Please wait a minute...

Frontiers of Engineering Management

Front. Eng    2017, Vol. 4 Issue (1) : 49-57
Construction engineering management culture shift: Is the lowest tender offer dead?
Eric SCHEEPBOUWER1(), Douglas D. GRANSBERG2, Carla Lopez del PUERTO3
1. Civil and Natural Resources Engineering, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand
2. Civil, Construction and Environmental Engineering, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011, USA
3. Construction Engineering and Management, University of Puerto Rico, Mayaguez, PR 00681-9000, USA
Download: PDF(212 KB)   HTML
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks

The procurement of public construction projects must walk a fine line between the corruption of state officials and collusion of contractors. The method of awarding projects to the lowest responsible tenderer was originally implemented to guard against corruption of state officials. However, an investigation of the construction industry in the Canadian province of Quebec showed that lowest-tender-offer procurement gave rise to collusion of companies tendering for the contracts. Alternatively, best-value procurement has been used for decades, but here problems arise owing to the necessity of subjective judging of measures other than price to compare bids, giving rise to time- and money-consuming protests. The paper proposes a compelling argument that the construction engineering management (CEM) culture should refocus its efforts on enhancing project cost certainty rather than merely searching for means to design a project in a manner that produces the lowest initial cost, and awards the construction to the lowest tender offer that focuses on cost savings during the project development and delivery process. The difference in the two approaches is subtle but extremely important. To make the transition, the engineering management tools must be advanced to the next level. This means that all project control tools for managing cost, schedule, and technical scope must be transformed from working in the deterministic mode to the stochastic mode, thus making the probability of completing the project within or below its official budget the primary decision criterion. To do so, CEMs must accept that there is a benefit in paying more for an alternative that increases cost certainty for the entire project. The authors of this paper hope that it will provide the grist for a more general dialog across all industry sectors where engineering management is practiced.

Keywords cost certainty      lowest responsible bid      best value      public procurement      construction engineering management culture     
Corresponding Authors: Eric SCHEEPBOUWER   
Online First Date: 06 April 2017    Issue Date: 19 April 2017
 Cite this article:   
Eric SCHEEPBOUWER,Douglas D. GRANSBERG,Carla Lopez del PUERTO. Construction engineering management culture shift: Is the lowest tender offer dead?[J]. Front. Eng, 2017, 4(1): 49-57.
E-mail this article
E-mail Alert
Articles by authors
Carla Lopez del PUERTO
Fig.1  Cost growth from initial estimate vs. design fee of total OTA population. Reprinted from (Gransberg et al., 2007) with permission from ASCE. The arrow shows the point where the initial estimate is reduced during preconstruction
Fig.2  Cost growth from initial estimate vs. design fee of bridge projects from OTA population . Reprinted from (Gransberg et al., 2007) with permission from ASCE. The arrow shows the point where the initial estimate is reduced during preconstruction of bridge projects
1 ArditiD, AkanG T, GurdamarS (1985). Cost overruns in public projects.International Journal of Project Management, 3(4): 218–224
2 AlaviS, TavaresM P (2009). Highway Project Cost Estimating and Management. Technical Report FHWA/MT-08-007/8189
3 BambergerC, StarkM (2008). Best practices for use of best value selections AGC of America & NASFA.
4 BeardL J, LoulakisC M, WundramC E (2001). Design-Build: Planning through Development. New York: McGraw-Hill Professional
5 BeemerJ (2005). The cost of perfection in public works projects: A design professional’s perspective. American Council of Engineering Companies, Government Advocacy,
6 BlanchardB (2007).Design-build lessons learned Florida DOT. In: Proceedings of Louisiana Transportation Engineering Conference. Baton Rouge, 6–14
7 BothaP S, ScheepbouwerE (2015). Christchurch rebuild, New Zealand: Alliancing with a difference. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Management, Procurement and Law, 168(3): 121–129
8 BubshaitA A, Al-SaidF A, AbolnourM M (1998). Design fee versus design deficiency.Journal of Architectural Engineering, 4(2): 44–46
9 BuratiJ L Jr, FarringtonJ J, LedbetterW B (1992). Causes of quality deviations in design and construction.Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 118(1): 34–49
10 CarrP G, BeyorP S (2005). Design fees, the state of the profession, and a time for corrective action.Journal of Management Engineering, 21(3): 110–117
11 CBC News (2015). Charbonneau commission report: A deeper look at the recommendations.
12 CharbonneauF, LachanceR (2015). Final Report of the Commission of Inquiry on the Awarding and management of contracts public in the construction industry. (in French)
13 CraigieE K, GransbergD D, JeongH D (2016). Cost and scope breakdown structure for functional level estimating of consultant fees.Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2573: 157–163
14 CrossetJ, HinesL (2007). Comparing State DOTs’ Construction Project Cost and Schedule Performance: 28 BestPractices from Nine States. AASHTO, Washington
15 CrowleyL G, HancherD E (1995). Evaluation of competitive bids.Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 121(2): 238–245
16 CurryB (2016). Competition Bureau warns of bid-rigging as Ottawa set to spend on infrastructure. , 2016-05-29
17 EllisR D, HerbsmanZ, KumarA (1991). Evaluation of the FDOT design/build program. Final Report, Submitted to Florida Deptment of Transportation, State Project No. 99700-7543-010, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Florida, Gainesville
18 Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) (2006). Design-build effectiveness study. , 2016-05-29
19 GirardD (2016). Charbonneau Commission Follow-up: Ethics Lessons for Quebec and Elsewhere. Webinar Presentation,
20 GransbergD D, BartonR F (2007). Analysis of federal design-build request for proposals evaluation criteria.Journal of Management Engineering, 23(2): 105–111
21 GransbergD D, BussA, KaracaI,LoulakisM C (2017). Alternate design/Alternate bid process for pavement type selection. NCHRP Synthesis Report 20-05/Topic47-02
22 GransbergD D, EllicottM A (1997). Best value contracting criteria.Cost Engineering, 39(6): 31–34
23 GransbergD D, JeongH D, Lopez del PuertoC, Hunter K D (2014). Preconstruction Services Estimating Guidebook. Interim Research Report, NCHRP Project15-51
24 GransbergD D, Lopez del PuertoC, HumphreyD (2007). Relating cost growth from the initial estimate to design fee for transportation projects.Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 133(6): 404–408
25 GransbergD D, MolenaarK R (2008). Does design-build project delivery affect the future of the public engineer? Transportation Research Record:Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2081: 3–8
26 HarpD W (1991). Historical background—Low bid concept. Transportation Research Circular, 386: 43–47
27 HigbeeJ B (2004). Geotechnical issues with large design—Build highway projects.Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1868: 147–153
28 HokeT (2012). A question of ethics: The ethical aspects of competition.Civil Engineering Magazine Archive, 82(10): 44–45
29 HunterK D, GransbergD D (2014). Comparative analysis of two models for estimating highway project design costs. Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting 2014, National Academies, Compendium, Paper 14-3967
30 JanacekJ (2006). Construction costs going through the roof? 2006 Public Works Officer Institute, Presentation, Los Angeles
31 KirbyJ G, FurryD A, HicksD K (1988). Improvements in design review management.Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 114(1): 69–82
32 KraftE, ParkH, GransbergD D (2014). Performance bond: Cost benefit, and paradox for public highway agencies. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2408: 3–9
33 LenzR (2010). TxDOT’s alternate pavement design and bid policy. Texas Asphalt Paving Association Annual Meeting, Presentation, Austin
34 Lopez del PuertoC, CraigieE, GransbergD D (2016). Construction cost certainty versus construction savings: Which is the correct approach? In: Proceedings of Transportation Research Board 95th Annual Meeting. Washington,16-2754
35 Lopez del PuertoC, GransbergD D, ShaneJ S (2008). Comparative analysis of owner goals for design/build projects.Journal of Management Engineering, 24(1): 32–29
36 MendezV (2010). Every day counts: Innovation initiative. Federal Highway Administration, Washington
37 MinchinR E, ChiniA P (2016). Alternative Contracting Research. Final Research Report, FDOT Contract Number BDV31-977-40, Florida DOT, Tallahassee
38 MolenaarK R, GransbergD D (2001). Design-builder selection for small highway projects.Journal of Management Engineering, 17(4): 214–223
39 MorgenE T (1986). Claims by the federal government against its A/E—Guidelines for improving practice. Office for Professional Liability, Research of Victor O. Schinner, Washington
40 OdeckJ (2004). Cost overruns in road construction—What are their sizes and determinants?Transport Policy, 11(1): 43–53
41 Oklahoma Turnpike Authority (OTA) (1999). Standards and Specifications, Oklahoma City
42 Rueda-BenavidesJ A, GransbergD D (2014). Indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity contracting: A case study analysis.Transportation Research Record, 2408: 17–25
43 ScheepbouwerE, HumphriesA B (2011). Transition in adopting project delivery method with early contractor involvement.Transportation Research Record, 2228: 44–50
44 ScottS, MolenaarK R, GransbergD D, SmithN C (2006). Best Value Procurement for Highway Construction Projects. NCHRP Report Project10-61
45 ShaneJ S, GransbergD D, MolenaarK R, GladkeJ R (2006). Legal challenge to a best-value procurement system.Leadership and Management in Engineering, 6(1): 20–25
46 SongerA D, IbbsC W, NapierT R (1994). Process model for public sector design-build planning. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 120(4): 857–874
47 SzeligaK R (2005). Conflict and intrigue in government contracts: A guide to identifying and mitigating organizational conflicts of interest.Public Contract Law Journal, 35(4): 639–674
48 TigheS (2001). Guidelines for probabilistic pavement life cycle cost analysis.Transportation Research Record, 1769: 28–38
49 TranD, MolenaarK R, GransbergD D (2016). Implementing best-value procurement for design-bid-build highway projects. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2573: 26–33
50 Van de RijtJ, SantemaS (2012). The best value approach in the Netherlands: A reflection on past, present and future.Journal for the Advancement of Performance Information and Value, 4(2): 147–160
51 WestN, GransbergD D, McMinimeeJ (2012). Effective tools for projects delivered using the construction manager/general contractor method.Transportation Research Record, 2268: 33–39
52 YuW, WangK (2012). Best value or lowest bid? A quantitative perspective. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 138(1): 128–134
53 YuanJ, ZengA, SkibniewskiM J, LiQ (2009). Selection of performance objectives and key performance indicators in public-private partnership projects to achieve value for money.Construction Management and Economics, 27(3): 253–270
Full text