. The management of construction projects
case studies from USA and UK. Ascot: CIOB; 1985.
[15] Masterman JWE. An introduction to building procurement systems.
London: E & FN Spon; 1996.
[16] Palaneeswaran E, Kumaraswamy MM. Contractor selection for
design/ build projects. J Constr Eng Manage 2000;126(5):3319.
[17] Kubr M. How to select and use consultants? Geneva: International
Labour Oce; 1993.
[18] Stillman GR. Project management on designbuild projects. AACE
Int Trans 2002:PM1.14.
[19] Moore DR, Dainty ARJ. Intra-team boundaries as inhibitors of
performance improvement in UK design and build projects: a call for
change. Construct Manage Econ 2001;19:55962.
[20] Petersen DR, Murphree EL. The impact of owner representatives in a
designbuild construction environment. Project Manage J 2004;35(3):
2738.
[21] Linowes J. Marketing design/build. J Manage Eng 2000;16(5):101.
[22] Preece CM, Tarawnah S. Why are design & build owners unhappy?
Constr Manager 1997;3(7):245.

F.Y.Y. Ling, B.H.M. Poh / International Journal of Project Management 26 (2008) 164173
[23] Cecil R. Design and build. Archit J 1983;177(13):612.
[24] Huse JA. Understanding and negotiating turnkey contracts. London:
Sweet & Maxwell; 1997.
[25] Turner DF. Design and build contract practice. London: Longman
Scientic and Technical; 1986.
[26] O Connor J, Vickroy G. Control of construction project scope.
Austin: Construction Industry Institute; 1985.
[27] Abi-Karam T. Design/build selection process art or science? Cost
Eng 2005;47(5):149.
[28] Ling YY, Chong CLK. Design-and-build contractors service quality
in public projects in Singapore. Build Environ 2005;40(6):81523.

173

[29] BCA (Building and Construction Authority). Design & Build Trend.
Singapore: BCA; 2006. Downloaded from: http://www.bca.gov.sg/
DesignBuild/design_build_statistics_g2.html.
[30] Detmar S, Gefen D, Boudreau MC. The ISWorld Quantitative,
Positivist Research Methods Website; 2004. Downloaded from:
http://www.dstraub.cis.gsu.edu:88/quant/.
[31] Tan W. Research methods in real estate and construction.
Singapore: School of Building and Estate Management;
1995.
[32] Jergeas G, Fahmy S. Ten critical principles for successful design
build projects. Cost Eng 2006;48(11):2934.