Comparative Performance Analysis of Government Building Projects Using Design-Bid-Build (DBB) and Design-Build (DB) Delivery Methods

Endah Murtiana Sari; Probokusumo Probokusumo; Miri Ardiansyah; Damara Astiningtyas; Muhammad Dzaky Ashidqi

doi:10.51988/jtsc.v7i4.751

Authors

Endah Murtiana Sari Universitas Sains Indonesia
Probokusumo Probokusumo Universitas Sains Indonesia
Miri Ardiansyah Universitas Sains Indonesia
Damara Astiningtyas Universitas Sains Indonesia
Muhammad Dzaky Ashidqi Universitas Sains Indonesia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.51988/jtsc.v7i4.751

Keywords:

Design–Build, Design–Bid–Build, Government Building Projects, Project Performance, Early Warning System

Abstract

The performance of government building projects is an important indicator of successful infrastructure delivery. However, these projects often face delays, coordination problems, and deviations between planned and actual progress. Differences between Design–Bid–Build (DBB) and Design–Build (DB) delivery systems may influence project performance. This study aims to compare the performance of government building projects implemented under DBB and DB systems. A quantitative approach was employed to analyze planned and actual progress curves from 12 government building projects. Performance was evaluated primarily based on the alignment between planned and actual progress throughout the construction period. The results reveal considerable variation in performance across the projects. DB implementation did not consistently produce better performance in every project; nevertheless, DB projects demonstrated relatively better overall performance than DBB projects. These findings indicate that project performance is not determined solely by the delivery system but is also associated with project control, stakeholder coordination, resource management, and the ability to respond to implementation deviations. The findings provide a basis for developing an early warning framework to identify potential schedule delays and support timely corrective actions in government building projects.

References

[1] B. Franz, K. R. Molenaar, and B. A. M. Roberts, “Revisiting project delivery system performance from 1998 to 2018,” J. Constr. Eng. Manag., vol. 146, no. 9, Sep. 2020, doi: 10.1061/(asce)co.1943-7862.0001896.

[2] M. Ibrahim, H. Awad, and K. Dave, “Quantitative Comparison of Project Performance between Project Delivery Systems,” J. Manag. Eng., vol. 36, no. 6, p. 4020082, Nov. 2020, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000837.

[3] J. Sullivan, M. El Asmar, J. Chalhoub, and H. Obeid, “Two decades of performance comparisons for design-build, construction manager at risk, and design-bid-build: quantitative analysis of the state of knowledge on project cost, schedule, and quality,” J. Constr. Eng. Manag., vol. 143, no. 6, Jun. 2017, doi: 10.1061/(asce)co.1943-7862.0001282.

[4] M. Hyosoo et al., “Cost performance comparison of design-build and design-bid-build for building and civil projects using mediation analysis,” J. Constr. Eng. Manag., vol. 146, no. 9, p. 4020113, Sep. 2020, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001873.

[5] L. B. C., N. P. H. D., and K. Raghu, “An empirical analysis of project performance outcomes for best-value procurement in design–bid–build projects,” J. Manag. Eng., vol. 37, no. 3, p. 4021005, May 2021, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000896.

[6] I. M. Katar, “Enhancing the Project Delivery Quality; Lean Construction Concepts of Design-Build & Design-Bid-Build Methods,” Int. J. Manag., vol. 10, no. 6, pp. 324–337, 2019, doi: DOI: 10.34218/IJM.10.6.2019.031.

[7] E. M. Sari et al., “Design bid build to integrated project delivery: Strategic formulation to increase partnering,” J. Infrastructure, Policy Dev., vol. 8, no. 1, Dec. 2023, doi: 10.24294/jipd.v8i1.2242.

[8] M. El Asmar, A. S. Hanna, and W. Y. Loh, “Comparison of project performance between design–build and design–bid–build,” J. Constr. Eng. Manag., vol. 142, no. 11, 2016, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001208.

[9] P. P. Shrestha, M. Asce, and J. D. Fernane, “Performance of Design-Build and Design-Bid-Build Projects for Public Universities,” 2016, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.

[10] J. Park and Y. H. Kwak, “Design-bid-build (dbb) vs. design-build (db) in the U.S. public transportation projects: the choice and consequences,” Int. J. Proj. Manag., vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 280–295, Apr. 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.10.013.

[11] V. N. Goftar, M. El Asmar, and E. Bingham, “A Meta-Analysis of Literature Comparing Project Performance between Design-Build (DB) and Design-Bid-Build (DBB) Delivery Systems,” in Construction in a Global Network, 19–21 May 2014, Atlanta, Georgia, American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 2014, pp. 1389–1398. doi: 10.1061/9780784413517.142.

[12] S. S. S. Al-enezi and R. Al Sabah, “Comparing time and cost performance of DBB and DB public construction projects in Kuwait,” J. Eng. Res., vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 680–690, 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.jer.2023.11.016.

[13] K. Ramy and E. I. H., “Advancing Airport Project Delivery: A Comparison of Design–Build and Traditional Methods in Terms of Schedule and Cost Performance,” J. Manag. Eng., vol. 39, no. 6, p. 4023041, Nov. 2023, doi: 10.1061/JMENEA.MEENG-5490.

[14] A. Bigwanto, N. Widayati, M. A. Wibowo, and E. M. Sari, “Lean construction: a sustainability operation for government projects,” Sustainability, vol. 16, no. 8, p. 3386, Apr. 2024, doi: 10.3390/su16083386.

[15] E. M. Sari, S. I. Wahyudi, H. P. Adi, and T. Cionita, “A review: performance mapping of design–bid–build and design–build in government projects based on lean construction,” J. PenSil, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 219–232, May 2026, doi: 10.21009/jpensil.v15i2.66668.

[16] E. M. Sari, A. P. Irawan, M. A. Wibowo, J. P. Siregar, and A. K. A. Praja, “Project delivery systems: the partnering concept in integrated and non-integrated construction projects,” Sustainability, vol. 15, no. 1, 2023, doi: 10.3390/su15010086.

[17] E. M. Sari et al., “Challenge and awareness for implemented integrated project delivery (IPD) in Indonesian projects,” Buildings, vol. 13, no. 1, p. 262, 2023, doi: 10.3390/buildings13010262.