Differentiation of Evaluation Criteria in Design-Build and Construction Manager at Risk Procurements

Abstract

The procurement processes used in the alternative contracting methods of design-build (DB) and construction manager at risk (CMAR) are heavily focused on best-value and qualifications-based selection. However, previous research has not examined the effectiveness of owners' evaluation criteria in differentiating among competing bidders. The objective of this study was to document the selection outcomes of the bidders in DB and CMAR projects and identify which evaluation criteria had the greatest differentiation in scores for competing bidders. The results were compared with previous research on the procurement of architectural and engineering consultants and design-bid-build (DBB) contractors. The study sample consisted of 362 bidders for 63 DB and CMAR projects in the United States and Canada. The statistical analysis results showed that scores on interviews and technical proposals had the greatest differentiation, while cost proposal scores had minimal differentiation. These findings provide practical guidance for owners and bidders regarding how to prioritize evaluation criteria and how to respond to them.