Status of Design-Build in the US Water and Wastewater Sectors - Design-Build for Water and Wastewater Projects - page 28

Respondents also graded how their most recent DB experience met their expecta-
tions relative to the reasons they gave for using DB. Respondents graded their experience
on a scale of one to five, where five was exceeded expectations , three was met expectations ,
and one was did not meet expectations . Table 3-2 shows the results.
All factors received a grade of 4 or above. Single-point accountability and speed
of delivery were ranked highest as reasons to use DB. The grades show that the design-
builders are delivering on the objectives that are most important to the municipality.
Additional follow-up questions to the respondents of the survey reinforce the positive
outcomes of their DB experiences.
•Eighty-nine percent report that their DB project was completed on schedule. Six
of these respondents stated that the project came in ahead of schedule. Only two
respondents stated that their project did not come in on schedule, but neither
blamed the design-builder.
•Eighty-nine percent of respondents who have completed projects state that their
projects came in on budget. Four of these respondents explained that the project
also came in ahead of schedule. Only two respondents stated that their project did
not come in on budget. One respondent attributes the overrun to the fact that the
design-builder increased the speed of delivery and therefore the slight cost overrun
was worth it to the municipality.
•Ninety-four percent of the respondents who have completed projects report that
their DB projects met their performance requirements.
•Every respondent who has a completed project stated that their DB project met
their design requirements.
The R. W. Beck survey showed similar results: 76 percent of respondents would use
DB again, and 94 percent would recommend DB to others (R. W. Beck Inc. 2009).
A WDBC-funded study by a consortium of universities observed similar results to
the WDBC survey data and the R. W. Beck studies. The consortium included the Univer-
sity of Colorado, Iowa State University, and the University of New Mexico. In 2009, the
consortium published a report entitled “Independent Comparative Evaluation of Design-
Build v. Conventional Design-Bid-Build Project Delivery for Municipal Water and Waste-
water.” The study included a survey of more than 252 owners who completed water and
Table 3-2. Owner satisfaction with design-build
Decision Factor Degree of Satisfaction*
Single-point accountability 4.8
Having the builder involved in the design process 4.7
Price certainty 4.6
Speed of delivery 4.6
Construction quality 4.5
Fewer change orders 4.3
Flexibility 4.3
Lower costs 4.0
*5 = exceeded expectations; 3 = met expectations, 1 = did not meet expectations
Source: WDBC 2008.