*2.2. Construction Procurement*

CCs see procurement as a sequence of calculated risks that should be evaluated in order to emerge with a project that is safe, cost-effective, and fit for purpose [27]. This perspective has significantly influenced the evolution of construction procurement and has resulted in various forms of procurement options that have been mainly driven by project needs and clients' specifications [3,13]. However, rather than limiting the description of procurement as the process of acquiring with ease [22], the definition of procurement has remained dynamic and robust as an integral part of the project delivery process [6,17,28]. According to [29] (p. 107), procurement is "the acquisition of new buildings, or space within buildings, either by directly buying, renting, or leasing from the open market or by designing and building the facility to meet a specific need". The procurement process has also described by [10] as a clear approach to achieving clients' goals regarding project delivery over a given period, based on a mechanism that coordinates all stakeholders throughout the project lifecycle. As construction procurement continues to evolve, scholars are unanimous in the view that the selection of an appropriate procurement route is a major determinant of overall project outcome [1,6,9,16,30].

According to [5] (p. 20), an appropriate procurement selection technique involves a "set of rationalistic decisions within a closed environment, aiming to produce generic, prescriptive rules for clients and advisers to use to select the 'best' procurement route for their project." This process can be simply described as a framework within which construction is acquired or secured [31]. Although the outcome of previous construction project decisions could be extremely insightful in supporting CC's decision regarding similar projects [23], Ref. [32] argues that there are several procurement options available to the client. Within each procurement option, there are several variants, each of which may be possibly refined to accommodate client needs and project specifics [31]. Some of such procurement routes and their variants as they apply to clients in the construction industry are discussed below. Ref. [21] classified construction procurement options into four major groups as follows: (1) Separated or traditional procurement systems, (2) Design and build procurement systems, (3) Management-oriented procurement systems, and (4) Partnering/collaborative systems.

#### 2.2.1. Separated or Traditional Procurement Systems

The evolution of project delivery routes has gone through different stages over the years [31,33]. Many projects constructed before the Second World War were procured through "traditional" means, which has remained in existence for more than 150 years [31,34]. Known as the oldest form of documented procurement option, Ref. [35] describes the traditional procurement route as having design as a separate function from construction. In adopting traditional procurement, the design is completed before the selection of a contractor to build the works [13], which is seen as the least-risk approach for the client as there is an inherent level of certainty about the project quality and construction duration if it is properly implemented [28]. Based on this, and assuming no variations are introduced, overall project costs can be determined with reasonable reliability before construction begins [34]. While lots of construction projects have been successfully delivered across the globe using traditional procurement [13], there are numerous reports of post-contract changes and delays, which often result in increased project costs and time overruns [17].

#### 2.2.2. Design and Build Method

The end of the Second World War ushered in a season of consistent economic growth and human capital development [21]. To meet the societal demand at that time, there was a need for the timely delivery of public facilities, hence, the adoption of an integrated procurement strategy that combines the design and construction functions involved in project delivery [31]. This procurement option is termed "design and build" [35].

According to [13], design and build is a route wherein a single contractor assumes the risk and responsibility for the design and construction of projects, usually in return for a pre-determined price. It is generally regarded as a fast-track route because construction often commences before the comprehensive design is completed, with the contractor finalizing the design as the work progresses [35]. It can be deduced from the definition that this method reduces project time, assures cost certainty, and encourages integrated contractor contribution to the design and project planning [36]. A shift to design and build translates to the transfer of design responsibility from direct client control to organizations, whose core businesses are profit-focused [31]. The client in the design and build arrangement passes the legal obligation for both design and construction to an independent contractor [35]. This single contractor can be either an integrated firm with an in-house design and construction delivery team or a consortium of various design and construction firms, brought together for a particular bid [36]. While significant progress regarding the timely delivery of projects and cost certainty resulted from the evolution of the design and build procurement approach [13], there have been reported deficiencies in the quality of projects delivered through this route [18]. The need to advance the design and build procurement method led to other integrated forms of procurement.

#### 2.2.3. Management-Oriented Method

The concept of management-oriented procurement was conceived to bridge the gap between traditional procurement and design and build [35]. This method evolved from the United Kingdom in the 1970s [21]. In adopting this procurement style, the CCs devolve the management of the design and construction of projects to an expert who acts as a management consultant on behalf of the client [31]. Management-oriented procurement enhances project quality and also accommodates design changes [36]. It ensures that the appointed managing consultants are responsible for the construction tasks without actually performing any of that work [13], at a cost to the client. This means that the consultants take over the construction process and ensure value for money on the project. The variants of management-based procurement include management contracting and construction management, with both sharing the main characteristic of appointing a managing party [31]. In construction management, the client appoints a construction manager (CM) to oversee the design and construction activities, using their expertise and experience to deliver the project for an agreed sum [36]. The role of the CM is mainly to ensure compliance to project

specifications without any contractual link with the design team and contractors [22]. All contractual agreement remains between the client and the trade contractors [13]. However, for management contracting, the consultant bears part of the construction risk because they have an established contractual link with the package contractors [35]. A major benefit of management-oriented procurement is the participation of the expert consultant in the design and project planning [21,28]. Although uncertainty about project cost at the initial stage of the procurement is a major disadvantage of this option [22], early consultant involvement reduces the risk of project overrun while accommodating later design decisions as construction progresses. The use of more integrated procurement methods otherwise referred to as partnering, emerged in the early-90s [13].

#### 2.2.4. Partnering/Collaborative Method

"Partnering in construction procurement is a structured management approach that enables teamwork, trust, long-term commitment, open culture, mutual objectives, customer focus, and innovation between contractual parties" [28] (p. 5). Apart from driving innovation through agreed mutual objectives, devising ways for conflict resolution, commitment to continuous improvement, measuring performance, and sharing gains [26], partnering suggests that efficient project outcome is better achieved through the collective effort of all stakeholders involved in project delivery [13,31]. Partnering, therefore, provides the premise required for the adoption of PPP (Public-Private Partnership) and PFI (Private Finance Initiative) procurement options.

According to [3], the fundamental rationale for PPP/PFI procurement is to establish a platform where the public and private sectors work together to realize optimum project outcomes while also managing project risks and disputes. Despite acknowledging that PPP/PFI procurement provides a wide range of benefits through innovative and collaborative practices amongst stakeholders in the delivery of public projects [13], scholars are of the view that the crucial considerations for successful PPP/PFI projects require appropriate risk assessment and allocation, transparency, adequate stakeholder engagement, strong legal framework, and availability of finance [3].

## *2.3. Factors Governing Procurement Route Selection*

The selection of an appropriate construction procurement path is directly linked to project objectives [2,4,32]. While there are various procurement routes available for CCs to choose from, challenges arising from the dynamic construction environment, changing client objectives and expectations, increasing project complexity, lack of effective communication and disintegration within the construction industry have resulted in the constant debate on selecting appropriate procurement routes for construction projects [7,17]. For a suitable procurement choice to be made, it is essential to clearly understand the project objectives and relate their significance to the overall project's success [24,30]. Although comprehending CCs' rationale for undertaking construction projects may be complicated, the relevance of existing decision-making tools in selecting procurement routes also remains ambiguous [5,20]. To clearly address the complexity of construction procurement, it is essential to:


Having previously identified various client types and procurement options, the characteristics, and expectations of specific projects are also expected to be clarified in order to differentiate the strengths and weaknesses of each procurement route. As shown in Table 1, studies that have previously investigated CCs and their attributes have established a set of commonly considered factors for construction procurement. Nevertheless, the selection of an appropriate procurement strategy has two components [13], viz:

1. Evaluating and establishing priorities for the project objectives and clients' attitudes to risk, and

2. Reviewing possible procurement options and selecting the most appropriate.


**Table 1.** Review of Factors Influencing Clients' Procurement Choices.

These two components are expected to be accessed holistically in line with best practices to develop a framework that could assist clients in making informed decisions.

While reflecting on, and corroborating the argument of [17] (p. 310) that "as far as known, apart from the work of [32], all other procurement decision-making charts were developed over a decade ago", Table 1 includes the recent work of [44] and [8] in providing an up-to-date review of factors influencing clients' procurement choices. Whereas all the studies suggest the significance of cost certainty, quality, and timely delivery of construction projects as major factors that influence CCs procurement choices, the reality of modern procurement also involves the consideration of factors such as risk, complexity, accountability, flexibility, and competition as shown in Table 1. According to [13], when the client type has been established, factors like the client's resources, project characteristics, ability to make changes, risk management, cost issues, timing, and quality assurance should be considered when evaluating the most appropriate procurement strategy. Although some of the factors may be in conflict and priorities need to be set, procurement route selection should consider the factors that are most important to the client [20,27,32].

The consideration for project factors in simplifying the procurement selection process can be traced to the National Economic Development Office report [42]. Subsequently, several studies including [27,37,43], have leveraged the NEDO report in proposing strategies that could be explored by CCs in rationalizing the construction procurement selection process. As shown in Table 1 scholars have established major factors that influence CCs' procurement choices and have subsequently proposed models to simplify the procurement selection task. For instance, Ref. [38] explored the effectiveness of a hierarchical process and multi-criteria screening in construction procurement evaluation, while [40], established the fuzzy function of different procurement selection criteria as a tool for improving procurement selection. Molenaar [41] also leveraged a multi-attribute analysis and regression model in predicting design and build procurement for public sector projects, and Ref. [39] clarified the objective relationship between financing, risk, and construction procurement in their study on private financing of construction projects and procurement systems. However, despite offering notable contributions that could ease construction procurement decision-making, the aforementioned studies are predominantly premised on the logical, systematic evaluation of project factors with limited consideration of the dynamic nature of CCs' motivation, experience, and subjective project requirements.

Nevertheless, few studies acknowledge the important role of client experience in procurement decision-making. According to a study on the participatory approach in the procurement selection of social infrastructure that was carried out by [32], it was established that efficient procurement decision-making require decision-makers to consistently reflect and evaluate project outcomes. The need to value client experience in analysing construction procurement options was also highlighted by [17]. However, while Ref. [32] focused on a particular client type, Ref. [17] did not clarify how CCs' experience could be integrated into the procurement selection process. Therefore, in advancing the current debate on construction procurement selection, this study proposes a holistic framework that recognizes and integrates different client types (as discussed in Section 2.1) with feasible procurement options (as discussed in Section 2.2), based on the project factors that have been established in the literature (as highlighted in Table 1) and listed as follows.


To achieve the study objective, the highlighted factors above were considered alongside client expectations and project requirements through the briefing process described in the methodology section.

#### **3. Methodology**

A mixed-method approach involving qualitative interviews and multi-objective optimization (MOO) protocol was adopted in exploring the significance of CCs' perceptions in selecting procurement routes. This approach is particularly relevant to this study because it integrates the subjective influence of CCs' experience with the objective reality of the procurement selection process. The qualitative aspect of this study involved fourteen purposefully selected CCs across the public and private sectors in the United Kingdom (UK), with experiences spanning the various construction procurement phases highlighted previously. Their perception and assessment of different procurement routes were collated through in-depth semi-structured interviews. The UK is particularly suitable for this study because of its global influence in construction procurement innovation and its multiplicity of client types. The participants' sample size conforms with the suggestions of [45], with details of the interview respondents provided in Table 2. Further to the client categorization highlighted in Appendix B-Figure A2, the research participants were grouped into Public Experienced Primary Client (PEPC), Public Experienced Secondary Client (PESC), Private Experienced Primary Client (PrEPC), and Private Inexperienced Secondary Client (PrISC).

Following the qualitative aspect of the study, a decision-making chart illustrated in Appendix A-Figure A1 was used in collecting numeric data relating to the significance of various project factors to different client types through MOO. According to [46] (p. 82), multi-objective optimization requires the "definition of appropriate decision variables, objective functions and constraints, and finally, the selection of appropriate solution techniques." Unlike single-objective optimization, which sets out to identify the best amongst a series of alternatives, thereby recommending the superlative option, multi-objective optimization involves a more detailed comparison of various attributes of the available alternatives before choices are made [4,47]. For instance, instead of making a project decision based solely on cost consideration, MOO evaluates various dimensions of project expectations like cost reduction, timely delivery, quality assurance, best practice, safety considerations, etc., before substantiating a preferred procurement route. This further corroborates the opinion of [46] that MOO leads to various alternative solutions to a problem, with a compromise reached among the objectives considered.


**Table 2.** Background of research participants.

MOO has been widely used in facilitating objective decision-making in mathematics, business, science, and engineering [47–49]. It is also popular among scholars in the construction industry who have evaluated various aspects of decision-making [4,17]. In addressing the focus of this study, the MOO strategy relies on the client's prioritization of project deliverables with reference to the available procurement options. Being an objective decision-making strategy, MOO, therefore, complements the subjective opinion of CCs in rationalizing procurement routes.

#### **4. Data Collection and Analysis**

The identified research participants highlighted in Table 2 were engaged in a series of face-to-face discussions, and their experiences across various project types and procurement strategies were collated via recorded telephone interviews. The interviews were recorded to ensure a comprehensive data collection process and the research participants were assured of their confidentiality and anonymity. Details regarding how CCs make procurement decisions, factors that influence their procurement decisions, and the reason for their procurement preferences were collected and subsequently analyzed thematically. According to [50], thematic analysis recognizes flexibility in the data collection and reporting process by identifying direct and indirect ideas emanating from the data. Following the stage-based process suggested by [51], the recorded interviews were transcribed, and initial codes were identified. As stated by [52], codes are keywords or phrases that form the basis of participants' opinions, which are emphasized because they reflect the participants' intentions. The identified codes were evaluated and merged into initial themes reflecting participants' unique perspectives toward construction procurement through a process described by [51] as mapping.

As shown in Table 3, the initial set of themes was reviewed, paraphrased, and consolidated to create a set of robust, coherent, and established themes. The major themes that emerged from the analysis suggest that CCs' procurement decisions are influenced by their cognitive abilities, access to relevant information, and the dynamism of the built environment. These themes are subsequently discussed with reference to relevant quotes from the interview.

Further to the collation of qualitative data, CCs' ability to select appropriate procurement routes was assessed using MOO. In adopting MOO, researchers have proposed different stage-based approaches, which involve establishing a set of factors that influence the project outcome, evaluating these factors through aggregation, ranking, or weight-based techniques, and eventually choosing the most appropriate option among the available alternatives [48]. As previously demonstrated by [4], the MOO approach to this study was carried out in phases through the development of a decision-making chart. The decision-making chart was designed (as illustrated in Appendix A-Figure A1) as a working template for integrating and aligning client objectives and project peculiarities to appropriate procurement options. The decision-making chart comprises two sections, with the data collection process in section one entirely based on clients' input and requirements, in line with the project objectives. Section two involves the review of information provided by the CCs and the subsequent alignment of clients' preferences to create a pattern that suggests a suitable procurement route. Input from construction professionals in guiding CCs toward the most appropriate procurement route is considered at this stage through a briefing process. According to [53], the briefing process integrates the fragmented construction variables by evaluating client needs, project specifications, and professional inputs, toward the realization of an optimum project outcome.

**Table 3.** Factors that influence respondents' procurement preferences based on their experiences.


The decision-making chart drives the briefing process and provides a premise for actualizing the aim of this study, which is the development of a framework that is capable of guiding clients in making informed procurement choices. Based on the technique adopted from [17], the chart was used in evaluating clients' responses to questions pertaining to specific project factors identified in Table 1. Whereas the decision-making chart advances the previous works of [11,12] by collating data relating to basic project objectives, the project samples and factors highlighted in this study are illustrative, not exhaustive. These factors could be updated based on project complexity.

According to [21], the specifications of CCs could vary across project criteria and expectations. For instance, if the value for money spent (i.e., quality) is the crucial consideration for a particular project, CCs would rate the procurement criterion "quality" higher than the other criteria like timeliness and cost. Consequently, this study collated objective responses to structured questions from the research participants. The structured questions were asked across the various categorization of clients and different project types, as shown in the first and second rows of Appendix A-Figure A1, respectively. CCs' responses to the questions raised in the first section of the table were subsequently evaluated and coded. As suggested by [4], detailed and logical rules were set to analyse and code clients' influence on the various project objectives. This includes using numeric weighting techniques, as previously demonstrated by [9] and [49]. Weight was, therefore, assigned to each of the factors that influence the client's goals by using a numerical scale ranging from 0 to 100. Based on client's expectation and project peculiarity, CCs are expected to assign utility scores to each question in section 1 of Appendix A-Figure A1. In this study, utility scores are described as the values attached to the significance of project parameters by decision-makers. CCs' answers to questions on procurement factors were eventually coded, depending on how

important the factors are to them. A response of 50 and below translates to "NO", while a response of 51 and above means "YES", as illustrated in Figure 1.

#### **5. Findings**

All the respondents except the PrISC acknowledged that they had procured several projects using various procurement strategies. Reflecting on their previous projects and their understanding of the procurement process, they emphasized that their experience is the major factor that influenced their procurement choices irrespective of the logical justification of the alternative procurement routes. The outcome of the qualitative analysis, which rationalizes the gap in this study, suggests that the relevance of CCs' experiences in making procurement decisions for different project types is influenced by their cognition, access to relevant information, and the dynamism of the built environment as clarified below.

#### *5.1. Construction Client's Cognition*

According to the respondents, individual and organizational perception, sentiment, or bias towards a specific procurement choice is responsible for most of their previous procurement decisions. Having operated in the construction industry for a long time, the participants argue that rather than concentrating on procurement choices, they focus on contractors' competence and adherence to due process. While some CCs argue that the consideration of some procurement routes often leads to a waste of valuable time as they are not relevant within their project scope, others believe that there are several routes toward achieving the same outcome. CCs, therefore, believe that less emphasis should be made on justifying a procurement preference over another as the ultimate assessment of project success is highly subjective. Referencing the construction of retail centers across the UK, R7 noted that:

#### *"Design and build should not be considered a procurement option, in my opinion."*

According to him, project complexity and stakeholder expectation make it unrealistic to entrust the credibility of such projects to an entity. Based on his experience, he suggested management contracting as a more appropriate procurement option that encourages collaborative inputs in the delivery of quality retail centers that are useful for their intended purpose.

R4 also stated thus:
