Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Issue Date: 2006
Abstract: One of the main changes apparent in the local construction industry is the move from tried and traditional procurement systems, towards design-and-build procurement. Design-and-build continues to grow steadily in unabated popularity. Without a doubt, the characteristic single point responsibility inherent in design-and-build offers an attractive proposition for clients who are inimical to the problems associated with traditional delivery. Successful design-and-build procurement, which offers an integrated supply chain from design to construction, requires a well-managed process involving people with the appropriate know-how on the way it should be procured and implemented. Above all, there must be in place acceptable contractual arrangements and contract forms to govern contractual relationships and risk allocation. While design-and-build procurement seems to be the panacea and offers a particularly attractive solution to the fixed design and traditional bills of quantities arrangement, warning signs are looming that it may not have all the answers to realise the perceived benefits touted by its proponents. There is also an apparent lack of unanimity in the local industry's sentiments towards this system of procurement, evident from a few of the largest developers' choices of procurement systems. What then, are the factors influencing the decision to adopt this method of procurement? Given the disparity in the local construction industry's sentiments towards design-and-build procurement, this research sets out to examine some of the ways in which design-and-build contracts have been structured in Singapore and the advantages and disadvantages of design-and-build procurement (and its hybrids) in reality in the local construction industry. In turn, these merits and drawbacks cast light onto the underlying reasons for one's decision to adopt design-and-build procurement or otherwise. The research methodology consisted of case studies on two developers that have adopted design-and-build procurement arrangement for almost all the projects undertaken by them. One project from each organisation has been selected for detailed study. The cases served as the main source of primary data for the research arguments. Interviews were conducted with the clients, architects, engineers, quantity surveyors and contractors of the two projects. Information gathered were collated, summarised and analysed to answer the proposed research questions and to test the validity of the research hypothesis, which is "The determinants of choice of design-and-build procurement are: • Time available for the design, procurement and construction processes; • Quality of work required, including the degree of technical input/expertise required of the Contractor; • Degree of cost control and cost certainty desired." The case studies have indicated that whilst not all members in a construction project benefited fully from the claimed advantages of design-and-build procurement, most of the merits of this procurement arrangement influenced the choice of this method of procurement. More in-depth studies on the forms of design-and-build procurement adopted locally can be carried out to explore issues such as improving and including provisions and arrangements which can result in an optimum and balanced design-and-build procurement arrangement so that its inherent merits can be enhanced and its flaws corrected. In conclusion, it has been established that the choice of design-and-build procurement for a particular project depends on how the merits of this arrangement outweigh its drawbacks. Findings gathered further revealed that in addition to the technical and practical characteristics of design-and-build procurement, political reasons also govern an organisation's choice of procurement arrangement.
Appears in Collections:Master's Theses (Restricted)

Show full item record
Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormatAccess SettingsVersion 
DesGra.pdf8.51 MBAdobe PDF


NoneLog In

Page view(s)

checked on Jan 17, 2019

Google ScholarTM


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.