Comparing the performance of design-bid-build (DBB) and design-build (DB) commercial construction projects
Loading...
Supplementary material
Other Title
Authors
Pennington, T.
Kiroff, Lydia
Kiroff, Lydia
Author ORCID Profiles (clickable)
Degree
Grantor
Date
2025
Supervisors
Type
Conference Contribution - Paper in Published Proceedings
Ngā Upoko Tukutuku (Māori subject headings)
Keyword
New Zealand
design-bid-build
design-build
construction industry
procurement
early contractor involvement (ECI)
design-bid-build
design-build
construction industry
procurement
early contractor involvement (ECI)
ANZSRC Field of Research Code (2020)
Citation
Pennington, T., & Kiroff, L. (2025). Comparing the performance of design-bid-build (DBB) and design-build (DB) commercial construction projects. In V. Vimonsatit, H. Askarinejad, M. Pour, A. Singh, and S. Yazdani (Ed.), Proceedings of International Structural Engineering and Construction: Integrating Technology for Advanced Practices in Structural Engineering and Construction , Vol. 12(1), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.14455/ISEC.2025.12(1).PRO-01
Abstract
The New Zealand commercial construction industry predominantly employs the traditional Design-Bid-Build (DBB) contract process, where design and construction responsibilities are separated. This often results in design errors and omissions, leading to significant cost and schedule overruns. However, the Design-Build (DB) contract process, which integrates design and construction under a single contractor, is gaining traction. In this model, the contractor assumes financial and schedule risks once the client approves the budget. This study employed a multi-case research approach to compare the DBB and DB contract processes. Data were collected from eight projects completed by an Auckland construction company and evaluated against key performance indicators. Additionally, interviews with key stakeholders provided insights into the performance benefits and challenges of each contract process. The findings reveal that stakeholders adhere to familiar contract processes, negatively impacting the industry. The DB process was found to mitigate cost and schedule overruns more effectively than the DBB process. It facilitates early collaboration between the contractor and project team, addressing design errors and buildability issues upfront and ensuring smoother project execution. The DB process is particularly effective for small- to medium-scale, less complex projects, while the DBB process remains suitable for large, complex projects requiring substantial client input during design.
Publisher
International Structural Engineering and Construction Society (ISEC)
Permanent link
Link to ePress publication
DOI
https://doi.org/10.14455/ISEC.2025.12(1).PRO-01
Copyright holder
Authors
Copyright notice
CC BY-NC-ND Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International