• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文学位 >An evaluation of public construction contracting methods for the public building sector in Oregon using data envelopment analysis.
【24h】

An evaluation of public construction contracting methods for the public building sector in Oregon using data envelopment analysis.

机译：使用数据包络分析评估俄勒冈州公共建筑领域的公共建筑承包方法。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Since 1976 public agencies in Oregon have been allowed to select construction contractors using a "qualification" based competition instead of the more typical lowest responsible bid or Design-Bid-Build (DBB) basis. Since 1985, at least 136 such selections, commonly known as CM/GC for Construction Manager/General Contractor, have been made. The results of this policy have not previously been analyzed. This research compares these selection methods, seeking to answer the following questions:;1. Does the CM/GC method result in projects that differ from DBB projects regarding cost and schedule control?;2. Are CM/GC projects more efficient than DBB projects, where efficiency is defined as the data envelopment analysis (DEA) technical efficiency score?;3. Does efficiency depend on an interaction between project type and the selection method?;4. How do project stakeholders evaluate the benefits and drawbacks of the two selection methods?;5. How do projects compare when the only apparent difference between them is the selection method?;To answer these questions, we identified 407 Oregon public building construction projects and obtained a variety of data, including cost and schedule results, for 215 jobs (111 CM/GC and 104 DBB). We analyzed the data several ways, including statistical analysis, DEA, and various qualitative methods.;Results:;1. There was no statistically significant difference between the CM/GC and DBB projects regarding cost and schedule control.;2. The DEA technical efficiency scores showed that CM/GC projects outperformed the DBB projects.;3. There was no interaction effect between project type and selection method.;4. Project stakeholders stated that reduction of risk is the principal benefit of using CM/GC; however, architects and subcontractors are less enthusiastic than owners and general contractors.;5. Data on two nearly identical projects indicated that the DBB project was less costly than the comparable CM/GC project and also incurred less cost growth; both projects were completed on time.;To summarize, this research fails to find support for the current Oregon law that exempts certain projects from competitive bidding based on the presumption that CM/GC will lead to substantial cost savings but does indicate that the CM/GC projects may be better able to accommodate accelerated project schedules.
机译：自1976年以来，俄勒冈州的公共机构已被允许使用基于“资格”的竞争来选择建筑承包商，而不是采用更为典型的最低负责任的投标或设计投标建造（DBB）的基础。自1985年以来，至少进行了136种这样的选择，通常被称为施工经理/总承包商的CM / GC。该政策的结果以前尚未进行过分析。本研究比较了这些选择方法，试图回答以下问题：1。在成本和进度控制方面，CM / GC方法产生的项目是否不同于DBB项目？ CM / GC项目是否比DBB项目效率更高？在DBB项目中，效率被定义为数据包络分析（DEA）技术效率得分吗； 3。效率是否取决于项目类型和选择方法之间的相互作用？； 4。项目涉众如何评估两种选择方法的利弊？； 5。当选择之间唯一明显的区别是如何比较项目？为了回答这些问题，我们确定了407个俄勒冈州的公共建筑项目，并获得了215个工作岗位（111厘米/个）的各种数据，包括成本和进度结果GC和104 DBB）。我们通过几种方法对数据进行了分析，包括统计分析，DEA和各种定性方法。结果：1。 CM / GC和DBB项目之间在成本和进度控制上没有统计学上的显着差异； 2。 DEA技术效率得分表明CM / GC项目优于DBB项目。3。项目类型与选择方法之间没有交互作用。4。项目利益相关者表示，降低风险是使用CM / GC的主要好处；但是，建筑师和分包商的热情不如业主和总承包商。; 5。关于两个几乎完全相同的项目的数据表明，DBB项目的成本低于可比的CM / GC项目，并且成本增长也较小；这两个项目均按时完成。；总而言之，这项研究未能获得俄勒冈州现行法律的支持，该法律基于CM / GC可以节省大量成本的假设，但确实表明CM / GC可以使某些项目免于竞标。 GC项目可能更好地适应加速的项目进度。

著录项

  • 作者

    Williams, Gerald Herman, Jr.;

  • 作者单位

    Portland State University.;

  • 授予单位 Portland State University.;
  • 学科 Engineering General.;Engineering Civil.
  • 学位 Ph.D.
  • 年度 2003
  • 页码 329 p.
  • 总页数 329
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号