Development Expectation Gap of Design-Build Contract Delivery in China’s Civil Aviation Infrastructure Projects

Abstract

Despite the reduction in cost and schedule, and the improvement of quality and safety, the design-build (DB) method in China’s civil aviation infrastructure projects (CAIPs) has not been widely used and not reached the full value. To know what the development expectation gap is, it is necessary to determine the disparity in developmental prospects of the DB method in China’s CAIPs. To this end, this paper first conducted a survey to know what the development expectation is through 69 subjects working in CAIPs. After that, 25 cases data were collected to get the actual development of the DB in CAIPs. The key findings from the comparison between the expectation and actual development show that the design institutes play a leading role in the popular form of consortium in the DB mode, and the DB method is mainly used in CAIPs with small investment. In addition, this paper also analyzes how some causes contributed to the development gap and presents three strategic actions. This study not only shows the development status of the DB method in CAIPs but also presents the reasons contributing the development expectation gap, along with the potential strategic actions, which can be as a reference for scholars and practitioners.

Keywords

design-build (DB) / survey expectations / actual development / development expectation gap

References

[1] Mahdi, I. M., & Alreshaid, K. (2005). Decision support system for selecting the proper project delivery method using analytical hierarchy process (AHP). International Journal of Project Management, 23(7), 564-572. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2005.05.007

[2] Sanvido, V., & Konchar, M. (1999). Selecting project delivery systems. In Proceedings of the Project Management Institute Annual Seminars & Symposium.

[3] Zhong, Q., Tang, H., Chen, C., & Igor, M. (2023). A comprehensive appraisal of the factors impacting construction project delivery method selection: A systematic analysis. Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering, 22(2), 802-820. https://doi.org/10.1080/13467581.2022.2060983

[4] Noorzai, E. (2020). Performance analysis of alternative contracting methods for highway construction projects: Case study for Iran. Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 26(2), 04020003. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)IS.1943-555X.0000528

[5] Mafakheri, F., Dai, L., Slezak, D., & Nasiri, F. (2007). Project delivery system selection under uncertainty: Multicriteria multilevel decision aid model. Journal of Management in Engineering, 23(4), 200-206. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0742-597X(2007)23:4(200)

[6] Everest, W. R., & Malloy, S. (2000). A design/build approach to deep aquifer membrane treatment in southern California. Desalination, 132(1-3), 41-45. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0011-9164(00)00133-8

[7] Fathi, M., & Shrestha, P. (2020). Design-build project performance: Comparison between commercial building and health care building projects. In Construction Research Congress 2020: Project Management and Controls, Materials, and Contracts, 1091-1100.

[8] Gransberg, D. D., & Senadheera, S. P. (1999). Design-build contract award methods for transportation projects. Journal of Transportation Engineering, 125(6), 565-567. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-947X(1999)125:6(565)

[9] Jide, S. (2003). Design-build contracting in construction projects. China Civil Engineering Journal, 36(9), 51-54.

[10] Toosi, C., Seal, J., & Mosley, J. D. (2019). Nashville’s largest water line project from concept to service in 24 months. In Proceedings of Pipelines 2019, 29-39.

[11] Ameyaw, C. (2009). Comparative performance evaluation of the traditional design-bid-build (DBB) and design-build (DB) procurement methods in Ghana. Master’s Thesis, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology.

[12] Franz, B., Molenaar, K. R., & Roberts, B. A. M. (2020). Revisiting project delivery system performance from 1998 to 2018. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 146(9), 04020100. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001896

[13] Goftar, V. N., Asmar, M. E., & Bingham, E. (2014). A meta-analysis of literature comparing project performance between design-build (DB) and design-bid-build (DBB) delivery systems. In Construction in a Global Network - Proceedings of the 2014 Construction Research Congress, 1389-1398.

[14] Park, J., & Kwak, Y. H. (2017). Design-bid-build (DBB) vs. design-build (DB) in the U.S. public transportation projects: The choice and consequences. International Journal of Project Management, 35(3), 280-295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.10.013

[15] Gad, G. M., Davis, B., Shrestha, P. P., & Harder, P. (2019). Lessons learned from progressive design-build implementation on airport projects. Journal of Legal Affairs and Dispute Resolution in Engineering and Construction, 11(4). https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)LA.1943-4170.0000320

[16] Noguchi, T., Watabe, Y., & Tsuchida, T. (2015). A study on geotechnical risk management in the airport construction on the sea by design-build. Journal of Japan Society of Civil Engineers, Ser. F4 (Construction and Management), 71(1), 33-43. https://doi.org/10.2208/jscejcm.71.33

[17] Rosner, J. W. (2008). An analysis of the design-build delivery approach in air force military construction. Doctoral Dissertation, Air Force Institute of Technology.

[18] Touran, A., Gransberg, D. D., Molenaar, K. R., Bakhshi, P., & Ghavamifar, K. (2009). Evaluation and selection of airport capital project delivery methods. Retrieved from: https://trid.trb.org/View/905134

[19] El Asmar, M., Ramsey, D., Gibson Jr, G. E., & Bearup, W. (2020). Design-build for transportation projects: Cost and schedule change performance analysis. Journal of Legal Affairs and Dispute Resolution in Engineering and Construction, 12(1), 04519030. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)LA.1943-4170.0000335

[20] Choi, K., Jung, I., Yin, Y., Gurganus, C., & Jeong, H. D. (2020). Holistic performance evaluation of highway design-build projects. Journal of Management in Engineering, 36(4), 04020024. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000781