The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/0263-2772.htm

F
38,1/2 A sustainable procurement
approach for selection of
construction consultants in
98 property and facilities management
Received 4 December 2018 Terence Y.M. Lam
Revised 5 June 2019
Accepted 13 July 2019
Faculty of Built Environment, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia

Abstract
Purpose – Outsourcing architectural and engineering services is a trend for public-sector construction
projects. This study aims to examine what tender selection criteria should be considered when assessing the
performance outcomes of consultants in relation to sustainable design, construction and management of
buildings within the context of property and facilities management of existing building portfolios.
Design/methodology/approach – Combined qualitative-quantitative methods are adopted to examine
the causal relationship between sustainable performance outcomes and influencing factors, using primary
data collected from the estate offices of the UK universities, which form a unique public sector. The
performance factors identified form the basis of selection criteria.
Findings – The qualitative multiple-case interviews identify economic, environmental, social and functional
sustainability measures as the attributes of performance outcome. The quantitative hierarchical regression
analysis generalises that sustainable performance outcomes can be significantly influenced by task and
contextual performance factors.
Research limitations/implications – The scope of the study is limited to university estates. Further
research should be conducted on other property and facilities management and construction-related
organisations so that the sustainable procurement approach developed by this research can become more
robust and applicable to the wider public sector.
Practical implications – At the tender stage, estate managers should adopt a sustainable procurement
approach for selection of construction consultants: focussing on the significant task performance (project staff
and execution approach) and contextual performance (collaborative consultant frameworks) influencing
factors to optimise the project sustainability outcomes in relation to economic, environmental, social and
functional values.
Originality/value – The sustainable procurement approach developed by this research benefits property
and facilities management, as well as construction disciplines within the wider public sector, thus
contributing to the government construction policy on promoting sustainability to the built environment.
Keywords Performance outcomes, Procurement, Construction consultants,
Property and facilities management, Selection criteria, Sustainabiltiy, Procurement
Paper type Research paper

Facilities
Vol. 38 No. 1/2, 2020
pp. 98-113
© Emerald Publishing Limited
0263-2772
DOI 10.1108/F-12-2018-0147
Introduction
In many countries such as Australia and the UK, there is a trend to outsource architectural
and engineering services for public-sector projects. It is vitally important to develop an
effective assessment method for the procurement of consultancy services so that competent
The data used for this study is extracted from part of a research project funded by the Royal
Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) Research Trust. The author is very thankful to the Trust.
consultants can be selected to achieve the required project outcomes. As innovations and Sustainable
sustainability for the built environment have now dominated the public-sector agenda, more procurement of
governments have set ambitious greenhouse gas emission and life cycle cost targets for the
construction
near future, and seek to establish strategies and standards to promote sustainable building
practice. However, a survey investigation conducted by Brammer and Walker (2011) on a consultants
sample of over 280 public procurement practitioners of 20 countries shows that although
sustainable procurement practices are adopted for outsourcing of services in the public 99
sector, the extent and nature of these practices vary significantly from country to country. In
Australia, previous research reveals that public authorities are at different stages of
implementation of “green” initiatives in construction planning and development, with
considerable gaps in the tender analysis tools and types of contract used for tendering and
contracting (Sanchez et al., 2013).
Previous research also confirms that the occupant’s satisfaction with building design and
performance is a critical benchmark for assessing the success of sustainable buildings
(Peretti et al., 2010; Gorgolewski, 2014). Such level of satisfaction has a direct correlation
with job performance and productivity, stable state of mind, health and well-being of
employees and lower operating costs. These, in turn, lead to a stronger demand for
sustainable commercial buildings from property owners and users, as suggested by Jailani
et al. (2015). Consequently, there is a need to consider the project outcomes in relation to
sustainable design, construction and management of buildings at the tender stage.
Furthermore, the best value is now a predominant approach for the procurement of public
services (OGC, 2008). To procure the best value professional services, the consultant’s
sustainable project outcomes must be fully assessed to fulfill the requirements of public-
sector procurement.
However, there is a lack of research on sustainable procurement practices for achieving
sustainable design and development in the public sector. Existing research has been biased
towards the development of green procurement policy for facilitating the implementation of
sustainable measures, and of tools to encourage sustainability in the supply chain when the
public sector procures from suppliers in specific industries including construction, IT, food
and timber (Walker and Brammer, 2007). Even though there is a relatively well-developed
body of research on sustainable procurement in private-sector organisations, studies have
virtually been geared towards the environmental issues in procurement, with little research
on social and other aspects of sustainable procurement to date.
To address the knowledge gap in the procurement process, this study examines what
criteria should be considered for the selection of construction consultants to optimise the
sustainable project outcomes. The ultimate aim is to develop a sustainable procurement
approach for the procurement of construction consultants for property and facilities
management of existing building portfolios, which, in turn, contributes to the government
construction policy on promoting sustainability to the built environment. In fact, the
existing property stock plays a very crucial role in achieving a sustainable built
environment. Maintenance and retro-fitting of existing buildings offers significant
opportunities for reducing global energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions (Ma
et al., 2012).
Empirical work shows that there is a causal relationship between performance outcomes
and performance drivers in the production of services and that regression analysis can be
used as a tool to forecast performance (Lee et al., 1999). Accordingly, it is possible to identify
the significant selection criteria by conducting a regression analysis between sustainable
project outcomes and potential performance influencing factors.
F Sustainable project outcomes
38,1/2 The existing selection approach is often an input-based assessment relying on a range of
task and contextual performance factors. This approach is developed by Ling (2000) for the
selection of construction consultants in Singapore and reflected in the evaluation framework
suggested by Morledge and Smith (2013) for the selection of various consultants for
construction projects. However, such an approach cannot guarantee that the strategic
100 project objectives could be achieved. Public-sector clients should focus to measure the
required project outcomes instead of prescriptive inputs to achieve the project success
(Cabinet Office, 2011).
According to Brundtland (1987), sustainability is defined as “meeting the needs of the
present without comprising the ability of future generations to meet theirs”. Cambridge
Advanced Learning’s Dictionary also defines sustainability as “the ability to continue
something over a long period of time”, which can be said to embrace the meaning of
continuous operation and functionality. Elkington (1997) conceptualises sustainable
development principles as “triple bottom lines” where the environmental, economic and
social values of the project should be balanced and harmonised.
To study the nature and extent of current sustainable procurement practice in the public
sector in the UK, Walker and Brammer (2007) conducted a qualitative questionnaire survey
of the public-sector organisations. Drawing upon a sample of 106 organisations, it was
found that the public sector currently focussed on social and economic, rather than
environmental aspects of sustainable procurement. Public-sector organisations
predominantly have a service-industry character so have a greater orientation to social
issues. Public procurement is also concerned with how public-sector organisations spend
tax-payers’ money on goods and services because public-sector expenditure is substantial: 8
and 25 per cent of GDP on goods and services (OECD, 2006) worldwide and approximately
£150 billion in the UK (DEFRA, 2006). Consequently, public organisations also focussed on
economic sustainability in the procurement of public services. In addition to these, the
education sector had an emphasis on environmental aspects such as waste and packaging
reduction.
Sarja (2002) adds that the sustainable design of buildings should also cover the
functionality aspect. This argument is quite true because buildings have to be functional to
achieve the three triple bottom lines. However, Petersen (2002) reviewed six sustainability
measure tools for existing buildings adopted by major countries including NABERS in
Australia, Environmental status in Sweden, Eco profile in Norway, Green Globes in Canada,
HEQ in France and CASBEE in Japan, and found that the measure criteria of these tools are
virtually related to environmental issues. Unfortunately, the consideration of social,
economic and functional factors can only be found in a few studies, for example, Benoit et al.
(2010) on life cycle cost and McShane (2006) on the social value of community infrastructure.
In management and maintenance of existing buildings, Kalutara et al. (2017), therefore, calls
for an integrated approach to assess the sustainable project outcomes from all
environmental, economic, social and functional aspects.
Through a consultation with sustainability experts in six local councils and a country-
wide questionnaire survey in Australia, Kalutara et al. (2017) consolidate the measures of
sustainability into 18 assessment criteria by factor analysis, which can be well fit into the
four aspects of sustainability as follows:
(1) environment aspect: water management, material sustainability, energy-efficient,
waste management, air and noise pollution and user comfort;
(2) economic aspect: life cycle cost, land value, local economy and additional capital
investment;
 (3) social aspect: local community engagement benefits and equity, neighbourhood Sustainable
character and employee well-being; and procurement of
(4) functional aspect: impact of failure and responses, level of service and compliance construction
to building standards and regulations. consultants
In addition to this, Jailani et al. (2015) identify 20 sustainable building characteristics as the
measures for sustainability of “existing” commercial buildings, based on a questionnaire
survey and a focus group study conducted with occupiers in eight office buildings in
101
Melbourne:

environment aspect: adequate natural lighting, ventilation and artificial lighting,
good acoustic quality with acceptable noise level and responsive heating/cooling
system;

economic aspect: minimal energy consumption through effective control over natural
lighting, ventilation, temperature and opening of external windows;

social aspect: visually appealing, good collaboration/interaction with other
colleagues, design layout that facilitates movement within the building, tidy in
appearance, conversation privacy and visual privacy in the office; and

functional aspect: up-to-date IT and telecommunication services, good common
amenity, efficient productivity at comfortable levels of humidity and temperature
and space flexibility for accommodating changes in staff teams.

Based on an extensive literature review, Meng (2012) concludes that time, cost and quality
are the three most important indicators for measuring construction project success. These
are the client’s major concerns and should, therefore, form the basis for assessment of
tenders (Walker, 2015). In relation to the selection of architectural and engineering
consultants, Ling (2002) spells out the indispensable need for consideration of functional
sustainability. Consultants must have proper design capability to produce a functional and
satisfactory building that meets the client’s needs. If consultants are not properly selected,
extra time and monitoring costs will be incurred. Design quality should be regarded as the
most critical factor when measuring the consultant’s performance.
Apart from design quality, minimal life cycle cost and reduced carbon emission in the
government estate are also the UK Government’s strategic objectives for public-sector
construction. This should be achieved by reduced energy consumption, water consumption
and waste to landfill in accordance with agreed targets set out in the existing and emerging
government policy (Cabinet Office, 2011).
Through research into infrastructure maintenance projects in the public sector, Lam and
Gale (2014) identify five critical project success factors. These factors can be categorised into
time: start on time (ratio of days late starting against contract period) and finish on time
(ratio of day finished late against contract period); cost: accuracy of payment (interim
payments certified within 5 per cent of the contractor’s application); quality: right first time
(project completed without remedial rework) and health and safety inspection (percentage of
inspection passed). In relation to the design quality, Love and Heng (2006) point out that
errors and omission in design can result in building failure and associated rework for
repairing defects and replacement of waste materials. These five critical success factors are
in fact adopted as the key performance indicators (KPIs) to measure the project success at
design and construction phases.
To effectively manage the project outcomes at design and construction phases, it is
essential to have clear and achievable KPIs for performance measures and monitoring.
F Based on the project success factors developed by Lam and Gale (2014) and the sustainable
38,1/2 building measures identified by Jailani et al. (2015), Ling (2002) and Cabinet Office (2011),
KPIs for measuring economic sustainability (cost) and functional, social and environmental
sustainability (quality) can be summarised in Table I.

Sustainable performance influencing factors

102 According to the theory of job performance, performance comprises two elements: task
performance, which refers proficiency and skills in job-specific tasks related to the project
and the relevant job experience (Van Scotter and Motowidlo, 1996); contextual performance,
which is related to general communication and coordination skills, as well as initiative and
teamwork within an organisational setting (Borman and Motowidlo, 1993). Based on the
task and contextual performance, Ling (2000) develops a reliable and valid evaluation
framework for choosing construction consultants in Singapore.
In relation to the assessment of task performance, Morledge and Smith (2013) contend
that there are three generic ability factors for the final selection of consultants: capability of
firm, the competence of firm and staff proposed for the project. CIRIA (1994) adds that an
execution approach (APP) in terms of the strategy for design and management for running a
project should be considered. Capability refers to the size of the firm as measured by the
overall experience of firms in projects of similar function and the availability of sufficient
staff, finance, facilities and quality management system to meet the demand of project
programs. Competence is related to the performance of a firm in past projects. Past
performance is found to be a significant predictor of future performance according to the
theory of selection psychology (Ling, 2000). Assessment of project staffing is based on the
relevant expertise and experience of the personnel directly used for the project. Yeung et al.
(2008) find that project staff (PST) and management commitment are a very critical factor to
guarantee the project success, and the latter can be measured by the percentage of meetings
attended by project managers and directors.

Project Sustainable
outcome project outcome KPI/sustainable building measure Life cycle stage

Cost Economic At or below the approved cost limit Design and

Minimal variation in cost against budget construction
Life cycle cost minimised through retro- Construction
fitting Design, construction
and management
Quality Functional A functional building/refurbishment/ Design, construction
maintenance that meets the client’s needs; and management
with minimal rework (making good defects
and material waste) due to error made in the
design or a necessary item or component is
omitted from the design)
Social Health and safety design and inspections to Construction
minimise accidents
Environmental Sustainable design (reduction of energy, Design, construction
Table I. carbon emission, water consumption and and management
Sustainable project waste, improvement of air quality and other
outcomes and KPI aspects or BREEAM rating for higher
measures education)
Conscientiousness, initiative, social skills, control and commitment should be considered Sustainable
when assessing the contextual performance (Borman and Motowidlo, 1993). Ling (2002) procurement of
confirms that conscientiousness is a significant factor influencing the consultant
performance, as measured by the level of enthusiasm in tackling a difficult commission and
construction
the speed in producing design drawings. However, initiative (offering suggestions to consultants
improve design), social skills (interpersonal and communication skills), controllability
(compliance with instructions and speed of response) and commitment (loyalty to employer,
preparedness to revise design and interest in the commission) were found by Ling (2002) to 103
be insignificant in influencing how well architects and engineering consultants performed.
Through research into the performance outcomes of framework procurement for
infrastructure maintenance projects, Lam and Gale (2014) find that consultant frameworks
(CFWs), as compared to the traditional discrete appointment approach, provide longer and
stronger relationships. This procurement approach is based on an “umbrella” contract with
projects, which may be procured at the call-off stage throughout the contract period, which
is normally a maximum of four years. This, in turn, enhances trust, collaboration and
teamwork between the client and the supplier, thus producing better project outcomes in
terms of cost, quality and time.
Task and contextual performance factors are summarised in Table II. These
performance factors are considered to be influential to the sustainable project outcomes as
shown in Table I.

Hypotheses
Based on the literature findings, the following hypotheses are developed to address the aim
of the research, i.e. what selection criteria should be considered for choosing construction
consultants for optimising the sustainable project outcomes.

H1. Cost performance outcome of construction consultants as operationalised by

economic sustainability is positively correlated with the level of the task and
contextual performance factors.
H2. Quality performance outcome of construction consultants as operationalised by
functional, social and environmental sustainability is positively correlated with the
level of the task and contextual performance factors.

Research design and methods

Built environment research consists of cognitive and affective, as well as behavioural
components. The use of a single methodology often fails to explore all of these components.
Amaratunga et al. (2002) suggests that a mixed-methods approach be used to counteract this
weakness and to enhance research into the built environment. For this study, conducting
data analysis on qualitative and quantitative data in mixed methods provides an authentic
explanation on the causal links between performance outcomes and factors, as well as
objective generalisation of such relationships.
The data used for this study is extracted from part of a research project funded by the
Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) Research Trust (Lam, 2015). Primary data
were collected from the UK universities, which form a unique public sector. Qualitative
multiple-case interviews were conducted with three heads of estates, three managers for
consultant management and one quantity surveyor of three university estate offices to
identify the expected performance outcomes, the performance factors and their respective
measures, based on their practical views and experience. These three universities are all
F Performance factor
38,1/2
Task performance
PST (relevant expertise and
experience)
104
APP (design and management
methods for the commission)
Competence of firm (past
performance)
Size of firm/capability (overall
experience and facilities)
Contextual performance
Conscientiousness
Table II.
Sustainable
performance Trust and collaboration
influencing factors
Measure
Qualifications, experience (including in sustainability) and time
commitment of the project team leader
Qualifications and experience of proposed staff (including in
sustainability)
Management arrangements for sub-contracted services
Quality of design to meet the client’s strategic needs (potential value
to student recruitment and learning, staff recruitment, carbon
reduction)
Quality of design to meet the client’s practical needs (problem-
solving ability to resolve functional requirements, operational
efficiency, aesthetics, cost/time constraint)
Managerial procedures
(communication with clients; managing the programme and sub-
consultants; working around existing occupiers; collaboration with
other project team members)
Performance of the firm in past projects or job references from
previous clients, including sustainable project outcomes
Experience of similar university projects
Suitable qualifications of senior partners/managers
Availability of technical facilities
Financially stability
Quality management system
Speed in producing design drawings or completing tasks
Level of enthusiasm in tackling a difficult assignment including
sustainable design and construction
Collaborative CFWs
Traditional discrete appointment of consultants

located in the South East of England and operate within similar context, having similar
objectives in teaching and research and being subject to public-sector procurement
legislation if more than 50 per cent of the project cost is financed by public funding. For
confidentiality reasons, their identity is not divulged. Fellows and Liu (2008) advocate that a
case study approach can serve to investigate phenomena in a real context and from which
rich conclusions can be drawn. Yin (2009) further points out that the case study is an
empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context
so is particularly helpful to explain the causal link. Furthermore, the multiple-case study is
preferred over single-case study because such approach is based on replication logic, which
increases external validity and offers robust analytical conclusions. As only three cases
were examined, the purposes of the qualitative study were to identify the KPI measures of
sustainability and the relationship between sustainable project outcomes and performance
factors. Content analysis was conducted to analyse these qualitative data. The qualitative
results formed a sound basis on which the reliability of measure scale and the validity of the
hypothesis were verified and validated by Cronbach’s alpha coefficients and regression
analysis respectively.
The validity of the hypotheses on causal relationships between project outcomes and
performance factors were validated and generalised by quantitative hierarchical regression
analysis, using data from 60 consultancies collected from a country-wide questionnaire Sustainable
survey of university estate offices. Oliver (2010) considers validity to be a compulsory procurement of
requirement for all types of studies and it can meet the requirements of the scientific
research method for generating research findings. Regression analysis provides a powerful
construction
tool to analyse the relationship between results and various types of influencing factors consultants
(Schleirfer and Bell, 1995). This inferential statistical method was, therefore, used to validate
H1 and H2.
This integration of qualitative and quantitative methods is summarised in the flowchart 105
in Figure 1. Such an approach is advocated by Steckler et al. (1992).
The quantitative study covered the common professional services: architectural, building
services engineering, quantity surveying, project management and combined project
management/quantity surveying professional consultancies for new build, refurbishment
and maintenance projects of university estates. Based on a construction consultancy
recently completed, the informant was asked to indicate: firstly, the level of performance
measures used to select consultants at the tender analysis phase (predictor variables); and
secondly, the average performance outcomes achieved by consultants during the
consultancy period (dependent variables). For each performance outcome, a hierarchical
regression analysis was conducted to validate the causal relationship between the
performance outcome and the influences. This is to identify the relative contribution of the
two predictor blocks (performance task drivers and contextual task drivers) to performance,
and to identify the significant performance factors of each block. Details of the regression
equations are shown in Table III.
Regression equations for prediction of cost and quality performance outcomes:

POC ¼ a c þ ð b 1c PST þ b 2c APP þ b 3c COP þ b4c SFMÞ þ ð b 5c CON þ b 6c CFWÞ

POQ ¼ a q þ ð b 1q PST þ b 2q APP þ b 3q COP þ b 4q SFMÞ þ ð b 5q CON þ b 6q CFWÞ þ

where
a = constant, or the Y-intercept of the regression line;
bn = regression coefficients for the predictor variables;
PST, APP etc = values of the predictor variables; and
c, q = indices for cost and quality.

Qualitative and quantitative results

Each qualitative case-study interview conducted with the university estate office took
approximately 45 min, using a semi-structured questionnaire developed from Tables 1

Qualitative Study: Quantitative Study:

Multiple-case interviews
with three heads of estate
and related staff for
consultant management to
identify the KPI measures of
sustainability and the
relationship between
sustainability sustainable
project outcomes and
performance factors
Regression analysis of 60
consultancy cases to Results: Figure 1.
verify the consistency Significant criteria for Research process:
and reliability of the KPI the selection of
measures, and to validate consultants to qualitative method is
the causal relationships optimise sustainable used to develop
between sustainable project outcomes quantitative
project outcomes and
performance factors
measures and
(validity of H1 and H2) instrument
F Variable
38,1/2
Dependent Variables (performance outcomes)
Performance outcome of cost (POC)/Economic
sustainability
106 Performance outcome of quality (POQ)/
Functional, social and environmental
sustainability
Predictor Variables (performance factors)
Task performance factors (Block 1)
PST (PST)/relevant expertise and experience
APP/design and management methods
Competence of firm (COP)/past performance
Size of firm (SFM)/overall experience and
facilities
Contextual performance factors (Block 2)
Conscientiousness (CON)/speed of work and
Table III. enthusiasm
Dependent/predictor
variables and CFWs/trust and collaboration
regression equations
Operationalisation
Score (between 1 and 5) for the average level of
performance in individual measures during the
consultancy period (Table 1)
POC score = sum of all sub-scale scores
Score (between 1 and 5) for the average level of
performance in individual measures during the
consultancy period (Table 1)
POQ score = sum of all sub-scale scores
Score (between 1 and 5) for the level of individual
measures assessed at the tender stage (see Table 2)
PST score = sum of all sub-scale scores
Score (between 1 and 5) for the level of individual
measures assessed at the tender stage (see Table 2)
APP score = sum of all sub-scale scores
Score (between 1 and 5) for the level of individual
measures assessed at the tender stage (see Table 2)
COP score = sum of all sub-scale scores
Score (between 1 and 5) for the level of individual
measures assessed at the tender stage (see Table 2)
SFM score = sum of all sub-scale scores
Score (between 1 and 5) for the level of individual
measures assessed at the tender stage (see Table 2)
CON score = sum of all sub-scale scores
Collaborative CFWs = 1
Traditional discrete appointment of consultant = 0

and 2. All the experienced heads of estate, managers for consultant management and
quantity surveyor confirmed that economic, environmental, social and functional
sustainability are the university’s strategic and practical needs and that these sustainability
aspects can be well-measured by the KPIs as shown in Table I. In addition to this, one of the
estate heads specifically spelled out that the consultant’s performance should cover all
aspects of sustainability. The participants further confirmed that the task and contextual
performance factors as listed in Table II are influential to the consultant’s sustainable
performance outcomes.
As shown in Table I, consultant’s sustainable project outcomes’ are measured by two
scales, namely, cost/economic sustainability and quality/environmental, social and
functional sustainability. It is important that these scales are reliable and have good
consistency (Pallant, 2016). This is to ensure that all items that make up the scale effectively
measure the same underlying construct. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient is commonly used to
indicate the consistency. Ideally, Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of a scale should be above 0.7,
but values above 0.8 are preferable. For short scales with fewer than 10 items (which is the
case in this research), it is common to find relatively low Cronbach values, e.g. 0.5.
Table IV presents the means, standard deviation and Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for
the measure scales of sustainability. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for economic
sustainability (cost) is 0.749, suggesting a very good consistency and reliability for this Sustainable
scale. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for environmental, social and functional procurement of
sustainability (quality) is 0.654, suggesting good consistency and reliability.
Each performance outcome is regressed against the two predictor blocks and the
construction
individual sustainable performance factors within each block. See Table III for the consultants
dependent and predictor variables. The relationships are examined as follows (Pallant,
2016):
107

The overall correlation between the performance outcome and the predictor blocks
is examined by the adjusted R2 value.

The strength of the impact of each predictor block on the performance outcome is
examined by the R2 Change value.

The significance of the relationship between the performance outcome and
individual performance factors is examined by the p-value.

Details of the hierarchical regression results are given in Tables V and VI.

Discussion
Replicative qualitative results from the three case studies identify that the KPI sustainable
building measures listed in Table I can measure the project outcomes of economic,
environmental, social and functional sustainability. The results also reveal that economic
sustainability can be influenced by task and contextual performance factors and that
functional, social and environmental sustainability can also be influenced by these
performance factors. These provide a sound basis for validating the validity of H1 and H2
by hierarchical regression analysis.
Both cost/economic sustainability performance outcome (Adjusted R2 value = 0.719) and
the quality/functional, social and environmental sustainability performance outcome
(Adjusted R2 value = 0.462) have a significant correlation with task performance and
contextual performance factors. “Task Performance Block 1” is a more significant predictor
of both performance outcomes, as indicated by the higher R2 Change values and the Sig. F
change values (all <0.0005).
The analysis also identifies the significant performance factors, all with p-values <0.05.
PST is the most significant factor influencing cost/economic sustainability performance,
with sr2 values being 0.729. This is consistent with the arguments of Yeung et al. (2008).
Design and cost management skills for architectural, vibration and acoustic works are
particularly essential to address the specific requirement of teaching and laboratory
facilities.
APP is the one of the significant predictors for quality/functional and environmental
sustainability performance outcome. “APP” is a measure of the consultant’s design and
management methods to meet the client’s strategic and practical needs while minimising

Table IV.
Means, standard
deviations and
Sub-scales N Means SD Cronbach’s alpha (a)
Cronbach’s alpha
Cost/economic sustainability 60 11.25 (out of 15) 2.207 0.749 coefficients for
Quality/environmental, social and 60 12.40 (out of 15) 1.543 0.654 performance
functional sustainability outcomes
 F

108
38,1/2

Table V.

on performance
outcome of cost
Regression analysis
Block/Predictor variable B Beta sr2 p-value Tolerance R R2 Adjusted R2 R2 change (Sig. F-change) ANOVA sig.

Blocks 1 and 2 0.854 0.730 0.719 0.0005

Block 1 PST 0.788 0.935 0.729 0.0005 0.835 0.599 (0.0005)
Block 2 CFW 1.796 0.369 0.131 0.0005 0.830 0.131 (0.0005)
Intercept constant 8.761

Notes: Significant blocks: Block 1 and Block 2; significant performance drivers: Block 1 (PST); Block 2 (CFW), POC Predictive Model:
POC ¼ a c þ ð b 1c PSTÞ þ ð b 6c CFWÞ; POC = 8.761 þ 0.788 PST þ 1.796 CFW
Block/Predictor variable B Beta sr2 p-value Tolerance R R2 Adjusted R2 R2 change (Sig. F change) ANOVA Sig.

Blocks 1 and 2 0.695 0.483 0.462 0.0005

Block 1 APP 0.475 0.574 0.320 0.0005 0.972 0.240 (0.0005)
Block 2 CFW 1.575 0.500 0.243 0.0005 0.970 0.243 (0.0005)
Intercept constant 5.725

Notes: Significant blocks: Block 1 and Block 2; significant performance drivers: Block 1 (APP); Block 2 (CFW), Final POQ Predictive Model:
POQ ¼ a q þ ð b 2q APPÞ þ ð b 6q CFWÞ; POQ ¼ 5:725 þ 0:475APP þ 1:575CFW

Table VI.

outcome of quality
109
consultants
procurement of
Sustainable

on performance
Regression analysis
construction
F disruptions to the occupiers (Ma et al., 2012), thus achieving functional and environmental
38,1/2 sustainability. Bennett et al. (1996) and Hoxley (1998) contend that understanding project
scope and brief, as well as problem-solving ability and methods, i.e. the project approach, are
important considerations for selecting consultants.
CFW is a significant predictor for both performance outcomes. Such procurement
approach encourages “trust and collaboration” within a project team. Construction,
110 refurbishment and maintenance programs executed in the university environment involve
high values and high risks (due to the presence of existing occupiers). Framework
procurement method nurtures longer and stronger relationships and collaboration and
ensures the project success, as suggested by Constructing Excellence (2005). Within a
working environment of existing occupied buildings, the project success is related to two
aspects of sustainability: firstly, health and safety design and inspections to minimise
accidents and ensure well-being of employees (social sustainability); secondly, cost control
to achieve cost limit, minimal cost variations and minimal life cycle cost through retro-
fitting (economic sustainability).
In short, economic sustainability performance outcome of construction consultants is
significantly correlated with the task performance factor of PST and the contextual
performance factor of CFW. H1 is therefore validated. Functional, social and environmental
sustainability performances outcomes are significantly correlated with the task
performance factor of APP and the contextual performance factor of CFW. H2 is also
validated. These results infer that task and contextual performance factors can drive all
sustainable performance outcomes, which are all essential for management and
maintenance of existing buildings (Kalutara et al., 2017; Jailani et al., 2015). The validation of
H1 and H2 by inferential regression statistics generalises that all economic, functional,
social and environmental sustainability project outcomes can be influenced by related task
and contextual performance factors. This, in turn, achieves the aim of this research, i.e. to
identify the criteria for selection of construction consultants for optimising sustainable
project outcomes.
Competence of firm (as measured by past performance), capability of firm (as measured
by the size of firm) and conscientiousness (as measured by speed in completing a task) are
found to be insignificant to sustainable performance outcomes, all with a p-value >0.0005.
Rowbotham (1992) argues that large firms often allocate resources to major projects while
small firms always use senior and experienced staff to provide better services to gain more
business in the future. It is not necessary that the size of firm is a decisive performance
factor. Conscientiousness and speed in completing tasks are critical for private-sector
investment projects (Ling, 2002), but less important for the university public sector. In
relation to the competence of firm, the quantitative results confirm that the firm’s past
performance of the firm is relatively less influential. It is the past performance of PST that
matters. PST is found to be significant to economic sustainability by this study. The theory
of selection psychology as advocated by Ling (2000) should, therefore, be applicable to the
past experience of the PST, not the firm.

Conclusions
Outsourcing architectural and engineering services is a trend for public-sector construction
projects. The qualitative study of this research indicates that sustainable procurement of
construction consultants for property and facilities management of estate portfolio should
consider all the four aspects of economical, functional, social and environmental
sustainability, which are the strategic objectives and practical needs of public-sector clients.
The current “triple bottom lines” of sustainability should be extended to embrace all
sustainability values. The existing selection practice is biased towards the environmental Sustainable
and economic values such as greenhouse gas emission and life cycle cost, but functional and procurement of
social values are equally important.
The quantitative study verifies that the measure scales for sustainability are consistent
construction
and reliable. More importantly, it generalises that “PST” and “CFWs procurement” are consultants
significant factors for driving economic sustainability performance, while “APP” and
“CFWs procurement” are significant to functional, social and environmental sustainability
performance. These influential factors should be fully considered in the procurement 111
process. The results contribute to the procurement theory by establishing how outsourced
construction consultants should be selected for achieving project sustainability and success
for existing building portfolios.
This study aims to identify what criteria should be considered for selection of
construction consultants to optimise the sustainable project outcomes, and ultimately to
develop a sustainable procurement approach for procurement of construction consultants
within the context of property and facilities management. Following on from the qualitative
study, the quantitative study validates the hypotheses that sustainable performance
outcomes are significantly correlated with task and contextual performance factors. The
practical implication of these results is that at the tender stage, estate managers should
adopt a sustainable procurement approach by focussing on the significant task performance
factors (PST and APP) and contextual performance factor (collaborative CFW) for selection
of construction consultants to optimise the project sustainability outcomes in relation to
economic, environmental, social and functional values.
Apart from university estates, further research should be conducted on other property
and facilities management and construction-related organisations within the public sector so
that the sustainable procurement approach developed by this research can become more
robust and applicable to the wider public sector, thus contributing to the government
construction policy on promoting sustainability to the built environment.

References
Amaratunga, D., Baldry, D., Sarshar, M. and Newton, R. (2002), “Quantitative and qualitative research
in the built environment: application of “mixed” research approach”, Work Study, Vol. 51 No. 1,
pp. 17-31.
Bennett, J., Pothecary, E. and Robinson, G. (1996), Designing and Building a World-Class Industry,
Centre for Strategic Studies in Construction, Reading.
Benoit, C., Norris, G.A., Valdivia, S., Giroth, A., Moberg, A., Bos, U., Prakash, S., Ugaya, C. and Beck, T.
(2010), “The guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products: just in time!”, The
International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 156-163.
Borman, W.C. and Motowidlo, S.J. (1993), “Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of
contextual performance”, in Schmitt, N. and Borman, W.C. (Eds), Personnel Selection in
Organizations, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
Brammer, S. and Walker, H. (2011), “Sustainable procurement in the public sector: an international
comparative study”, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 31
No. 4, pp. 452-476.
Brundtland, G.H. (1987), Our Common Future: The World Commission on Environment and
Development, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Cabinet Office (2011), Government Construction Strategy, Cabinet Office, London.
CIRIA (1994), Value by Competition: A Guide to the Competitive Procurement of Consultancy Services for
Construction, Construction Industry Research and Information Association (CIRCA), London.
F Constructing Excellence (2005), “Why use a framework agreement?”, available at: http://goo.gl/
MdQAxQ (accessed 23 April 2013).
38,1/2
DEFRA (2006), Procuring the Future – The Sustainable Procurement Task Force National Action Plan,
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, London.
Elkington, J. (1997), Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business, Capstone
Publishing, Oxford.
112 Fellows, R. and Liu, A. (2008), Research Methods for Construction, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford.
Gorgolewski, C.B.M. (2014), “Assessing occupant satisfaction and energy behaviours in Toronto’s
LEED gold high rise residential buildings”, International Journal of Energy Sector Management,
Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 492-505.
Hoxley, M. (1998), Value for Money: The Impact of Competitive Tendering on Construction Professional
Service Quality, RICS, London.
Jailani, J., Reed, R. and James, K. (2015), “Examining the perception of tenants in sustainable office
buildings”, Property Management, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 386-404.
Kalutara, P., Zhang, G., Setunge, S. and Wakefield, R. (2017), “Factors that influence Australian
community buildings’ sustainable management”, Engineering, Construction and Architectural
Management, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 94-117.
Lam, T.Y.M. (2015), “Outsourcing of construction professional services in the UK university sector:
prediction of consultant performance for the selection process”, RICS Funded Research Report,
RICS Research Trust, London, available at: www.rics.org/uk/knowledge/research/research-
reports/outsourcing-construction-professional-services-uk-university/
Lam, T. and Gale, K. (2014), “Highway maintenance: impact of framework agreements on contractor
performance”, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 336-347.
Lee, T.S., Adam, E.E. and Tuen, C. (1999), “The convergent and predictive validity of quality and
productivity practices in Hong Kong industry”, Total Quality Management, Vol. 10 No. 1,
pp. 73-84.
Ling, Y.Y. (2000), “A theoretical framework for selection of consultants by design-build contractors”,
Journal of Construction Procurement, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 147-163.
Ling, Y.Y. (2002), “Model for predicting performance of architects and engineers”, Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 128 No. 5, pp. 446-455.
Love, P. and Heng, L. (2006), “Quantifying the causes and costs of rework in construction”, Construction
Management and Economics, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 479-490.
McShane, I. (2006), “Social value and the management of community infrastructure”, Australian Journal
of Public Administration, Vol. 65 No. 4, pp. 82-96.
Ma, Z., Cooper, P., Daly, D. and Ledo, L. (2012), “Existing building retrofits: methodology and state-of-
the-art”, Energy and Buildings, Vol. 55 No. 12, pp. 889-902.
Meng, X. (2012), “The effect of relationship management on project performance in construction”,
International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 188-198.
Morledge, R. and Smith, A. (2013), Building Procurement, Wiley-Black, Oxford.
OECD (2006), OECD Factbook, Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris.
OGC (2008), An Introduction to Public Procurement, Office of Government Commerce (OGC), London.
Oliver, V. (2010), 301 Smart Answers to Tough Business Etiquette Questions, Skyhorse Publishing,
New York, NY.
Pallant, J. (2016), SPSS Survival Manual, Open University Press, Maidenhead.
Peretti, C., Schiavon, S., Goins, J., Arens, E. and De Carlim, M. (2010), ‘ Evaluation of Indoor
Environment Quality with a Web-Based Occupant Satisfaction Survey: A Case Study in Northern
Italy, Center for the Built Environment, University of CA, Los Angeles.
Petersen, E.H. (2002), “BEAT 2002 – an LCA based assessment tool for the building industry”, Sustainable
Proceedings of the Sustainable Building Conference 2002, Oslo, Norway.
procurement of
Rowbotham, W.F. (1992), “How to select a construction consultant”, The Real Estate Finance Journal,
Vol. 83-84. construction
Sanchez, A.X., Lehtiranta, L., Hampson, K.D. and Kenley, R. (2013), “Sustainable infrastructure consultants
procurement in Australia: standard vs. Project practices”, in Kajewski, S. and Manley, K. and
Hampson, K. (Eds), Proceedings of the 19th International CIB World Building Congress:
Construction and Society, May 5-9 2013, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Qld. 113
Sarja, A. (2002), Integrated Life Cycle Design of Structure, Spon Press, New York, NY.
Schleirfer, A. and Bell, D. (1995), Data Analysis, Regression and Forecasting, Course Technology, MA.
Steckler, A., Goodman, R.M. and Dignan, M.B. (1992), “Toward integrating qualitative and qualitative
methods: an introduction”, Health Education Quarterly, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 1-8.
Van Scotter, J.R. and Motowidlo, S.J. (1996), “Interpersonal facilitation and job dedication as separate
facets of contextual performance”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 81 No. 5, pp. 525-531.
Walker, A. (2015), Project Management in Construction, John Wiley Blackwell, Chichester.
Walker, H.L. and Brammer, S. (2007), “Sustainable procurement in the United Kingdom public sector”,
University of Bath, available at: https://purehost.bath.ac.uk/ws/files/415713/2007-15.pdf
(accessed 1 June 2019).
Yeung, J.F.Y., Chan, A.P.C. and Chan, D.W.M. (2008), “Establishing quantitative indicators for
measuring the partnering performance of construction projects in Hong Kong”, Construction
Management and Economics, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 277-301.
Yin, R.K. (2009), Case Study Research: Design and Methods, Sage, London.

Corresponding author
Terence Y.M. Lam can be contacted at: y.m.lam@unsw.edu.au

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com