abstract: Saudi Arabia has been having many issues with large construction projects such as delays, low performance and high cost. Some studies show that around 70% of the public projects in Saudi Arabia are delayed. These issues have resulted from many factors. One of the factors believed to be delaying projects is the Saudi procurement system. The Saudi procurement system only selects contracts based on the lowest bid price offered. However, the Saudi procurement system has been found to not only produce delayed low quality projects, but also has resulted in higher costs. This paper shows how to modify the Saudi procurement system by implementing a clarification phase, which is the most important phase in the Performance Information Procurement System (PIPS). The clarification phase requires the bid’s winning contractor to submit a project scope, a project schedule, to identify risks that not their responsibility, performance measurements and a milestone schedule. The PIPS system has been one of the most successful systems around the world and has shown a 98% success rate in six different countries with risks and cost reductions up to 30%. This research conducted a survey of 157 engineers, 33 consultants, 9 owners, 5 vendors, 13 academics, and 28 architects to develop the public procurement system in Saudi Arabia. The participants work in government sectors with an interest in the Saudi Arabian procurement system. 80.61 % of participants believe that the traditional Saudi procurement system consistently selects poor performing contractors. Moreover, 95.97% of participants think that the selection of contractors based only on the lowest price criterion affects projects negatively. Also, 96.20% of participants in the survey feel that there needs to be a change in the traditional Saudi Arabian procurement system. 88.7% of participants agree to require the contractor to identify risks, and 96.03 % of participants agree that the contractors must have a plan. Moreover, 95.45% of participants agree to require a contractor review the scope of a project and verify that it is correct. Finally, 82.18% of participants agree to require a contractor to resolve all owner concerns before signing a contract to improve construction projects performance. The paper shows the need to change the Saudi procurement system and a solution to this growing problem. / Dissertation/Thesis / Masters Thesis Construction 2015

Submitted by Suethene Souza (suethene.souza@ufpe.br) on 2015-03-03T18:32:34Z No. of bitstreams: 2 DissertacaoDesignBuild.pdf: 3398710 bytes, checksum: ef609f38cfa0477d8bd3c9f076675594 (MD5) license_rdf: 1232 bytes, checksum: 66e71c371cc565284e70f40736c94386 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2015-03-03T18:32:34Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 2 DissertacaoDesignBuild.pdf: 3398710 bytes, checksum: ef609f38cfa0477d8bd3c9f076675594 (MD5) license_rdf: 1232 bytes, checksum: 66e71c371cc565284e70f40736c94386 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2012-05-31 / Este estudo objetiva identificar as contribuições do método design-build, bem como riscos envolvidos na sua adoção, com vistas à minimização de problemas entre projeto e construção de obras públicas, oriundos em parte da dissociação entre projeto e construção imposta pela legislação brasileira ao determinar contratações distintas para ambos. Para que as contribuições do método fossem visualizadas foi necessário compará-lo ao que atualmente é utilizado pela Administração, método design-bid-build. Assim, foi realizado um estudo de caso de natureza qualitativa, no qual foram realizadas pesquisas documentais e de campo, na forma de entrevistas. Sobre os dados documentais e de campo foi aplicada análise de conteúdo, bem como triangulação de métodos e fontes, o que possibilitou investigar os problemas sob pontos de vistas diversos, captados por métodos diferentes, oferecendo um panorama bem mais próximo da realidade. Dentre os problemas identificados figuram falta de interação direta entre projetistas e construtoras, prazos irreais determinados pelo contratante para elaboração dos projetos e longo período de tempo entre concepção do projeto e efetiva execução da obra. Identificados os problemas foi verificado quais deles poderiam ser solucionados ou minimizados com a adoção do método de contratação design-build, considerando sua principal característica de concepção do projeto e execução da obra realizados por uma única empresa, em uma única contratação. Ao mesmo tempo, com vistas a uma possível adoção do método, foram levantados aspectos negativos, riscos prováveis e respectivas estratégias de enfrentamento. Dentre os aspectos críticos observados pelos entrevistados sobressaíram a possibilidade da empresa contratada se beneficiar elaborando um projeto ajustado às suas disponibilidades e não à real necessidade do contratante, associada à falta de estrutura dos órgãos públicos para exercerem o controle requerido pelo método design-build. Verificou-se que o método design-build seria uma solução possível para alguns dos problemas encontrados. Entretanto, o contratante deve precaver-se dos aspectos negativos e riscos possíveis, adotando medidas que eliminem ou minimizem seus efeitos. Os resultados encontrados contribuirão certamente não apenas para uma possível implantação do método, em contextos inclusive distintos do público, como também para a melhoria dos processos concernentes a projeto e execução de obras, independente do método de contratação porventura utilizado. No âmbito acadêmico poderá contribuir incentivando a realização de mais pesquisas sobre projeto e execução de empreendimentos de construção

The Design/Bid/Build (DBB) delivery method has historically been the most popular and the most effective means of determining the least cost for building a project based upon a set of construction documents. In recent years, however, other project delivery methods, including but limited to Construction Manager/General Contractor (CM/GC) and Design/Build (DB), have slowly taken a share of the construction market away from the DBB delivery method. The choice of delivery method that will produce the best value for an owner in the measurements of efficiency in quality, cost, and timeliness depends upon the type of project and the business culture of the project owner. A unique opportunity for a comparative study was presented by the Meetinghouse Facilities Department (MFD) of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The MFD completed over 200 repetitive meetinghouse projects in the U.S. over a five-year period (1999-2003), contracting approximately two-thirds of the projects using a CM/GC delivery method with an attached partnering agreement. The remaining meetinghouses were contracted using a DBB delivery method. A comprehensive comparison was conducted measuring all of the efficiencies created by the selection of delivery method, including short- and long-term costs, direct and indirect costs, construction cycle time, and quality assessment scores. After identifying and then adjusting for several confounding variables in the historical data, the statistical analysis provided evidence that the CM/GC delivery method proved to be the best value for the MFD by producing a total cost savings of over 5.5 percent on the meetinghouse projects when compared to the DBB meetinghouse projects. Construction cycle time was 20% shorter on the CM/GC meetinghouse projects and quality assessment (QA) scores were consistently higher. In regards to a 10-year life cycle repair costs, the CM/GC delivery method produced a higher quality meetinghouse, reducing repair costs by 34% when compared to the DBB meetinghouse projects.

This Diploma thesis follows up the award of public contracts using the Design-Build method. The first part focuses on the description of individual procurement methods and their advantages and disadvantages. In addition, the basic types of FIDIC terms and connditions are compared here. The second part describes and evaluates the terms of reference for specific projects commissioned by Design-Build in the Czech Republic. There is also a questionnaire survey that examines the viewpoints, knowledge and experience of contracting authorities with this method.