CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND ECONOMICS

2021, VOL. 39, NO. 11, 879–893

https://doi.org/10.1080/01446193.2021.1993289

Exploring the impact of project size on design-bid-build and design-build

project delivery performance in highways
Phuong H. D. Nguyena, Dai Q. Tranb and Sai P. K. Bypanenic
a
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada; bDepartment of Civil, Environmental,
and Architectural Engineering, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, USA; cO’Connor Construction Management Inc, Rockville, MD, USA

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The highway construction industry has been increasingly using design-build (D-B) project deliv- Received 17 November 2020
ery because of its documented benefits. Only limited studies, if any, have compared D-B and Accepted 11 October 2021
traditional design-bid-build (D-B-B) project performance based on the size of projects. The exist-
KEYWORDS
ing gap was addressed by investigating the cost growth, schedule growth, and construction
Highway project delivery
intensity of highway projects delivered under D-B-B and D-B with the project sizes ranging from methods; cost performance;
$2 million to greater than $100 million. These projects were collected from six state depart- schedule performance;
ments of transportations in the U.S. with mature D-B programs. Several statistics tests including construction intensity;
t-test, Welch’s test, and Mann–Whitney U-test were used to analyze 3888 completed highway project size
construction projects. The results show that D-B produced a lower cost growth than D-B-B in
the project size of over $10 million while D-B-B projects had lower cost growth than D-B proj-
ects in the project size from $2 million to $10 million. D-B projects also produced less schedule
growth than D-B-B projects across all groups of project size. D-B-B projects had a faster work
pace than D-B projects in the project size from $2 million to $10 million. The findings contribute
to the project delivery body of knowledge by reporting statistically empirical comparisons
between D-B-B and D-B project performance controlled by the project size. The findings may
help highway agencies better understand how D-B performs under the different sizes of projects
in terms of cost growth, schedule growth, and construction intensity.

Introduction D-B is fundamentally different from the traditional

In the highway construction industry, traffic growth,
deteriorating infrastructure, and increasing population
have created substantial pressures to move critical
projects quickly from the planning and design phases
to the construction phase. To respond to those pres-
sures, a design-build (D-B) delivery method has been
utilized in many highway projects in the world
(Gudiene_ et al. 2013, Mahamid 2013, Park et al. 2015).
In the United States, many state departments of trans-
portation (DOTs) have increasingly implemented D-B
over the past 20 years. According to the Design-Build
Institute of America (DBIA)’s report, as of 2018, only
six state DOTs (North Dakota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Illinois,
Kansas, and Oklahoma) have not been fully authorized
to practically utilize D-B for transportation projects
(DBIA 2018). It is noted that some of these six state
DOTs, such as Kansas and North Dakota, have experi-
mented D-B for their highway construction projects.
design-bid-build (D-B-B) method in that contractual
relationship between the main parties involved in a
project. Under the D-B contracting method, a single
entity is responsible for both the design and construc-
tion of a project. The integration of design and con-
struction services under a single contract is able to
produce earlier cost and schedule certainties and allows
for the construction process to begin before the com-
pletion of the design process (Chen et al. 2016). These
differences have created varied cost and schedule per-
formance between D-B-B and D-B projects. Statistically
comparing project performances between D-B and
D-B-B is a challenging task since there are many param-
eters involved, such as project characteristics, internal
and external conditions, and other relevant administra-
tion issues (Sullivan et al. 2017). A large number of
studies have compared cost and schedule performance
between D-B and D-B-B projects. For example, the pre-
vious studies (Ibbs et al. 2003, FHWA 2006, Hale et al.
2009, Shrestha et al. 2011, Goftar et al. 2014,

CONTACT Phuong H. D. Nguyen phuonghdnguyen@ualberta.ca Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Alberta, 116 St.
and 85 Ave., Edmonton, Alberta T6G 2R3, Canada
ß 2021 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
880 P. H. D. NGUYEN ET AL.
Shrestha and Fernane 2016) showed that D-B outper-
forms D-B-B in terms of cost and schedule performance
ranging from 5% to 10% and from 4% to 16%, respect-
ively. In South Korea, D-B construction projects
produced a lower cost growth of 5% and a shorter
construction duration by twelve days per floor com-
pared to D-B-B construction projects (Park et al. 2015).
On the other hand, several studies (Shrestha et al.
2011, Gudiene_ et al. 2013, Minchin et al. 2013) found
that D-B-B construction projects achieved better per-
formance with 25% lower in cost growth and 15%
lower in schedule growth than D-B construction proj-
ects. However, those findings from previous studies
were based on small sample sizes, expert’s judgments,
and limited case studies (Park and Kwak 2017).
Therefore, the common perception that D-B outper-
forms D-B-B in construction projects needs to be empir-
ically tested with larger sample sizes considering
various project attributes, such as project type, dur-
ation, project complexity, and project size.
Project size is one of the important factors that
affect the success of construction projects regardless
of project delivery methods (Gudiene_ et al. 2013). For
instance, Yong and Mustaffa (2012) identified the four
most common factors that affect the success of the
construction project including project size, manpower
allocation, project complexity, and urgency in meeting
project deadlines. The increase of project size is highly
correlated to project complexity, the number of par-
ties involved, and various delivery risk factors (Luo
et al. 2017). A large project typically results in longer
project duration, intricate construction contracts,
uncertain cost estimates, and a more comprehensive
organizational structure (Russell et al. 2014, Qureshi
and Kang 2015). Therefore, different sizes of projects,
from small projects to mega projects, lead to varia-
tions of project performance in terms of cost, sched-
ule, and quality (Love et al. 2015). However, there are
limited studies, if any, that have investigated the cost
and schedule performance of D-B-B and D-B highway
construction projects across different project sizes.
There is also a lack of statistical confirmations regard-
ing the significant difference and superiority between
these two common delivery methods in highway con-
struction in terms of project sizes. To fulfil these exist-
ing gaps, the current study aimed at empirically
assessing whether or not there is a difference between
D-B-B and D-B project performance in terms of cost
growth, schedule growth, and construction intensity
across different project sizes. Specifically, statistical
inference analyses were utilized to investigate the dif-
ferences in cost and schedule performance (e.g. cost
growth, schedule growth, and construction intensity)
between D-B-B and D-B highway projects across differ-
ent groups of the project’s size from $2 million to
over $100 million. The results are expected to provide
transportation authorities with practical evidence
regarding the cost and schedule performance of D-B-B
and D-B highway construction projects.
The remainder of the article is structured as follows.
The literature review section explores recent perform-
ance comparisons between D-B-B and D-B highway
projects and indicates research gaps. The research
method section presents research questions and
hypotheses, data collection, and methods of analysis.
The results and discussion discuss key findings in
detail. These are followed by the conclusion and
contribution of the study.
Literature review
This section summarises (1) impacts of project size on
project performance as well as delivery method selec-
tion and (2) current practices in comparing the per-
formance of D-B-B and D-B highway construction
projects. Based on the key findings from the literature,
research hypotheses development was then discussed
in detail.
Impacts of project size on project performance
and delivery method selection
Regardless of applied delivery methods, project size is
one of the critical factors that affect the performance
of construction projects in terms of cost, schedule,
and owner satisfaction (FHWA 2006, Yong and
Mustaffa 2012). In fact, an increase in construction
project sizes drives the number of uncertainties in pro-
ject outcomes, the complexness of construction con-
tracts, and the comprehensiveness of organizational
structures (Qureshi and Kang 2015, Luo et al. 2017,
Sullivan et al. 2017). Larger projects are exposed to a
variety of factors that affect the success of a construc-
tion project, including planning feasibility, design and
construction complexity, delivery risk factors, resource
availability (i.e. labour, materials, and equipment),
environmental and economic impacts, and legal regu-
lations (Gudiene_ et al. 2013). The difference in project
sizes should be included in comparing the perform-
ance of construction projects using different delivery
methods (e.g. D-B-B and D-B) (Love et al. 2015, Park
et al. 2015).
Project size affects the cost and schedule perform-
ance comparisons between the traditional D-B-B and

alternative contracting methods, such as D-B (Park
et al. 2015, Qiang et al. 2015). FHWA (2006) found that
the selection of D-B delivery for highway construction
projects is highly correlated to the size of the project.
As a result, FHWA (2006) recommended that D-B
should be used in medium to large highway construc-
tion projects (over $10 million). Different project sizes
lead to diverse cost deviations in D-B-B and D-B proj-
ects because of the increase in resource requirements
of project controls, team communications, and man-
agement experience (Mahamid 2013). Project size also
differentiates D-B-B and D-B in terms of impacts on
project durations (Russell et al. 2014). Based on these
salient findings from the literature, it is reasonable to
conclude that project size is one of the decisive fac-
tors that contribute to the selection of an appropriate
delivery method for highway construction projects.
Performance comparisons between D-B-B and D-B
highway construction projects
There are rich literature to compare project perform-
ance between D-B-B and D-B projects across different
project types, scope of work, and procurement meth-
ods (e.g. low-bid and best-value). Previous studies
have investigated the cost and schedule performance
of D-B-B and D-B in many studies associated with dif-
ferent types of projects, including general buildings
(Molenaar and Songer 1998, Konchar and Sanvido
1998); military buildings (Hale et al. 2009); university
buildings (Shrestha and Fernane 2016); industrial proj-
ects (Songer and Molenaar 1997, Konchar and Sanvido
1998); and mechanical projects (Riley et al. 2005).
Construction intensity between D-B-B and D-B high-
way construction projects has been investigated by
Tran et al. (2017) and Antoine et al. (2019).
Comparisons of change orders between D-B-B and D-B
construction projects have been studied by Alleman
et al. (2020). The comprehensive summary and discus-
sions of non-highway D-B-B and D-B project perform-
ance can be found in Shrestha and Fernane (2016),
Goftar et al. (2014), Park and Kwak (2017), and Sullivan
et al. (2017). The current study mainly concentrates on
empirical comparisons of performance indicators (e.g.
cost, schedule, and intensity) between D-B-B and D-B
projects in the highway sector. According to the cur-
rent highway project delivery literature, although the
performance of D-B projects has been regularly con-
cluded to be superior to the performance of D-B-B
projects (Declaration 1), some studies have countered
this conclusion at some points (Declaration 2) as the
following discussions.
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND ECONOMICS 881
Declaration 1: D-B outperforms D-B-B in high-
way projects
Since the U.S. agencies started to use D-B in their proj-
ects, the majority of research and white papers have
concluded that D-B projects tend to achieve better
project performance than D-B-B projects in terms of
cost, schedule, and quality. As one of the first studies
in this area, Ellis et al. (1991) evaluated 11 D-B projects
in the Florida DOT Pilot D-B program and found that
D-B produced approximately 11% cost savings and
36% faster delivery than D-B-B. With the updated
database, Ellis et al. (2007) found that D-B-B projects
had higher cost growth than D-B projects (9.4% and
4.5%, respectively) with a dataset of 66 D-B and 1847
D-B-B projects. In terms of schedule performance,
using D-B-B produced a higher schedule growth com-
pared to D-B projects (16.5% and 7.1%, respectively).
Supporting the conclusion that D-B projects outper-
form D-B-B projects, Warne (2005) investigated 21 D-B
and 39 D-B-B projects across the U.S. with a total cost
ranging from $83 million to $1.3 billion. The research
found that D-B projects had better cost performance
than D-B-B projects (4% less in cost growth). The
researcher also found that 76% of the D-B projects
were completed ahead of schedule. Shrestha et al.
(2007) conducted a quantitative comparison of 4 D-B
and 11 D-B-B projects and found that the cost growth
of D-B projects was significantly lower than that of the
D-B-B projects (
5.5% with D-B and 4.1% with D-B-B).
The researchers also found that the scheduled growth
of D-B projects was lower than that of D-B-B projects
(7.6% with D-B and 12.9% with D-B-B). On the other
hand, the number of change orders of D-B-B projects
was found lower than that of D-B projects (5.3% with
D-B and 3.9% with D-B-B). It is noticed that no statis-
tical significance was mentioned in these previous
studies. Reports from the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) show that D-B performed
superior to D-B-B in terms of both cost growth (3.6%
and 7.4%, respectively) and schedule growth (
4.2%
and 4.8%, respectively) with an analysis of 11 pairs of
D-B and D-B-B projects (FHWA 2006). By analyzing 129
D-B-B and 110 D-B projects, FHWA (2018) stated that
D-B projects had fewer cost overruns than D-B-B proj-
ects (3.4% and 4.1%, respectively). FHWA (2018) also
compared the scheduled growth by analyzing 63
D-B-B and 70 D-B projects. The result showed that D-B
projects had less schedule growth than D-B-B projects
(2% and 10%, respectively) (FHWA 2018). These results
were not statistically significant at the 95%
confidence level.
882 P. H. D. NGUYEN ET AL.
Using different projects scopes, Tran et al. (2017)
compared the cost and schedule performance of 139
pairs of D-B-B and D-B highway projects, including
new construction, reconstruction, resurfacing, restor-
ation, rehabilitation (3R) projects, intelligent transpor-
tation system, and other types. A two-sample t-test
analysis was conducted along with descriptive ana-
lysis. They found that D-B projects statistically
achieved lower cost growth and schedule growth in
3R projects and other project work types. In new con-
struction and reconstruction projects, the use of D-B
produced a higher construction intensity compared to
D-B-B.
Declaration 2: D-B-B outperforms D-B in high-
way projects
Although the majority of previous studies found that
D-B outperforms D-B-B in terms of cost and schedule
performance in highway construction projects, some
studies showed that D-B-B performed better than D-B.
Under some circumstances where there are design
errors, high rates of change orders, and miscommuni-
cation between the contractor and the design team,
D-B projects suffer cost and schedule performance.
For example, Shrestha et al. (2011) found that the total
cost growth of D-B projects achieved 1.5% higher
than that of D-B-B project (7.8% with D-B and 6.3%
with D-B-B) by analyzing 6 D-B and 16 D-B-B projects.
The study also indicated that the total schedule
growth of D-B projects was 15.4% higher than that of
D-B-B projects (20.5% with D-B and 5.1% with D-B-B).
Minchin et al. (2013) analyzed 60 transportation proj-
ects collected from the Florida DOT database and
found that D-B-B projects performed significantly bet-
ter in cost performance. Specifically, the cost growths
of D-B and D-B-B projects were 45.3% and 20.4%,
respectively. The results contradicted many previous
studies in the construction literature. The authors’ jus-
tification was that a large number of the highway
projects in their study were completed about 15 years
ago while D-B was still developing while D-B-B had
been implemented for a long time (Minchin
et al. 2013).
Table 1 summarizes key findings of comparisons
between D-B-B and D-B highway projects in terms of
common project performance metrics, including cost
growth, total cost and unit cost, schedule growth, and
delivery time. Accordingly, the majority of the studies
show that D-B projects outperform D-B-B projects in
terms of cost and schedule performance while a few
studies disagree with that. It is noted that project sizes
are largely varied in the previous studies.
Research hypotheses development
The common perception in the construction industry is
that D-B projects can produce less cost growth and
schedule growth compared to D-B-B projects.
Additionally, D-B projects are expected to have a more
intense working pace than D-B-B projects. However, pre-
vious studies found that in certain situations involving
design errors, utility conflicts, or right-of-way issues, D-B
highway construction projects produce higher cost
growth and schedule growth compared to D-B-B projects
(Shrestha et al. 2011, Gudiene_ et al. 2013, Minchin et al.
2013, Park and Kwak 2017). Therefore, the difference and
superiority in performance between D-B-B and D-B high-
way projects need more justifications based on multiple
factors, such as project types, project sizes, project com-
plexity, project duration, and delivery risk factors.
The increase of project size is highly correlated to
various factors, including project complexity, project
durations, organizational structures, and project risk
profiles, that affect project performance (Luo et al.
2017). Larger highway projects typically have a longer
project duration, sophisticated construction contract,
uncertain cost estimate, and higher number of parties
involved that lead to variations of project performance
(Qureshi and Kang 2015). Thus, conducting compari-
sons between D-B-B and D-B project performance in
terms of project size can help explain the contradicting
results in the current project delivery literature. Further,
previous studies showed a lack of powerful statistical
inferences regarding the influence of project sizes on
D-B-B and D-B performance. Goftar et al. (2014) found
that alternative project delivery methods tend to be
more frequently utilized in large construction projects
than in small construction projects. Sullivan et al. (2017)
indicated that project type and size critically affect pro-
ject performance. Differences in project size also indi-
cate a variation in project complexity and risks, which
are often considered as the main factors in increasing
cost growth (Nguyen et al. 2020).
To address these existing gaps, the primary object-
ive of the current study was to empirically investigate
the performance of D-B-B and D-B highway construc-
tion projects across different project sizes ranging
from $2 million to over $100 million. Based on the
findings in the literature presented in the Declaration
1: D-B Outperforms D-B-B in Highway Projects, three
research hypotheses (Hi) of cost growth, schedule
growth, and construction intensity were formed to
test the performance of D-B-B and D-B highway con-
struction projects as follows:
H1: D-B highway projects produce less cost growth than
D-B-B highway projects across different project sizes.
 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND ECONOMICS 883

Table 1. Summary of highway D-B-B and D-B project performance comparisons.

Metric Studies Sample size (n) Major findings and statistical results
Cost growth Warne (2005) D-B:21 D-B outperformed D-B-B by 4%. No statistical results
D-B-B:39 were reported.
FHWA (2006) D-B:11 D-B-B outperformed D-B by 3.8%. No statistical results
D-B-B:11 were reported.
Ellis et al. (2007) D-B: 66 D-B-B outperformed D-B by 4.9%. No statistical results
D-B-B: 1,847 were reported.
Shrestha et al. (2007) D-B:4 D-B outperformed D-B-B by 9.6%. F-test was used to compare
D-B-B:11 means of two samples with p ¼ 0.03. Note that F-test is often
used to test variances of two samples.
Shrestha et al. (2011) D-B:6 D-B-B outperformed D-B by 1.5%. ANOVA was used for analysis,
D-B-B:16 but no significant results were found, p ¼ 0.751.
Minchin et al. (2013) D-B:30 D-B-B outperformed D-B by 24.9%. Nonparametric statistical tests
D-B-B:30 were used but no significant results were found, p ¼ 0.209.
FHWA (2018) D-B:129 D-B outperformed D-B-B by 0.7%. No statistical results
D-B-B:110 were reported.
Total cost/ Ellis et al. (1991) Ernzen and D-B: 11 D-B produced approximately 11% cost savings and 36% faster
unit cost Schexnayder (2000) D-B-B: 11 delivery
D-B: 1 D-B outperformed D-B-B by 15%. No statistical results
D-B-B: 1 were reported.
FHWA (2006) D-B:11 D-B outperformed D-B-B by 3%. No statistical results
D-B-B:11 were reported.
Schedule growthFHWA (2006) D-B:11 D-B outperformed D-B-B by 9%. No statistical results
D-B-B:11 were reported.
Ellis et al. (2007) D-B: 66 D-B outperformed D-B-B by 9.4%. No statistical results
D-B-B: 1,847 were reported.
Shrestha et al. (2007) D-B:4 D-B outperformed D-B-B by 5.3%. F-test was used to compare
D-B-B:11 means of two samples with p ¼ 0.51.
Shrestha et al. (2011) D-B:6 D-B-B outperformed D-B by 15.4 %. ANOVA was used for
D-B-B:16 analysis, but no significant results were found, p ¼ 0.17.
Minchin et al. (2013) D-B:30 D-B outperformed D-B-B by 2.8%. Nonparametric statistical tests
D-B-B:30 were used but no significant results were found, p ¼ 0.229.
FHWA (2018) D-B:70 D-B outperformed D-B-B by 8%. No statistical results
D-B-B:63 were reported.
Delivery time Warne (2005) D-B:21 100% interviewees agreed that D-B was faster than D-B-B. No
D-B-B:39 statistical results were reported.
FHWA (2006) D-B:11 D-B outperformed D-B-B by 14%. No statistical results
D-B-B:11 were reported.

H2: D-B highway projects produce less schedule
growth than D-B-B highway projects across different
project sizes.
H3: D-B highway projects have higher construction
intensity than D-B-B highway projects across different
project sizes.
The established hypotheses align with the common
perception in the construction industry that D-B projects
produce more cost and schedule certainties compared
to D-B-B projects. Hypotheses H1 and H2 are supported
by Shrestha et al. (2007), Tran et al. (2017), FHWA (2018),
and Nguyen et al. (2020) while Hypothesis H3 is in line
with Tran et al. (2017), Antoine et al. (2019), and
Alleman et al. (2020). The results are expected to sup-
port transportation authorities at both national and
international levels in understanding the difference in
cost and schedule performance between D-B-B and D-B
construction projects in different project sizes.
Research method
Figure 1 shows an overview of the research process for
the current study. It is noted that research hypotheses
were formed based on the literature review. Then,
three project performance metrics, including cost
growth, schedule growth, and construction intensity,
were defined. The data collection and data analysis
including multiple statistical tests were then performed
to examine the hypotheses. Finally, hypothesis testing
results were discussed to draw a conclusion and claim
contributions of the current study. The following sec-
tions discuss these steps in more detail.
Project performance metrics
Many project performance metrics have been used to
evaluate highway construction projects, such as cost
growth, total cost, unit cost, the total cost of change
orders (design and construction), schedule growth, deliv-
ery speed, and quality. Three common performance met-
rics in highway construction, including cost growth,
schedule growth, and construction intensity, were utilized
in the current study.
Cost growth
Cost growth is the percentage change in cost between
the contract awarded amount and the final cost.
884 P. H. D. NGUYEN ET AL.

DATA COLLECTION DATA ANALYSIS

DESCRIPTIVE
DELIVERY METHODS STATISTICS
Design-Bid-Build (D-B-B) Project Size
Design-Build (D-B) • $2M - $10M
• $10M - $20M
• $20M - $50M
• $50M - $100M
DATA SAMPLING • Over $100M
LITERATURE REVIEW Highway Projects from RESULTS AND
Performance comparisons Six State DOTs DISCUSSION
between D-B-B and D-B
• Florida • Ohio Normality Variance
• Indiana • Oregon Test Test
• North Carolina • Utah
INFERENTIAL
STATISTICS
Hypothesis Testing
PERFORMANCE METRICS
• t-test
Cost Growth
• Welch's t-test
Schedule Growth
• Mann–Whitney U-test
Construction Intensity

Figure 1. Research process.

Change orders are one of the factors that increase the
cost of the project causing a positive cost growth.
Possibly overestimated or limiting scopes of work can
reduce project costs and result in negative cost
growth. With D-B-B, the cost growth value refers to
construction costs only. With D-B, this value is inclu-
sive of construction and design costs by the design-
builder. The final cost is the total cost of installation of
all project components after changes and miscellan-
eous expenses accrued. The contract awarded amount
is the price quoted by the bid winner and should not
be included in construction engineering inspections,
right-of-way (ROW), and other costs unless it is a part
of the original bid. The cost growth metric was calcu-
lated using Equation (1) as follows:
Final cost – Contract award cost
Cost growth ð%Þ ¼
Contract award cost
(1) Construction intensity is an indicating factor of how
Schedule growth
Schedule growth indicates that the project is either
completed within the planned construction schedule
(negative value) or beyond the planned construction
schedule (positive value). This value is the percentage
change from the actual construction duration of
the project to the planned construction duration of
the project. The planned construction duration is
estimated by the contractor or the design-builder to
execute and complete the physical building activities
of the entire project. The duration is calculated by
the difference between the planned construction-
started date and the bid-contract-end date. The
actual construction duration is measured as the
period (in days) from the date that construction work
started to the date of substantial completion of the
work. With D-B-B, the schedule growth value involves
activities in the construction phase. With D-B, this
value is inclusive of both construction and design
performed by the design-builder. The schedule
growth metric was calculated using Equation (2) as
follows:
Final duration – Contract duration
Schedule growth ð%Þ ¼ %
Contract duration
(2)
% Construction intensity
quick the construction pace of a project is; in other
words, it presents the amount of dollars that the
contractor needs to employ per day. Accordingly, this
performance metric is the ratio between the final cost
and the actual duration of a construction project. The
construction intensity metric was calculated using
Equation (3), where the final cost and the actual con-
struction duration are defined above. It is important to
note that the actual construction duration for D-B
projects in the current study was recorded since the
time that the design-builder received the notice to
proceed after the contract was awarded.

Table 2. Descriptive statistics of D-B-B and D-B project costs.
D-B-B (Total n ¼ 15,786)
State DOT n Mean ($) Min. ($) Max. ($)
Florida 4592 3,625,385 4000 192,789,217
Indiana 2728 1,382,846 7411
North Carolina 41 15,770,642 553,500 116,470,217
Ohio 6829 1,738,477 9650 219,996,000
Oregon 522 3,236,505 55,834
Utah 1074 2,257,206 15,980
Construction intensity ð$=dayÞ
Final cost
¼ (3)
Actual construction duration
Data collection
To compare cost and schedule performance between
D-B-B and D-B highway projects, empirical project
data from six DOTs (Florida, Indiana, North Carolina,
Ohio, Oregon, and Utah) that have extensive experi-
ence in using D-B delivery were collected. The primary
collected information in the request included: (1) pro-
ject name or identification number; (2) project delivery
methods: D-B-B and D-B; (3) project cost and schedule
data. The project cost data contained information
related to engineers’ estimate, contract awarded
amount, final cost, construction engineering and
inspection cost, and final design cost. The project
schedule data contained information related to the
date advertised, award date, construction start date
(notice to proceed), bid contract end date, and final
contract end date (substantial completion). The final
dataset included 15,786 D-B-B and 596 D-B highway
projects. Table 2 summarises descriptive statistics of
D-B-B and D-B projects associated with each
state DOT.
Table 2 shows a wide range of project costs. For
example, the contract awarded a cost of 15,786 D-B-B
projects ranged from a minimum of $4000 to a max-
imum of $219,996,000. Likewise, the contract awarded
a cost of 596 D-B projects varied from a minimum of
$24,477 to a maximum of $242,787,000. By analyzing
the contract award amount of these projects, it was
recognized that many small projects (less than $2 mil-
lion), which are typically not represented the nature of
D-B concepts, existed in the raw data set. Most of
these projects often involved a portion of work that
did not present the typical features of D-B-B and D-B
project delivery. As a result, the authors took a conser-
vative approach to remove all projects less than $2
million in the data set from the aforementioned six
DOTs. This process resulted in a total of 3888 projects,
including 3576 D-B-B and 312 D-B projects for further
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND ECONOMICS 885
D-B (Total n ¼ 596)
n Mean ($) Min. ($) Max. ($)
407 10,616,073 24,447 242,787,000
45,922,565 34 5,085,408 133,305 58,527,877
33 49,926,293 2,462,594 192,040,143
77 2,957,932 95,000 23,444,848
53,219,440 10 45,098,429 619,000 129,900,000
99,681,923 34 30,713,016 147,998 182,885,103
analysis. Based on the discussion with experts from
these state DOTs, five groups by project size were
used. The group sizes were chosen to provide the
practical resolution possible. These five groups include
the projects with the contract award amount ranged
from $2 million to $10 million ($2M to $10M); $10 mil-
lion to $20 million ($10M to $20M); $20 million to $50
million ($20M to $50M); $50 million to $100 million
($50M to $100M); and more than $100 million (over
$100M). Table 3 provides descriptive statistics of the
contract awarded amounts and the sample sizes (n) of
D-B-B and D-B projects associated with the five
selected groups.
It is noted that D-B is often used for specific proj-
ects. As a result, the sample size of D-B-B projects is
substantially larger than that of D-B projects in almost
all project size groups (Table 3). For example, there
are 2917 D-B-B projects versus 167 D-B projects in a
$2M to $10M range. There are 371 D-B-B projects ver-
sus 42 D-B projects in a $10M to $20M range. There
are 212 D-B-B projects versus 55 D-B projects in a
$20M to $50M range. There are 64 D-B-B projects ver-
sus 31 D-B projects in the $50M to 100M range.
Finally, for the project size over $100M, there are 17D-
B-B and 12 D-B projects included for subse-
quent analysis.
Data analysis
To examine the research hypotheses, in addition to
descriptive statistics, inferential statistics were con-
ducted to test the aforementioned hypotheses. A series
of statistical testing analyses, including both parametric
(t-test and Welch’s t-test) and non-parametric
(Mann–Whitney U-test), was conducted with pairwise
comparisons between D-B-B and D-B projects in terms
of cost growth, schedule growth, and construction
intensity. The independent two-sample t-test is the
most common statistical testing method to examine
the equality of mean values between two groups.
The t-test, referred to as a special case of the one-way
analysis of variance (ANOVA) test – a testing method to
compare mean values of two or more data samples, is
886 P. H. D. NGUYEN ET AL.

Table 3. Classification of D-B-B and D-B projects by size.

Project cost ($)
Delivery method Project size ($) Sample size (n) Percent (%) Mean Min. Max.
D-B-B $2M to $10M 2917 81.6 4,060,029 2,002,110 9,997,604
$10M to $20M 371 10.4 13,822,798 10,008,331 19,973,500
$20M to $50M 212 5.9 30,154,280 20,050,209 49,532,515
$50M to $100M 64 1.8 70,250,171 50,340,834 99,681,924
Over $100M 12 0.3 137,728,788 103,744,995 219,996,000
D-B $2M to $10M 167 53.5 4,831,440 2,012,000 9,985,655
$10M to $20M 42 13.5 13,944,459 10,073,110 19,825,827
$20M to $50M 55 17.6 30,812,368 20,066,295 49,005,000
$50M to $100M 31 9.9 65,676,528 51,292,855 99,746,802
Over $100M 17 5.4 151,177,500 101,930,000 242,787,000

limited in testing equality of mean values between
only two groups.
The use of t-test depends strictly on the satisfaction
of the required assumptions: (1) normal distribution of
the populations and (2) equality of variances between
two groups. If the D-B-B and D-B samples are normally
distributed and have equal variances, the two-sample t-
test is selected. If the first assumption is violated (i.e.
the samples are not normally distributed), the
Mann–Whitney U-test, a non-parametric test equivalent
to t-test, is utilized to examine the difference between
mean values of two samples. If the second assumption
is violated (i.e. the samples have unequal variances), a
variation of t-test, the Welch’s t-test, is utilized to com-
pare mean values between two samples. Prior to con-
ducting the hypothesis testing process, a confidence
level of 95% (a ¼ 0.05) was set to calculate the signifi-
cant value (p-value) for the subsequent testing proc-
esses. The null hypothesis for the used tests was that
the mean values of performance metrics (i.e. cost
growth, schedule growth, and construction intensity)
between D-B-B and D-B projects are equal within the
five groups of project size. If the p-value is less than
0.05, the difference in mean values between D-B-B and
D-B projects is statistically significant.
Results
Before performing inferential analysis, outliers in each
dataset of the used project performance metrics were
determined and removed. Specifically, the cost
growth, schedule growth, and construction intensity
were calculated using Equations (1)–(3). For each pro-
ject size group, the box plots were generated to visu-
alize and determine the outliers for the D-B-B and D-B
projects. Figures 2–4 display the box plots of cost
growth, schedule growth, and construction intensity
for each project size, respectively. The figures con-
firmed that the final dataset did not have any outliers
and was ready for subsequent statistical test-
ing processes.
Table 4 shows a descriptive summary of the mean
values of cost growth, schedule growth, and construc-
tion intensity between D-B-B and D-B projects across
five different groups of project size. Accordingly, the
mean value of cost growth of D-B projects is less than
that of D-B-B projects in the project sizes greater than
$10 million while D-B-B projects produced less cost
growth than that of D-B projects in the project sizes
less than $10 million. The mean value of schedule
growth of D-B projects is less than that of D-B-B proj-
ects across all five different groups of project size. The
mean value of construction intensity of D-B projects is
greater D-B-B projects in three groups, $10M to $20M,
$20M to $50M, and over $100M, while D-B-B projects
were constructed quicker than D-B projects in two
groups, $2M to $10M and $50M to $100M.
Selection of statistical hypothesis testing methods
To select appropriate statistical tests, the normality
assumption of D-B-B and D-B samples was tested
across the five categories. The Shapiro-Wilk test was
used to examine whether the samples of D-B-B and D-
B projects in each project size group were normally
distributed. If the p-value for these tests is less than
0.05 at 95% confidence, it is concluded that the sam-
ple is not normally distributed. On the other hand, if
the p-value is larger than 0.05, it is concluded that the
sample is normally distributed. Table 5 shows the
results of the normality tests indicating that the D-B-B
and D-B samples of cost growth, schedule growth,
and construction intensity in the project size between
$2 million and $10 million were not normally distrib-
uted. In addition, the D-B-B samples of schedule
growth and construction intensity in the project size
between $10 million and $20 million were also from a
non-normal distribution.
For the samples that were normally distributed, the
authors used Levene’s test to examine equality of var-
iances (homogeneity of variances) between them across
five project size groups. If the p-value for those variance
 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND ECONOMICS 887

Figure 2. Box plot of cost growth of D-B-B and D-B across project sizes.

Figure 3. Box plot of schedule growth of D-B-B and D-B across project sizes.

tests is less than 0.05, it is concluded that the variances across the groups of project size except for Group 5
of these two samples are not equal at 95% confidence, (project sizes over $100 million). On the other hand, the
and vice versa. Table 6 shows that the variances of variance of D-B-B and D-B samples of schedule growth
D-B-B and D-B samples of cost growth were not equal were equal across the five groups of project size.
888 P. H. D. NGUYEN ET AL.

Figure 4. Box plot of construction intensity of D-B-B and D-B across project sizes.

Table 4. Summary of cost growth, schedule growth, and con- Table 6. Levene’s test for equality of variances between D-B-
struction intensity. B and D-B samples.
Sample size (n) Mean (m) Statistical significance (p)
Performance metric Project size D-B-B D-B D-B-B D-B Construction
Cost growth $2M to $10M 2500 141 2.15% 2.79% Group Project size Cost growth Schedule growth intensity
$10M to $20M 300 36 5.86% 3.08% 1 $2M to $10M 0.00 0.60 0.96
$20M to $50M 184 45 6.90% 3.46% 2 $10M to $20M 0.00 0.37 0.47
$50M to $100M 53 29 10.37% 4.21% 3 $20M to $50M 0.00 0.73 0.03
Over $100M 10 16 11.65% 8.99% 4 $50M to $100M 0.00 0.88 0.14
Schedule growth $2M to $10M 2162 143 13.34% 11.48% 5 Over $100M 0.68 0.64 0.35
$10M to $20M 272 36 19.89% 17.53% Statistically significant at 95% confidence interval.
$20M to $50M 153 46 19.14% 16.98%
$50M to $100M 44 22 18.74% 15.19%
Over $100M 7 7 5.63% 4.81%
Construction intensity $2M to $10M 1755 146 $11,608 $9,827
$10M to $20M 269 38 $21,364 $22,736
Cost growth
$20M to $50M 133 47 $31,299 $33,549
$50M to $100M 44 28 $59,198 $57,199 Table 7 shows that D-B highway projects produced less
Over $100M 7 14 $103,552 $115,853 cost growth than D-B-B highway projects across differ-
ent groups of project size, except the project from $2
Table 5. Shapiro–Wilk normality test across five groups of million to $10 million. This result does not support
project size. Hypothesis H1 stating that D-B highway projects pro-
Statistical significance (p) duce less cost growth than D-B-B highway projects
Construction across different project sizes. In addition, for three
Cost growth Schedule growth intensity
groups of project size of $10M to $20M, $20M to $50M,
Group Project size D-B-B D-B D-B-B D-B D-B-B D-B and $50M to $100M, there was a statistically significant
1 $2M to $10M 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2 $10M to $20M 0.05 0.10 0.00 0.88 0.00 0.14
difference between cost growth of D-B and D-B-B proj-
3 $20M to $50M 0.80 0.14 0.14 0.10 0.42 0.22 ects at the 95% confidence level. On the other hand,
4 $50M to $100M 0.10 0.37 0.15 0.44 0.08 0.99
5 Over $100M 0.80 0.96 0.98 0.81 0.13 0.41
the outperformance of D-B-B projects over D-B projects
Statistically significant at 95% confidence interval. for Group 1 with the project size between $2 million
and $10 million was not statistically significant.
The variance of D-B-B and D-B samples within construc- Additionally, there was no statistically significant result
tion intensity were unequal only with Group 3 (project found in the mean value difference between D-B-B and
sizes between $20 million and $50 million). D-B projects in the project size over $100 million.
 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND ECONOMICS 889

Table 7. Difference in cost growth between D-B-B and D-B Projects.

Group Project Size Mean D-B-B (mD-B-B) Mean D-B (mD-B) Test used Difference (mD-B - mD-B-B) p
1 $2M to $10M 2.15% 2.79% U-test 0.64% 0.63
2 $10M to $20M 5.86% 3.08% Welch’s test
2.78% 0.00
3 $20M to $50M 6.90% 3.46% Welch’s test
3.44% 0.00
4 $50M to $100M 10.37% 4.21% Welch’s test
6.16% 0.00
5 Over $100M 11.65% 8.99% t-test/ANOVA
2.66% 0.35
Statistically significant at 95% confidence interval.

Table 8. Difference in schedule growth between D-B-B and D-B Projects.

Group Project size Mean D-B-B (mD-B-B) Mean D-B (mD-B) Test used Difference (mD-B - mD-B-B) p
1 $2M to $10M 13.34% 11.48% U-test
1.86% 0.11
2 $10M to $20M 19.89% 17.53% U-test
2.36% 0.54
3 $20M to $50M 19.14% 16.98% t-test/ANOVA
2.16% 0.51
4 $50M to $100M 18.74% 15.19% t-test/ANOVA
3.55% 0.35
5 Over $100M 5.63% 4.81% t-test/ANOVA
0.82% 0.85

Table 9. Difference in construction intensity between D-B-B and D-B Projects.

Group Project size Mean D-B-B (mD-B-B) Mean D-B (mD-B) Test used Difference (mD-B - mD-B-B) p
1 $2M to $10M $11,608 $9827 U-test
$1,781 0.00
2 $10M to $20M $21,364 $22,736 U-test $1,372 0.37
3 $20M to $50M $31,299 $33,549 Welch’s test $2,250 0.15
4 $50M to $100M $59,198 $57,199 t-test/ANOVA
$1,999 0.58
5 Over $100M $103,552 $115,853 t-test/ANOVA $12,301 0.49
Statistically significant at 95% confidence interval.

The results also show that both D-B-B and D-B projects
produced a high-cost growth (11.65% and 8.99%,
respectively) in the project size over $100 million.
Schedule growth
Table 8 shows that D-B projects produced lower sched-
ule growth than D-B-B projects in all five groups of pro-
ject size ranging from $2 million to over $100 million.
This result supports Hypothesis H2 stating that D-B high-
way projects produce less schedule growth than D-B-B
highway projects across different project sizes. However,
no statistically significant result was found in these
groups (p > 0.05). It is noticed that, in the project size
between $10 million and $20 million, both D-B-B and
D-B projects were recorded with a high schedule
growth of 19.89% and 17.53%, respectively while, in the
project size over $100 million, the least schedule growth
from both D-B-B and D-B projects across the five groups
was recorded with 5.63% and 4.81%, respectively.
Construction intensity
Table 9 indicates that the mean value of construction
intensity of D-B projects was less than that of D-B-B
projects in two project size groups: $2M to $10M and
$50M to $100M; there was a statistically significant dif-
ference at the 95% confidence level was found in the
group of $2M to $10M. This result does not support
Hypothesis H3 stating that D-B highway projects have
higher construction intensity than D-B-B highway proj-
ects across different project sizes. On the other hand,
the mean value of construction intensity of D-B proj-
ects was higher than that of D-B-B projects in three
project size groups: $10M to $20M, $20M to $50M,
and over $100M; these differences were not statistic-
ally significant at the 95% confidence level.
Discussion
The study attempted to investigate and compare the
performance between D-B-B and D-B highway projects
in terms of cost growth, schedule growth, and
construction intensity across five different project sizes,
including $2M to $10M; $10M to $20M; $20M to $50M;
$50M to $100M; and over $100M. These project sizes
only consist of highway construction projects completed
within the past two decades. The data sample does not
include any vertical projects, such as maintenance facili-
ties and office buildings; non-highway construction
projects are excluded for statistical analysis and discus-
sion. It is important to note that although the findings
of cost growth and schedule growth in the current
study are supported by the literature, none of the previ-
ous studies focussed on investigating the project
performance between D-B and D-B-B projects based on
project sizes. As one of the first attempts to conduct the
rigorous analysis of performance differences between D-
B-B and D-B across different project sizes, the findings
are expected to help highway agencies better
890 P. H. D. NGUYEN ET AL.
understand how D-B performs under the different sizes
of projects in terms of cost growth, schedule growth,
and construction intensity.
Difference in cost performance across
project sizes
There was a statistically significant difference in cost
growth between D-B-B and D-B highway projects in
the project size from $10 million to $100 million.
Specifically, D-B projects produced less cost growth
than D-B-B projects. This finding is supported by previ-
ous studies in the highway construction literature
(Warne 2005, Shrestha et al. 2007, Minchin et al. 2013,
FHWA 2018, Nguyen et al. 2020). For example, Warne
(2005) observed better performance in D-B projects
compared to D-B-B projects with a 4% difference in
cost growth. Likewise, Shrestha et al. (2007) confirmed
that D-B projects had 9.6% of cost growth less than D-
B-B projects. With the project size greater than $10
million, the study found that D-B projects produced
better cost performance than D-B-B projects (Shrestha
et al. 2007). The significant difference in cost perform-
ance between D-B-B and D-B projects can be
explained by a larger number of change orders that
often occur in D-B-B projects compared to D-B proj-
ects. Alleman et al. (2020) found that using the D-B
delivery method provides highway agencies with sev-
eral benefits over the use of D-B-B delivery. First, D-B
projects often go with initial contract surpluses (i.e.
the difference between the engineering estimate
amount and the construction contract award amount),
which then can be used to add value to the final pro-
ject cost. Second, plan errors and design omissions are
transferred to the design-builder in D-B projects that
releases the owner’s risks for potential cost overruns
related to plans and design changed. Third, using the
D-B delivery method also reduces the risks of change
orders related to unforeseen conditions, which fre-
quently occur in D-B-B projects. The involvement of
the design-builder during design development
reduces the likelihood of submitting change orders
due to unforeseen conditions or requesting quantity
change orders (DBIA 2018).
For the project size between $2 million and $10
million, D-B-B projects produced a lower cost growth
than D-B projects; however, no statistically significant
result was found. The better cost performance of
D-B-B projects compared to D-B projects in the project
size of $2M to $10M can be explained by the fact that
small projects are typically less complex and lack
opportunities for industry innovation. There are some
possible reasons for the selection of D-B for small pro-
ject sizes. One of the possible reasons for the selection
of D-B for small project sizes is that DOTs attempt to
reduce owner’s risks (e.g. change orders) that might
burden their budget and project schedule by using D-
B to bear the uncertainty for the design completeness
(Park and Kwak 2017). Additionally, the majority of the
collected highway projects within this size include
new construction or widening road, new construction
bridge and tunnel, and 3R road projects, which were
rated as the most suitable project types for the use of
D-B delivery methods by FHWA (2006). Finally, the
DOTs may attempt to use D-B regardless of project
sizes because their goal is to have the final product
that meets end users’ needs with the opportunities to
enhance innovation and potentially reduce project
schedules (DBIA 2018).
The cost performance result implies that D-B proj-
ects might not be constantly superior to D-B-B proj-
ects as stated in the studies of Minchin et al. (2013)
and Shrestha et al. (2011). The main reasons for the
lack of consensus in comparing cost growth between
D-B-B and D-B projects involve limited data, opinion-
based data, and small and non-representative samples
(Park and Kwak 2017). Non-statistically significant
results were found either in the literature of project
delivery methods or in the current study. Additionally,
lack of data availability and insufficient statistical ana-
lysis methods may lead to inherent biases when com-
paring project performance between D-B-B and D-B
delivery methods.
Difference in schedule performance across
project sizes
D-B highway projects produced less schedule growth
than D-B-B highway projects across all five groups of
project sizes from $2 million to over $100 million,
which confirms the well-cited time-saving benefit of
the D-B delivery method. Using D-B projects can
expedite the project delivery process by minimizing
design efforts of highway agencies and commencing
the construction process early to shorten project dura-
tions (Chen et al. 2016). This time acceleration cannot
occur in D-B-B projects due to its fundamental require-
ment of 100% design completeness. Another possible
reason is due to the small number of change orders
often recorded in D-B projects (Alleman et al. 2020).
Minimizing the number of change orders can help
avoid potential delays and unexpected cost overruns.
The other reason might relate to the high construction
intensity of D-B projects, which is recognized as one

of the benefits of alternative contracting methods to
achieve a faster rate of project delivery (Konchar and
Sanvido 1998).
Although no statistically significant differences were
found in schedule performance, the results of D-B proj-
ects facilitating the schedule acceleration over D-B-B
projects concur with previous studies in the highway
delivery literature (Ellis et al. 2007, Shrestha et al. 2007,
Minchin et al. 2013, FHWA 2018). For instance, Shrestha
et al. (2007) produced the same results, but inferential
testing results did not show any statistically significant
difference. Similarly, Minchin et al. (2013) using non-
parametric statistical testing of 50 D-B and D-B-B high-
way projects indicated that D-B projects lessened D-B-B
by 2.8% in the scheduled growth with no statistically
significant results. One potential reason is due to the
lack of a sufficient amount of D-B highway projects
compared to D-B-B projects, which are widely found in
the current project delivery literature. It is also noted
that collecting identical highway projects delivered by
D-B-B and D-B is challenging, if not impossible, due to
many reasons, such as project locations, internal and
external features, and different project characteristics.
The inferential comparisons of project performance
between these two delivery methods should be
enhanced with collecting more empirical data of com-
pleted highway construction projects.
Difference in construction intensity across
project sizes
There was a statistically significant difference at the
95% confidence level in construction intensity
between D-B-B and D-B highway projects in the
project size from $2 million to $10 million; as a result,
D-B-B had a faster work pace than D-B. A possible rea-
son for this finding is that for small projects there
exists more competition of D-B-B than D-B. The other
reason may relate to the measurement approach of
construction intensity in small D-B projects for which
the start date of the contract – including the builder’s
design time after the award, or the start date of the
construction process is not as clear as large projects.
Similarly, for project sizes of $50M to $100M, D-B-B
projects were found to have higher construction inten-
sity than that of D-B projects. However, no statistically
significant difference was found.
For project sizes (from $10 million to $50 million)
and over $100M, the findings show that D-B projects
were found to have higher construction intensity than
that of D-B-B projects. No statistically significant differ-
ence was found. These findings are partly consistent
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND ECONOMICS 891
with results found from Antoine et al. (2019), in which
D-B projects were found to have higher construction
intensity than that of D-B-B projects. It is important to
note that Antoine et al. (2019) utilized a much smaller
sample size (n ¼ 20) compared to the current study
(n ¼ 1901). This may explain why there are only partly
consistent findings on the construction intensity
between D-B-B and D-B from the current study and
the results found by Antoine et al. (2019). This out-
come may warrant further investigations because facil-
itating a faster rate of project delivery is a benefit of
alternative contracting methods, including D-B, over
the traditional D-B-B delivery method (Konchar and
Sanvido 1998, Sullivan et al. 2017). The construction
intensity factor also utilizes the ratio of an amount of
investment over the duration, which results in the nor-
malizing effect to better compare the performance of
different delivery methods (Antoine et al. 2019).
In summary, the current study is the first attempt to
empirically compare D-B-B and D-B performance in
highways based on the project size although there is a
wide range of studies examining the performance of D-
B-B and D-B projects. The finding from the current study
may provide more insights into how D-B-B and D-B per-
form with regard to varying project sizes. Specifically,
the results of the current study help explain the existing
contradictions in the literature regarding whether the D-
B delivery method provides better project performance
(cost growth, schedule growth, and construction inten-
sity) than the D-B-B delivery method in the highway
sector. Regarding cost growth, although Shrestha et al.
(2011) and Minchin et al. (2013) concluded that using
D-B-B in highway projects can end up with better cost
performance compared to the use of D-B, the current
study only supports these conclusions with the project
size from $2 million to $10 million. Conversely, D-B proj-
ects produced better cost performance than D-B-B proj-
ects in the project size from $10 million to $100 million
with a statistically significant result at the 95% confi-
dence level. Regarding schedule growth, the current
study supports the conclusion from Tran et al. (2017),
FHWA (2018), and (Alleman et al. 2020) that D-B proj-
ects produced less schedule growth than D-B-B projects
regardless of project size. The current study also shows
that D-B projects had a higher construction intensity
than D-B-B projects. Finally, the findings of the current
study regarding the cost growth, schedule growth, and
construction intensity between D-B-B and D-B highway
construction projects can be used as a reference in add-
ition to pertinent factors, such as project type, project
goals/objectives, project complexity, duration, project
risk profiles, staff experience and availability, regulations,
892 P. H. D. NGUYEN ET AL.
and project cost, during the selection process of project
delivery methods.
Conclusion
Comparisons between performance of D-B and D-B-B
projects have been widely documented in highway
construction. There still existed an argument regarding
the common perception that D-B outperforms D-B-B
in terms of cost and schedule performance. In add-
ition, previous studies are still a shortfall of exploring
differences in D-B-B and D-B performance across vari-
ous project sizes. The current study empirically investi-
gated the statistical differences between cost growth,
schedule growth, and construction intensity of D-B-B
and D-B projects across different project sizes ranging
from $2 million to over $100 million. A series of statis-
tical hypothesis testing approaches were conducted to
analyze cost growth, schedule growth, and construc-
tion intensity of 3576 D-B-B and 312 D-B highway
projects collected from six state DOTs.
D-B projects tend to have better cost and schedule
performance than D-B-B projects in large project sizes
from $10 million to over $100 million. The results are in
line with previous studies investigating the differences
in performance between D-B-B and D-B projects where
D-B performs better than D-B-B in large project sizes
(over $10 million) in terms of cost growth and schedule
growth (Sullivan et al. 2017, Tran et al. 2017).
Specifically, the results show that in the project size
from $10 million to $100 million, D-B projects had a
statistically significant less cost growth than D-B-B proj-
ects at the 95% of confidence level. However, on aver-
age (no statistical significance), D-B-B highway projects
produced less cost growth than D-B highway projects in
the project size ranging from $2 million to $10 million.
Regarding schedule performance, D-B projects produced
less schedule growth than D-B-B projects across all five
groups of different project sizes from $2 million to over
$100 million although no statistically significant result
was found. Regarding construction intensity, D-B pro-
duced more construction intensity than D-B-B in the
project size between $10 million and $50 million as well
as over $100 million (no statistical significance).
However, D-B-B projects had a faster work pace than D-
B projects in two groups of the project size: $2 million
to $10 million (statistical significance at the 95% confi-
dence level) and $50 million to $100 million (no statis-
tical significance).
There were several limitations. First, the perform-
ance comparison’s results were based on analyzing
data collected from only six state DOTs. It is noted
that although the data collected from these six state
DOTs is sufficient for analyzing the cost and schedule
performance of D-B-B and D-B, it is expected that ana-
lyzing more data from other states and countries will
improve the validity of the findings. Second, only
highway project data were collected and analyzed.
Interpreting or generalizing the performance results
requires examining external factors for different char-
acteristics of highway construction. Future research
may extend the findings by analyzing the non-
highway project data such as building and industrial
projects. Third, only D-B and D-B-B delivery methods
were considered because of limited data available. It is
suggested that other main delivery methods including
construction manager/general contractor or public-
private partnership should be included in future
studies. Finally, it is important to note that the per-
formance of D-B-B and D-B depends on many factors
such as project types, the scope of work, project com-
plexity, and delivery risks, and their interrelationships.
As mentioned in the literature review, there is a wide
range of studies focussing on comparing the D-B-B
and D-B performance based on these aforementioned
factors. To address the knowledge gap, the current
study’s scope is to investigate the difference in per-
formance between D-B-B and D-B highway construc-
tion projects based on only project size. Future work
may integrate the project size with other factors to
develop more comprehensive decision-making models
for the selection of project delivery methods in high-
way construction.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to sincerely thank the members of
the Florida DOT, Indiana DOT, North Carolina DOT, Ohio
DOT, Oregon DOT, and Utah DOT for their participation in
garnering all project data used for the study. Without their
willingness to participate, the current study would not have
been possible.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Data availability statement
Data generated or analyzed during the study are available
from the corresponding author by request.
References
Alleman, D., et al., 2020. Project delivery methods’ change-
order types and magnitudes experienced in highway

construction. Journal of legal affairs and dispute resolution
in engineering and construction, 12 (2), 04520006.
Antoine, A., Alleman, D., and Molenaar, K., 2019. Examination
of project duration, project intensity, and timing of cost
certainty in highway project delivery methods. Journal of
management in engineering, 35 (1), 04018049.
Chen, Q., et al., 2016. Time and cost performance of design-
build projects. Journal of construction engineering and
management, 142 (2), 1–7.
DBIA. 2018. Design-Build Authorization for Transportation 2018
[online]. Design-Build Institute of America. Available from:
https://dbia.org/advocacy/state/ [Accessed 10 May 2020].
Ellis, R.D., et al., 2007. Evaluation of alternative contracting
techniques on FDOT construction projects. Tallahassee, FL:
Florida Department of Transportation.
Ellis, R.E., Herbsman, Z.J., and Kumar, A., 1991. Evaluation of
the FDOT design/build program. Tallahassee, FL: Florida
Department of Transportation.
Ernzen, J. and Schexnayder, C., 2000. One company’s experience
with design/build: labor cost risk & profit potential. Journal of
construction engineering management, 126 (1), 10–14.
FHWA. 2006. Design-build effectiveness study. Final report to
Congress as required by TEA-21, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Federal Highway Administration.
FHWA. 2018. Alternative contracting method performance in
U.S. highway construction. (DTFH61-13-C-00024). Federal
Highway Administration.
Goftar, V.N., El Asmar, M., and Bingham, E., 2014. A meta-
analysis of literature comparing project performance
between design-build (D-B) and design-bid-build (D-B-B)
delivery systems. In: Construction in a global network.
Atlanta, GA: CGN, 1389–1398.
Gudiene, _ N., Banaitis, A., and Banaitiene,
_ N., 2013. Evaluation
of critical success factors for construction projects – an
empirical study in Lithuania. International journal of stra-
tegic property management, 17 (1), 21–31.
Hale, D., et al., 2009. Empirical comparison of design/build and
design/bid/build project delivery methods. Journal of con-
struction engineering and management, 135 (7), 579–587.
Ibbs, C.W., Kwak, Y., and Odabasi, A., 2003. Project delivery sys-
tem and project change: a quantitative analysis. Journal of
construction engineering and management, 129 (4), 382–387.
Konchar, M. and Sanvido, V., 1998. Comparison of US project
delivery systems. Journal of construction engineering man-
agement, 124 (6), 435–444.
Love, P., et al., 2015. Estimating construction contingency:
accommodating the potential for cost overruns in road
construction projects. Journal of infrastructure systems, 21
(2), 04014035.
Luo, L., et al., 2017. Construction project complexity: research
trends and implications. Journal of construction engineer-
ing and management, 143 (7), 04017019.
Mahamid, I., 2013. Effects of project’s physical characteristics
on cost deviation in road construction. Journal of King
Saud University, 25 (1), 81–88.
Minchin, R., et al., 2013. Comparison of cost and time per-
formance of design-build and design-bid-build delivery
systems in Florida. Journal of construction engineering and
management, 139 (10), 1–5.
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND ECONOMICS 893
Molenaar, K.R. and Songer, A.D., 1998. Model for public sec-
tor design-build project selection. Journal of construction
engineering management, 124 (6), 467–479.
Nguyen, P., Tran, D., and Lines, B., 2020. Fuzzy set theory
approach to classify highway project characteristics for
delivery selection. Journal of construction engineering and
management, 146 (5), 04020044.
Park, H.S. and Kwak, Y.H., 2017. Design-bid-build (DBB) vs.
design-build (DB) in the U.S. public transportation proj-
ects: the choice and consequences. International journal of
project management, 35 (3), 280–295.
Park, H., et al., 2015. Comparing project performance of
design-build and design-bid-build methods for large-sized
public apartment housing projects in Korea. Journal of
Asian architecture and building engineering, 14 (2), 323–330.
Qiang, M., et al., 2015. Factors governing construction pro-
ject delivery selection: a content analysis. International
journal of project management, 33 (8), 1780–1794.
Qureshi, S. and Kang, C., 2015. Analyzing the organizational
factors of project complexity using structural equation
modelling. International journal of project management, 33
(1), 165–176.
Riley, D.R., Diller, B.E., and Kerr, D., 2005. Effects of delivery
systems on change order size and frequency in mechan-
ical construction. Journal of construction engineering and
management, 131 (9), 953–962.
Russell, M., et al., 2014. Causes of time buffer and duration
variation in construction project tasks: comparison of per-
ception to reality. Journal of construction engineering and
management, 140 (6), 04014016.
Shrestha, P., Connor, J., and Gibson, G.J., 2011. Performance
comparison of large design-build and design-bid-build
highway projects. Journal of construction engineering and
management, 138 (1), 1–13.
Shrestha, P., et al., 2007. Benchmarking of large design-build
highway projects: one-to-one comparison and comparison
with design-bid-build projects. Transportation research
record, 1994 (1), 17–25.
Shrestha, P. and Fernane, J., 2016. Performance of design-build
and design-bid-build projects for public universities. Journal
of construction engineering management, 9364, 1–10.
Songer, A.D. and Molenaar, K.R., 1997. Project characteristics
for successful public-sector design-build. Journal of con-
struction engineering management, 123 (1), 34–40.
Sullivan, J., et al., 2017. Two decades of performance compari-
sons for design-build, construction manager at risk, and
design-bid-build: quantitative analysis of the state of know-
ledge on project cost, schedule, and quality. Journal of con-
struction engineering and management, 143 (6), 04017009.
Tran, D.Q., Diraviam, G., and Minchin, E.R., 2017. Performance
of highway design-bid-build and design-build projects by
work types. Journal of construction engineering and man-
agement, 144 (2), 04017112.
Warne, T.R., 2005. Design-build contracting for highway proj-
ects: a performance assessment. South Jordan, UT: Tom
Warne & Associates, LLC.
Yong, Y. and Mustaffa, N., 2012. Analysis of factors critical to
construction project success in Malaysia. Engineering, con-
struction and architectural management, 19 (5), 543–556.
Copyright of Construction Management & Economics is the property of Routledge and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.