Procurement of Architecture and Engineering Services: Influence of Cost on Selection Outcomes and Evaluation Criteria That Best Differentiate Consultant Expertise

Abstract

Although the procurement of architectural and engineering (A/E) consultants has traditionally followed Qualifications-Based Selection (QBS), owners have begun to utilize cost evaluations with increasing regularity. A/E professional associations have widely viewed this as a threat to their profession and have established guidelines stating that owners should limit the weight of cost evaluations and use a two-envelope system to ensure an unbiased evaluation. This study investigated the application of these guidelines within 122 publicly procured A/E projects across North America. Selection outcomes roughly mimicked QBS, such that the highest qualified consultant was selected in the majority of cases; however, lower pricing did drive a minority of selections. The study also investigated the owner evaluation scores received by each individual consultant proposal within the data set (n = 804). Results contributed an understanding of the evaluation criteria that best differentiate between competing proposals, which informs owners in optimizing their evaluation schemes and guides consultants in their proposal development efforts. Finally, analysis revealed that greater consultant qualifications have no correlation with higher design cost, which contradicts owner-held perceptions that QBS results in higher costs.