Scholarly Paper

Claims and Project Performance between Traditional and

Alternative Project Delivery Methods
Mohammed S. Hashem M. Mehany, Ph.D., M.ASCE 1; Gautham Bashettiyavar 2;
Behzad Esmaeili, Ph.D., M.ASCE 3; and Ghada Gad, Ph.D., M.ASCE 4

Abstract: Claims and disputes are common in construction projects and the costs associated with these adversarial relationships can reach up
to $4–$12 billion per year. While previous studies have indicated that project delivery methods (PDMs) might impact the frequency and
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Tufts University on 06/19/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

severity of claims and disputes in highway projects, none provided any empirical evidence to support this perception, especially as related to
the claim types in different project delivery methods. To address this issue and explore the different variables that might affect claims and
disputes among many other project performances metrics, this empirical study was initiated. Data were collected by distributing a ques-
tionnaire to DOTs across the transportation sector. The data were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics. Results showed that
while PDMs, procurement, and contractual methods have no significant impact on the claim and dispute performance, PDMs can impact other
factors (e.g., contractor’s performance and trust). These significant findings provide opportunities for further research in other areas such as
trust and partnering, which were proven to strategically act as indirect mitigation practices on claim and dispute occurrence in construction
projects. The study can also be used by practitioners to further understand the real reasons behind claims and disputes, avoid their triggers, and
build a good model of trust for claim and dispute avoidance. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)LA.1943-4170.0000266. © 2018 American Society of
Civil Engineers.

Introduction
The construction industry accounts for $1.1 trillion of the US
economy and contributes approximately 8–10% to the country’s
gross domestic product (GDP). As of the first quarter (Q1) of
2017, nominal gross output has increased to $1.47 trillion
(Brahm and Tarziján 2014; Bureau of Economic Analysis 2017;
Gebken and Gibson 2006; McGeorge et al. 2007). The probability
of construction-related claim and dispute occurrence is between 10
and 30% in all construction projects, and the money spent to resolve
these claims and disputes ranges from $4 to $12 billion or more
every year (Gebken and Gibson 2006; McGeorge et al. 2007).
The average cost of individual disputes in the United States during
2011 was $10.5 million (Rajendran et al. 2013). These statistics in-
dicate the enormous amount of losses the project stakeholders under-
take due to conflicts, claims, and disputes, which might depend on
the project delivery method (PDM) chosen. Several scholars have
indicated that conflicts, claims, and disputes are higher in tradi-
tional PDMs [design-bid-build (DBB)] compared with alternative
PDMs, such as design-build (DB) and construction manager at risk
(CMAR), also known as construction manager general contractor
1 power and reward between project participants, to name a few.
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Construction Management, Colorado
State Univ., Fort Collins, CO 80523-1584 (corresponding author). Email:
MSH@Colostate.edu
2
Graduate Student, Dept. of Construction Management, Colorado State
Univ., Fort Collins, CO 80523-1584.
3
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, George Mason Univ.,
Fairfax, VA 22030.
4
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, California State
Polytechnic Univ., Pomona, CA 91768.
Note. This manuscript was submitted on October 19, 2017; approved on
February 15, 2018; published online on June 14, 2018. Discussion period
open until November 14, 2018; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Legal Affairs and
Dispute Resolution in Engineering and Construction, © ASCE, ISSN
1943-4162.
(CMGC) (Mante et al. 2012; Yusof et al. 2011). Mante et al. (2012)
indicated that lack of communication, price competition, and frag-
mentation are inherent negative characteristics of DBB that result in
increased conflicts and disputes. In order to address these DBB
challenges, PDMs that are cohesive in terms of communication
and collaboration are preferred. Therefore, there is a considerable
effort to adopt alternative PDMs that enhance collaboration between
project stakeholders. In addition, procurement methods and contract
types chosen for a project can impact the degree of collabora-
tion between project participants as well (Cheung et al. 2006;
Eriksson and Westerberg 2011; Harper and Molenaar 2014). These
choices can play a vital role in determining the success of the PDM
and subsequently the project.
An extensive amount of research has been conducted on the
causes of conflicts, claims, and disputes (Kumaraswamy 1997;
McGeorge et al. 2007). Initial stages of misunderstandings or prob-
lems between the various stakeholders of the project oftentimes
lead to conflicts. If these conflicts are not resolved between the
project stakeholders, it leads to claims and subsequent disputes.
Kumaraswamy (1997) and Price and Chahal (2006) indicated that
conflicts, claims, and disputes arise due to unfair and unclear allo-
cation of risks, inappropriate contract type, and inequalities of
In addition, Mitkus and Mitkus (2014) indicated that about 90%
of the construction claims and disputes are due to poor communi-
cation between the project stakeholders. These causes of claims and
disputes, as indicated by various authors, underline the importance
of collaboration and partnership between all the parties involved in
a project, which is supposedly established and administered by the
choice of the PDM. In addition to selection of a suitable PDM for a
particular project, it is vital to adopt a procurement and contracting
method that is suitable for the project and works well in conjuga-
tion with the selected PDM. Gordon (1994) indicates that selection
of an appropriate contracting method can reduce the project cost
by an average of 5%. Therefore, three important aspects govern
the performance of the project in terms of cost, schedule, conflicts,

© ASCE 04518017-1 J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr.

J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr., 2018, 10(3): 04518017

 claims, and disputes: the way projects are procured, the type
of PDM chosen, and the method of payment chosen for the
work done, i.e., contract type (El Wardani et al. 2006; Mehany
et al. 2017).
DBB, DB, and CMAR are widely considered to be the most
regularly and extensively used PDMs (Gad et al. 2015). There
has been extensive empirically based research conducted on the
cost and schedule performance of the three PDMs (DBB, DB,
and CMAR), while very fragmented research exits on claim and
dispute performance in alternative PDMs (DB and CMAR)
(Farnsworth et al. 2016; Feuer et al. 2015; Ibbs et al. 2003;
Konchar and Sanvido 1998; Neill et al. 2011; Perkins 2009;
Riley et al. 2005; Shrestha et al. 2011). In one of the recent studies,
Hasanzadeh et al. (2018) addressed the impact of owners’ early
decisions regarding project organization on various performance
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Tufts University on 06/19/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
measures, including dispute performance metrics. This study, how-
ever, did not take into account claim types and had a very limited
number of CMAR/CMGC projects. To address these limitations,
the current study aims to collect a more representative sample
of CMAR/CMGC projects allowing a detailed empirical analysis
of DB and CMAR/CMGC. It accounts for the different claim types
and also focuses on the different types of disputes given differ-
ent PDMs.
Literature Review
This section will introduce and review studies that have been con-
ducted on the different types of PDMs of interest, followed by the
procurement, contracts, conflicts, claims, change orders, and
disputes.
Project Delivery Methods
PDM is defined as the process adopted by various stakeholders to
execute and complete the project as it defines the roles, responsibil-
ities, and relationships between the various participants in a project
and the sequence in which the project has to be completed (Gad
et al. 2015). In this research study, special attention was given to
DBB, DB, and construction manager/general contractor (CM/GC)
PDMs because they are the most used PDMs in the construction
industry (Gad et al. 2015; Harper and Molenaar 2014; Perkins
2009). Many researchers have indicated varying findings of cost,
time, claims, and disputes performance of various PDMs, therefore
speculating that the performance of the project largely depends on
the type of PDMs chosen (Gad et al. 2015; Mehany et al. 2017).
Design-Bid-Build
One of the most practiced and traditional PDMs is DBB. It was the
traditional mode of PDM in the late twentieth century (Cantirino
and Fodor 1999; Gad et al. 2015; Ndekugri and Turner 1994;
Shrestha et al. 2011). In DBB, the owner contracts separately with
the designer and contractors and any changes made or desired by
the owner will cause a chain of change orders. There is a common
lack of knowledge sharing between the designer and contractors,
with each working for their own goals instead of working in a col-
laborative environment (Perkins 2009). The lack of communica-
tion, increased price competition, and fragmentation are inherent
negative characteristics of DBB that leads to increased conflicts
and disputes (Mante et al. 2012). In the late 1970s, the increasing
size of projects, the high cost of short-term financing, more sophis-
ticated owners, runaway inflation, and other factors spawned new
approaches to the traditional construction delivery systems. Some
of the new approaches are variations of the traditional approach,
while others are applications of old approaches to new situations
© ASCE 04518017-2
J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr., 2018, 10(3): 04518017
(Cantirino and Fodor 1999). Considering the highlighted disadvan-
tages of DBB, alternative PDMs were developed and are exten-
sively used in various construction projects.
Design-Build
In DB, the owner contracts with either a joint venture company, an
in-house construction, design and engineering company, or with
two companies collaborating to provide design and construction
services as one entity to offer a single source of communication
to the owner (Cantirino and Fodor 1999; Konchar and Sanvido
1998). This DB concept is considered to be one of the oldest PDMs
in the construction industry and due to the increased dissatisfaction
with DBB, DB saw an increase in popularity in the late 1980s and
early 1990s (Cantirino and Fodor 1999; Perkins 2009). More than
40% of the nonresidential projects are delivered using DB (Perkins
2009; Tran and Molenaar 2013). This is because project design and
construction are accomplished simultaneously and by one single
entity, which increased the collaboration between designers and
constructors. In DB, the construction and design phases overlap
offers a reduced schedule advantage in comparison with DBB
(Konchar and Sanvido 1998; Ndekugri and Turner 1994;
Perkins 2009; Shrestha et al. 2011). Ndekugri and Turner (1994)
indicated that most contractors, clients, and architects acknowl-
edged that DB offers a schedule advantage over DBB. The result
of the study by Ndekugri and Turner (1994) indicated that there is a
considerable decrease in disputes and litigation in the DB PDM.
The fact that 79, 89, and 86% of contractors, clients, and architects,
respectively, agree with this supports the statement. However, that
study was based solely on opinions without actual project data
analysis.
Construction Manager/General Contractor
Also known as CMAR, CM/GC offers an alternate to the tradi-
tional PDM. CM/GC was first implemented in the early 1960s
and was used extensively in the 1970s due to increased costs, ex-
tended schedules, and delays in traditional PDMs (Feuer et al.
2015). In CM/GC, the owner hires the general contractor early
in the design phase of the construction project to offer precon-
struction and/or construction services to the owner (Cantirino
and Fodor 1999; Farnsworth et al. 2016; Feuer et al. 2015).
The contractor acts as an advisor or consultant during the design
and development phase of the project, providing insight into the
cost estimates, schedule, design changes, identification of risks,
and other safety- and construction-related services (Cantirino
and Fodor 1999; Farnsworth et al. 2016; Feuer et al. 2015). After
the initial role in the project design phase and with the owner’s
agreement, the role of a contractor can change from an advisor
and consultant to that of a general contractor. In this stage of
the project, the general contractor performs construction services
for the owner (Feuer et al. 2015). The important feature of
CM/GC is the level of partnership and integrated team approach
it promotes at the design and construction phases of the project.
This characteristic feature of CM/GC helps reduce the number of
change orders, which are a major cause of claims and disputes
(Farnsworth et al. 2016).
Procurement
Procurement can be defined as the process of obtaining project team
members, which may be individuals, firms, or companies that will
participate in the completion of the project (Abdul Rashid et al. 2006;
El Wardani et al. 2006). The degree of partnership and cooperation
between the various project participants and the roles and respon-
sibilities largely depend on the procurement method used by owners
to procure the project participants (Eriksson and Westerberg 2011).
J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr.
 Procurement methods can be broadly classified into price-based, best
value, and qualification-based methods.
Price-Based Procurement Method
In this type of procurement, cost is primarily the main criteria for
selecting the teams involved in the project. Some of the examples of
this type of procurement method are low bid selection and two-step
sealed bidding. In a price-based procurement method, the owner
invites a large number of contractors to bid on the project to obtain
the lowest economic price possible in addition to good construction
contractor skills. Several authors have indicated that low bid selec-
tion is characterized by a higher cost growth, change orders, and
time delays that are inherent characteristics of a claim- and dispute-
filled project (El Wardani et al. 2006; Pesämaa et al. 2009).
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Tufts University on 06/19/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Best Value Procurement Method
As the name indicates, this procurement method aims to acquire the
project team that offers the best value in terms of cost as well as
technical capability (Alleman et al. 2017; El Wardani et al.
2006). It could be set up as a one-step request for proposal or a
two-step request for qualification—for shortlisting—followed by a
request for proposal. On submission of these proposals to the owner,
negotiations can take place between the owner and qualified contrac-
tors. Since this method of procurement adapts both qualitative
and quantitative selection factors, schedule growth is very low
(El Wardani et al. 2006). However, studies by Alleman et al. (2017)
indicated that this procurement method has a potential drawback
represented in higher award growth in some instances.
Qualification-Based Procurement Method
In this procurement method, a qualification-based selection (QBS)
is used in which cost takes a back seat as a selection criterion. The
key variables predominantly taken into consideration are past per-
formance, technical qualifications, financial stability, project inno-
vation, and established relationship through previous projects
(Alleman et al. 2017; El Wardani et al. 2006). This type of procure-
ment method requires only a request for qualification response that
is reviewed and finally awarded to the most qualified contractor.
The biggest advantage to this procurement method is the emphasis
on innovation and other qualitative aspects in comparison with cost.
However, El Wardani et al. (2006) states that some projects using
this procurement method were delivered slightly behind schedule
and with an increased budget, indicating a plausible disadvantage
of this method.
Contracts
Contract in the context of this study is defined as an agreement
between the owner and the contractor, architect, or engineer dictat-
ing how the owner will pay the various parties for the work per-
formed (Gordon 1994; Puddicombe 2009; Tajul and Sutrisna
2010). There are various types of contracts available in the con-
struction industry, each having its own merits and demerits. There-
fore, it is important to select contracts based on specific project
types and owner requirements. Some of the most commonly used
contracting methods are traditional lump-sum or fixed-price con-
tracts, cost-plus or cost-reimbursable contracts, guaranteed maxi-
mum price (GMP) contracts, and target price contracts (Chan
et al. 2011; Gordon 1994).
Lump-Sum Contracts
Lump-sum contracts are the most commonly used contracting
method in the construction industry (Gordon 1994). Some of the
variations of this contracting method are unit price contract and
fixed price with escalation (Nesius 1998). This type of contract
focuses on the end product to determine the payment to be made
© ASCE 04518017-3
J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr., 2018, 10(3): 04518017
for the work done (Puddicombe 2009). It is most suited when a
project is well defined in terms of drawings, specifications, and
cost, and hopefully lowers the chances of change orders (Nesius
1998). The widespread use of this method can be affiliated with
its simplicity and ability to flow down risks to subsequent parties
(Gordon 1994; Nesius 1998). However, increased change orders,
claims, and disputes, and lack of quality and collaboration are some
of the cited disadvantages of this method (Chan et al. 2011;
Ghassemi and Becerik-Gerber 2011; Gordon 1994; Nesius 1998).
Cost-Reimbursable and Cost-Plus Contracts
In a cost-plus contract, the contractor is reimbursed for the actual
cost of work, in addition to an agreed upon fee for the completed
work (Gordon 1994; Nesius 1998; Puddicombe 2009). There are
many variations to this type of contract such as cost plus fixed fees,
cost plus percentage fee, and cost plus an incentive fee. This type of
contracting method offers greater partnership between the owner
and the contractor in comparison with lump-sum contracting be-
cause the owner has greater control over the contractor’s books
(project records), and subsequently on the project (Nesius 1998).
However, variable cost and increased change orders are conside-
red to be some of the negative characteristics of this contracting
method.
Guaranteed Maximum Price Contract and Target Cost
Contract
GMP is considered another alternate to the traditional contracting
methods. Over the years, there has been an increased use of this
contracting method because it offers advantages such as reduced
risks and claims, incentives for improved performance, and integra-
tion of interests in construction projects (Chan et al. 2010). Many
authors consider GMP to be a hybrid of a cost-plus and lump-sum
contract (Chan et al. 2011; Gordon 1994). In this type of contract,
the contractor establishes a maximum price within which the
project should be completed. If the cost of the project exceeds
the GMP, the contractor is held responsible and bears the financial
burden and risk to complete the project. However, if the project is
completed within the GMP, then the cost savings could be shared
between the owner and the contractor on a mutually agreed upon
ratio (Chan et al. 2010, 2011; Puddicombe 2009).
In addition, another alternative contracting method similar to
GMP is a target cost contract (TCC), which is mostly associated
with integrated project delivery (IPD) methods. This type of con-
tracting presents the best estimate of the cost required to complete
the project. However, changes to the initial target cost will be made
if there are any specification changes made between the parties
through a mutual agreement. Finally, after the completion of the
project, any cost savings achieved will be shared between the
owner and the contractor similar to a GMP contract. However,
the difference between GMP and TCC is that cost overruns that
occur in the project are shared between the project stakeholders
(Chan et al. 2010, 2011). Increase in collaboration between the
owners and the other project participants is considered a primary
advantage of this method, in addition to better quality and reduced
claim and dispute occurrences (Chan et al. 2010, 2011). Like any
other contracting method, GMP and TCC have certain drawbacks,
such as clients bearing increased risks and unfamiliarity with the
GMP or TCC, leading to contract drafting errors during its incep-
tion (Chan et al. 2011). Considering the various advantages and
disadvantages of all the contracting methods, the selection of
the contracts should be effectively correlated to the PDM chosen,
the procurement methods, level of collaboration required, and the
type of project being constructed (Puddicombe 2009).
Several researchers have conducted extensive research on
the performance of the project based on the PDM, contract, and
J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr.
 procurement method chosen (Alleman et al. 2017; Chan et al. 2011;
Cheung et al. 2006; El Wardani et al. 2006; Eriksson and
Westerberg 2011; Gad et al. 2015; Harper and Molenaar 2014;
Hinchey 2012; Ibbs et al. 2003; Mante et al. 2012; Shrestha
et al. 2011; Tajul and Sutrisna 2010). However, none have consid-
ered determining the performance of projects in terms of claims and
disputes considering all three variables, i.e., procurement, PDMs,
and contracts. In addition, some research that indicates that use of
alternative PDMs and contract methods reduces claims failed to
provide any statistical significance for such a claim aside from gen-
eral conclusions or further speculations (Park and Kwak 2017;
Semple et al. 1994; Songer and Molenaar 1996).
Conflicts
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Tufts University on 06/19/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
The construction industry is considered to be a volatile industry that
is marred by conflicts, claims, and disputes (Gad et al. 2015). A
conflict can be defined as the serious difference between two or
more ideas, beliefs, or interests that refuse to exist together
(Acharya et al. 2006). Conflicts happen due to inequalities of power
and reward among various parties involved in the construction
project, the trait of competition in humans, unforeseen conditions,
changing needs of clients, and change orders from various partic-
ipants, to name a few (McGeorge et al. 2007; Price and Chahal
2006). If conflicts are not well managed and resolved in their nas-
cent stage, it leads to claims and disputes, which are both time con-
suming and expensive. Participants to the construction process
invariably encounter risks ranging from unforeseen or differing site
conditions to errors and/or omissions in design. Therefore, it is vital
to realize the risks in a project to reduce conflicts. When a conflict
between parties escalates, reaching a level where an agreement
cannot be achieved, it results in claims to recover the losses. If
the claims made were rejected and further agreements cannot be
reached, it finally ends up as a dispute between the stakeholders
involved (Acharya et al. 2006). Some of the predominant reasons
for conflicts can be listed as varying site conditions, obstruction by
local people, change order evaluation, erroneous or incomplete de-
sign, and lack of clear specifications (Acharya et al. 2006). It is
essential that conflicts between project participants are resolved
at their nascent stages to assure project stability. However, if these
conflicts are not resolved they tend to create a snowballing effect
and form into claims and disputes.
Claims
A claim can be defined as an assertion of the right to property,
money, remedy, lost time, and relief, or a compensation for the
damages made by any party to the contract (Kumaraswamy
1997; McGeorge et al. 2007; Semple et al. 1994). They also in-
clude the reasoning and rationale of entitlement to money or
time. However, claims are sometimes necessary in a construction
project because they help to contractually accommodate for
the changes in construction projects such as differing site condi-
tions, demand of higher quality than specified, and unforeseen
weather, to name a few. It is vital to understand that a claim is
an escalation of a conflict (e.g., over a change order), that if
not resolved between the concerned parties leads to disputes
(Kumaraswamy 1997).
Though claims are inevitable in the construction industry, they
can be avoided or mitigated by studying and understanding their pri-
mary causes. A plethora of literature and research studies have iden-
tified several causes of claims, such as design errors, differing site
conditions, changes, weather, and strikes, among others (Diekmann
© ASCE 04518017-4
J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr., 2018, 10(3): 04518017
and Nelson 1985; Mehany and Grigg 2016; Kumaraswamy 1997;
McGeorge et al. 2007; Semple et al. 1994).
Among the various causes of claims discussed previously,
changes (change order request) in construction projects are consid-
ered as one of the major causes of claims (Assbeihat and Sweis
2015; Kumaraswamy 1997). Change orders also contribute to
5.1–7.6% of the total project cost and are considered to be one
of the major causes of project delays (Assbeihat and Sweis
2015; Charoenngam et al. 2003).
Change Orders
Change is defined as a modification to the original scope, execution
time, or cost of a project. They are inevitable in a construction
project due to the limited time, resources, and budget allocated
to the planning stage and the uniqueness of each individual project
(Assbeihat and Sweis 2015; Hanna et al. 2002). Owners, contrac-
tors, consultants, architects and engineers, subcontractors, and sup-
pliers frequently issue change orders (Assbeihat and Sweis 2015;
Charoenngam et al. 2003). Even though the types of change orders
issued under each stakeholder are different and their role in insti-
gating and handling the change orders can be very unique, it is
mostly perceived to have a negative impact on project performance
and specifically the cost and time aspects of the project (Assbeihat
and Sweis 2015; Charoenngam et al. 2003). Some of these change
orders can escalate into claims, which if not resolved will lead to
disputes.
Disputes
The construction industry has been a leader in dispute incidence
and dispute resolution for several years (Gebken and Gibson
2006; Rajendran et al. 2013). A dispute in construction projects
originates when a claim made by a stakeholder, e.g., the contrac-
tor or subcontractor, has been opposed, discredited, or rejected by
another stakeholder, e.g., the owner. Since disputes occur after
claims are rejected, it is plausible that the causes of disputes
are similar to the causes of claims. In addition to the various afore-
mentioned causes of claims, Kumaraswamy (1997) developed
root causes and proximate causes of disputes. Some of the exam-
ples of root and proximate causes of claims and disputes are unre-
alistic pricing, which leads to inaccurate estimation, and lack of
professionalism of project participants leading to exaggerated
claims.
Looking back at the literature and scholarly research on claims
and disputes, one should take note that all the efforts points back to
developing systems that foster collaboration and trust. Therefore,
these issues must be addressed in the literature and subsequently
as variables that have to be studied in this research to uncover
any underlying significant relationships that might directly or indi-
rectly affect project claims and disputes, project and contractor
performance, and the overall project success.
Partnering and Trust in Construction
To achieve a successful construction project, it is essential that the
various project participants collaborate from the initial design
through the handover stages of the project. Since the construction
industry participants have been a constant victim of unfair risk al-
locations, it is vital to increase the level of collaboration between
project participants and improve the trust level between them.
This process of collaboration between project participants can
be dubbed partnering.
Partnering can be defined as a way to achieve an optimum re-
lationship between a client and a contractor, thus ensuring that
J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr.
 products with quality are delivered within schedule and budget
(Wong and Cheung 2004). Partnering can be achieved through
long-term or short-term agreements between project participants
that facilitate the achievement of individual and complementary
objectives (Bresnen and Marshall 2000). Therefore, partnering
can be summarized as a process of creating an effective working
relationship between project participants in order to avoid adver-
sarial positions during the course of a project (Chan et al. 2003;
Hosseini et al. 2016). Increased communication, innovation, im-
proved site and project coordination between projects partici-
pants, cost reduction, value engineering and improved schedule
are considered to be some of the advantages of partnering dur-
ing construction projects (Bresnen and Marshall 2000; Wong
and Cheung 2004). However, trust is considered to be the key
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Tufts University on 06/19/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
element to achieve a successful partnership between the project
participants.
Trust is a dynamic word and is constantly changing between per-
sonnel working on the project, either growing or diminishing (Wong
and Cheung 2004). Trust can be defined as a factor that drives per-
formance rather than enforcing it in the predefined agreements
(Doloi 2009; Zuppa et al. 2016). In addition, some of the elements
of trust are interdependence, positive expectations, confidence, risk,
and state of mind, among others (Zuppa et al. 2016). Though there
are numerous types of trust such as calculus trust, relational trust,
institutional trust, and integrity trust, the three most important types
of trust that are significant in the construction industry are compe-
tence trust, relational trust, and organizational trust (Hasanzadeh
et al. 2016; Wong and Cheung 2004). These three types of trust have
a greater significance in construction because of the impact they have
on the project performance, claims performance, and design and con-
struction performance (Hasanzadeh et al. 2016). Competence trust is
based on the confidence gained from the knowledge of an individual
or an organization’s cognitive abilities to perform the required work
(Hasanzadeh et al. 2016; Wong and Cheung 2004). Relational trust is
vital to improve the communication between the project participants
because it helps eliminate friction defensiveness and unhealthy com-
petition. Thus, relational trust helps people bond and communicate in
the most effective manner. Finally, organizational trust is based on
organizational policies that facilitate formal and procedural arrange-
ments (Wong and Cheung 2004). Hasanzadeh et al. (2016) indicated
the impact of trust on the construction projects in terms of improve-
ment on the project performance, frequency and severity of claims,
and owners’ satisfaction. In addition, some of the other advantages
affiliated with trust are minimization of perceived risk, improved co-
operation, and increased communication, which can be achieved
through partnering (Zuppa et al. 2016). This research study will
adopt the three types of trust introduced by Hasanzadeh et al.
(2016) as follows:
• Competency trust is based on the confidence gained from
knowledge of an individual or an organization’s cognitive abil-
ities. The competence and the integrity of an individual or an
organization are based on the knowledge of past performance,
reputation, organizational role, and financial status.
• Organizational trust is developed through organizational poli-
cies and addresses formal and procedural arrangements.
• Relational trust is based on emotions that bond people together,
thereby improving their performance and morale in a working
relationship. This kind of trust enhances information exchange
and team spirit, decreases defensiveness and unhealthy compe-
titiveness, and eliminates friction.
© ASCE
J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr., 2018, 10(3): 04518017
Research Methodology
Overview
This research study was a multipurpose empirical investigation that
addressed the following hypothesis: Alternative PDMs (DB and
CM/GC) have lesser claims and disputes in comparison with the
traditional PDM (DBB). In addition, by collecting a representative
database of project performance, this study aimed to fulfill the
following important objectives:
• To compare the performance of traditional PDM and alternative
PDMs in terms of their effect on claims and disputes (frequency
and severity);
• To determine if the choice of procurement and contract methods
within a PDM impacts the claims and dispute performance
(frequency and severity);
• To determine if the partnering process affects any of the project
performance issues including claims and disputes, or their
causes;
• To determine if the different trust types can affect any of the
project performance issues addressed in this research; and
• To determine if there are any observational trends that can help
in reducing claims and disputes, and in improving the overall
project performance.
Data Collection
The objective of this study was to empirically investigate the de-
bated different variables that affect claims and disputes in different
projects, and specifically the different kinds of PDMs. However,
the research’s systematic literature review suggested that PDMs,
contracts, and procurement methods alone cannot be the only driver
behind claim and dispute occurrences. Instead, several factors dis-
covered through the research literature review stage urge the need
to explore all possible variables that can affect the different project
performance measures to produce a more holistic approach. These
variables include partnering, organizational (owner) satisfaction,
change orders, contractor or design/builder performance, trust be-
tween stakeholders (mainly the owner and contractor or design/
builder), and the overall project performance. All the variables
and their metrics are listed in Table 1. The main reason behind
studying all the variables presented in this empirical research study
was to produce a more holistic research results that can propel other
studies forward by understanding the underlying themes between
these variables.
To achieve the objective of this research study, a web-based
survey questionnaire was used as the data collection tool. The em-
pirical quantitative methodology using survey design was adopted
because it provides a quantitative or numeric description of trends,
attitudes, or opinions by studying a sample of the population
(Creswell 2013). Several researchers have successfully used sur-
vey design as a source of data collection for their research relating
to claims, disputes, and PDMs (Al-Dubaisi 2000; Hasanzadeh
et al. 2016; Maharjan 2013). Therefore, valid and reliable data
can be obtained using this methodology. Informed by the research
literature review and due to the numerous variables included in
this research study, the survey was divided into four different sec-
tions that capture all the required data (metrics) for every variable.
The first section consisted of questions on the project and re-
spondents’ demographics such as project type, location, organi-
zation, and years of experience. The second section addressed
the project organization and overall assessment. This section in-
cluded the type of PDM, procurement, and contract used in the
project in addition to the overall stakeholder satisfaction metric
04518017-5 J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr.
 Table 1. Statistical metrics: variables tested
Variable Metrics explored
Project delivery method DBB, DB, and CM/GC
Procurement method Open bid, prequalification, one-stage request for proposals, and two-stage request for proposals
Contract type Lump sum, unit price, and GMP
Partnering Partnering agreements
Overall satisfaction Design process, construction process, and overall project success
Claims Frequency, severity, cost impacts, and time impacts
Types of claims Contractual, differing site conditions, acceleration, damage, liability, and unforeseen conditions
Change orders Occurrences, responsible party, schedule impact, and cost impact
Dispute resolution method Types used
Contractor or design-builder Upper management effectiveness in support and responses, experience with this type of project,
performance individual competence, quality of the input shared during preconstruction phase, financial plan adequacy,
team’s prior experience as a unit, team communication, information sharing, risk identification and allocation,
and adequacy of plans and specifications produced
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Tufts University on 06/19/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Trust between the stakeholders Competency trust, organizational trust, and relational trust
Overall project performance Cost and schedule growth

for the different stages and processes (design and construction)
along with the overall project success. The third section inquired
about the claims, disputes (dispute resolution methods), and
change orders. Finally, the fourth section examined the team
behavior, communication, and overall project performance, which
included the contractor or design-builder performance, trust be-
tween stakeholders, and the overall project performance. The ini-
tial draft of the survey questionnaire was examined as a pretest
that was pilot tested by three measurement experts. Feedback
from the research measurement experts was incorporated into
the final draft along with other modifications for relevance and
representativeness.
The survey questionnaire was distributed to the different DOTs
(about 40 with limitations) around the country and other organ-
izations working on public projects (federal or state funded). The
respondents were asked to complete the survey using different
DOT and other public projects with the purpose of collecting proj-
ects executed under different PDMs, contracts, and procurement
methods along with other variations. At the completion of the
survey, 40 different projects were collected: 18 DBB, 12 DB,
six CM/GC, three integrated project delivery, and one project
that was designated as other. The different procurements
[e.g., QBS, value-based selection (VBS)] and contractual methods
(e.g., GMP, unit price, lump sum) used in each project were also
identified.
The data collection procedure was extremely difficult and re-
quired several follow-up calls since most of the respondents were
very reluctant to give such specific project data, which affected the
sample size for the study and consequently influenced the statisti-
cal analysis choices for this research. This will be revisited in the
conclusion section as part of the research conclusive points.
Analysis and Results
The data analysis used both descriptive and inferential statistics.
Descriptive statistics were used to understand the overall data
trends, variability, and simple comparisons in addition to identify-
ing frequency of occurrences, e.g., specific types of claims or part-
nering methods. Inferential statistics were conducted to further
investigate the descriptive insights by comparing or relating the dif-
ferent variables (Creswell 2013). In this research study, after the
authors confirmed the nonnormality of the variables using the test
of homogeneity variances, the Kruskal-Wallis (K-W) test and
Spearman correlation were selected as the appropriate inferential
statistical analysis methods for the different variables and metrics.
The Kruskal-Wallis test can be used for nonnormal variables with
relatively small categorical sample sizes. It is a nonparametric test
that compares the overall population distribution for any number of
groups.
To interpret the K-W test output, the chi-square’s degree of free-
dom was reported after being corrected for ties. If the p-value was
less than 0.05 and 0.01, then there was a significant and partially
significant difference between groups (Kruskal and Wallis 1952;
Morgan et al. 2012). Since there were numerous ties in the data
(observations with the same number of incidents), a chi-square
approximation was used to calculate the p-value (Schumacker
2015). Because K-W does not have a built-in post hoc tests, post
hoc analyses were also conducted on significant groupings using
pairwise Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney tests with a Bonferroni correc-
tion. Since there were multiple comparisons in this data set, the
Bonferroni correction kept the Type 1 error probability controlled.
The Spearman correlation test was conducted to determine the as-
sociation and correlation between the variables, which have been
subsequently reported. Spearman correlation was selected since the
variables are not normally distributed and are ordinal in nature
(Morgan et al. 2012). The inferential statistical analysis was done
using SPSS statistical program as the software of choice in this
study.
Descriptive Statistics Results
The descriptive results reported most of the claims to be contractual
claims specifically related to the insufficient or defective plans or
specifications followed by damage claims (liquidated damages for
late performance) as shown in Fig. 1. None of the claim parameters
(frequency, cost, and time severity) showed superiority of the alter-
native PDMs over the traditional DBB.
The results also showed a more frequent use of formal partner-
ing agreements in DB and CM/GC over DBB, with the contrac-
tually required and kickoff-facilitated forms of partnering as the
most commonly used partnering processes as shown in Figs. 2
and 3, respectively. The results also reported a higher number
of change order occurrences in DB and DBB compared with
CM/GC. Finally, the descriptive results showed the highest overall
(average) trust level (competent, organizational, and relationship
trust) in CM/GC, followed by DB and DBB PDMs in descending
order as shown in Fig. 4. Based on the aforementioned observations
and figures, the underlying tendencies of the descriptive results did
not show any apparent relationship between PDMs, procurement
processes, and contractual options and their effect on claims fre-
quency or severity. However, other variables such as trust showed

© ASCE 04518017-6 J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr.

J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr., 2018, 10(3): 04518017

 16 Contractual Claims- Increase in scope (Directed or
cardinal changes)
Contractual Claims- Insufficient or inaccurate
(defective) plans or specs
Contractual Claims-Errors & Omissions

14 Contractual Claims-Late Approvals

Contractual Claims-Slow Request For Information

(RFI) response (Lack of communication)
Differing Site Conditions Claims- Restricted
Access
12 Differing Site Conditions Claims-Subsurface Soil
conditions
Acceleration Claims- Owner or A/E disruption
No. of Claims

Acceleration Claims-Partial Suspension

10 Damage Claims- Liquidated damages for late

performance
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Tufts University on 06/19/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Damage Claims-Repair or damages to existing

property
Damage Claims-Correction of defective/non-
conforming work
8 Liability Claims-Third Party Claims

Unforeseen Conditions- Unforeseen Weather

conditions
Unforeseen Conditions- Force Majeure

6 Unforeseen Conditions- Utility Delays

Unforeseen Conditions- Change in standards &/or

regulations

0
Claim Type

Fig. 1. Number of claims based on types of claims.

16 Inferential Statistics Results

As stated previously, the Kruskal-Wallis test was used to measure
14
the impact of the different values of the variables and the Spearman
12 correlation test was used to observe any association or correlation
10 between the different variables. The combination of independent
and dependent variables presented in Table 2 were used in the
Count

8 analysis.
Yes
6 Based on the previously executed combinations of the test, re-
No
sults showed that there have been several statistically significant
4 differences between the different variables tested. For instance,
2 the Kruskal-Wallis analysis indicated that relational trust had a sig-
nificant impact on the overall satisfaction in the construction pro-
0 cess (χ2 ¼ 18.83, N ¼ 34), p-value ¼ 0.001 < 0.01; frequency of
DBB DB CM/GC
claims that arouse on the field level (χ2 ¼ 10.54, N ¼ 34),
PDMs
p-value 0.032 < 0.05; severity of claims that arouse on the projects
Fig. 2. Formal partnering trend per PDM type. (χ2 ¼ 10.55, N ¼ 34), p-value 0.032 < 0.05; and the competence
level of contractor’s project individuals (χ2 ¼ 16.66, N ¼ 34),
p-value 0.002 < 0.01. This means that projects that establish good
consistently higher scores and values in certain PDMs over the relational trust between project participants with competent con-
others. Therefore, further inferential examination is required to test tractors have increased construction process satisfaction, experi-
the statistical significance of the different metrics in the form of ence less frequency of claims on the field, and incur fewer
dependent and independent variables. disputes on projects. In addition to this, the K-W test indicated that

© ASCE 04518017-7 J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr.

J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr., 2018, 10(3): 04518017

 Other, please specify

Training on problem solving & joint decision-making

Incentive for partnering performance

Periodic partnering performance measurement assessment utilized

Formal issue resolution/escalation procedure

Formal charter or alliance agreement

Multiple partnering meetings during project (Non-facilitated)

Multiple partnering meetings during project (Facilitated)

Kick- off meeting- (Non-facilitated)

Kick-off meeting- (Facilitated)

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Tufts University on 06/19/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Contractually required partnering

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Number of Cases

Fig. 3. Trends in partnering methods used.

5
4.5
4
3.5
3
Mean

2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
DBB DB CM/GC
PDM
Competency Trust Organizational trust Relational trust

Fig. 4. Average stakeholders trust score per PDM.

Table 2. Combination of independent and dependent variables used for analysis

Independent variable Dependent variables
PDM type Claims, overall satisfaction, change orders, contractor or design-builder performance, stakeholder’s trust, and project performance
Procurement method Claims, overall satisfaction, change orders, contractor or design-builder performance, stakeholder’s trust, and project performance
Contract type Claims, overall satisfaction, change orders, contractor or design-builder performance, stakeholder’s trust, and project performance
Partnering Claims, overall satisfaction, change orders, contractor or design-builder performance, stakeholder’s trust, and project performance
Change orders Claims, overall satisfaction, contractor or design-builder performance, stakeholder’s trust, and project performance
Competency trust Claims, overall satisfaction, change orders, contractor or design-builder performance, partnering, stakeholder’s trust
(the other two types), and project performance
Organizational trust Claims, overall satisfaction, change orders, contractor or design-builder performance, partnering, stakeholder’s trust
(the other two types), and project performance
Relational trust Claims, overall satisfaction, change orders, contractor or design-builder performance, partnering, stakeholder’s trust
(the other two types), and project performance

partnering variance differed significantly on risk identification
and allocation (performance factor) (χ2 ¼ 3.847, N ¼ 36),
p-value ≤ 0.05, which substantiates that projects in which partner-
ing agreements are executed experience better performance in
risk identification and allocation. The statistically significant
relationships between various variables per the K-W test are
reported in Table 3. The mean ranks and the effect size of each
variable related to relational trust per the K-W test is as shown
in Table 4. Relational trust (independent variable) showed the most
significance (less than 0.017) with various variables in comparison

© ASCE 04518017-8 J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr.

J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr., 2018, 10(3): 04518017

 Table 3. Statistically significant relationships, Kruskal-Wallis test
Independent variable Dependent variable χ2 p-value
Project delivery method Overall satisfaction: construction process 8.212 0.042a
Unforeseen conditions: change in standards and/or regulations 11.523 0.003b
Contractor’s organizational experience with this type of project 8.242 0.041a
Experience and competence level of contractor’s project individuals 9.088 0.028a
Formality of communication among team members 8.085 0.044a
Electronics file and information sharing used by project team 8.884 0.031a
Risk identification and allocation 11.053 0.011a
Adequacy of technical plans and specifications 13.022 0.005b
Relational trust 9.144 0.027a
Partnering Risk identification and allocation 3.847 0.050a
Change orders Project in a state of litigation (yes or no) 4.218 0.040a
Competency trust Overall satisfaction: construction process 11.758 0.019b
0.034a
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Tufts University on 06/19/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Experience: severity of claims that arose on the project (in terms of time to resolve) 10.414
Unforeseen conditions: unforeseen weather conditions 11.560 0.021a
Contractor’s upper managerial support and responses (effectiveness in responding and support) 19.572 0.001b
Contractor’s organizational experience with this type of project 13.797 0.008b
Quality of the input shared during preconstruction phase of project 12.375 0.015b
Formality of communication among team members 15.737 0.003b
Risk identification and allocation 10.024 0.040a
Adequacy of technical plans and specifications 10.421 0.034a
Timeliness of communication 9.892 0.042a
Organizational trust Experience: frequency of claims that arose at the field level 10.179 0.038a
Project in a state of litigation (yes or no) 12.183 0.016a
Contractor’s upper managerial support and responses (effectiveness in responding and support) 12.449 0.014a
Experience and competence level of contractor’s project individuals 11.829 0.019a
Level of experience and effort of financial planners and adequacy of financial plan 12.312 0.015a
Timeliness of communication 16.303 0.003b
Electronics file and information sharing used by project team 13.914 0.008b
Risk identification and allocation 11.457 0.022a
Adequacy of technical plans and specifications 18.155 0.001b
Relational trust Overall satisfaction: design process 11.617 0.020a
Overall satisfaction: construction process 18.833 0.001b
Overall satisfaction: overall success of this project 14.118 0.007b
Frequency of claims that arose at the field level 10.541 0.032a
Severity of claims that arose on project (in terms of time to resolve) 14.014 0.007b
Experience: severity (in terms of cost impact and time to resolve) of largest dispute that arose on project 10.554 0.031a
Has the project ever been in a form of dispute or dispute resolution? 10.760 0.029a
Contractor’s upper managerial support and responses (effectiveness in responding and support) 11.826 0.019a
Contractor’s organizational experience with this type of project 9.632 0.047a
Experience and competence level of contractor’s project individuals 16.656 0.002b
What was the percentage of schedule growth? 11.952 0.018a
Formal partnering agreement in the project (yes or no) 11.275 0.024a
a
p < 0.05.
b
p < 0.01.

with other independent variables, therefore it has been reported
here as a prime representative of the results.
In addition to the K-W test, the Spearman correlation test was
conducted to identify statistically significant associations between
the different variables. Upon conducting this test, several statisti-
cally significant variables were identified that are vital to this study.
For example, the PDM chosen on the projects had a significant
correlation and association on the overall satisfaction in the con-
struction process [rð36Þ ¼ 0.421, p ¼ 0.008 < 0.01]. However,
using Cohen’s (1988) guidelines, the effect size based on the
r score is only medium or typical for studies in this area, which
does not indicate a very strong relationship. Another result that sup-
ports the K-W findings was the relational trust’s correlation and
association with the overall satisfaction in the construction process
[rð36Þ ¼ 0.581, p ¼ 0.001 < 0.01]. The direction of correlation
between the relational trust and the overall satisfaction in the con-
struction process is therefore positive, indicating that better and
higher relational trust levels can increase the overall satisfaction
of the construction process (along with overall performance),
which is vital to the success of the project. Using the Cohen
(1988) guidelines, the effect size is large or larger than typical
for studies in this area, which indicates a very strong relationship.
Similarly, all the variables were tested and all the significant rela-
tionships were reported as shown in Table 5.
Discussion
Even though using the K-W test and Spearman rho was a suitable
statistical analysis for the sample size obtained in this difficult
data collection phase, the results cannot be ultimately generalized.
However, using the combination of descriptive and inferential
statistics, this research study examined and uncovered very benefi-
cial results that will serve the purpose of this scientific research

© ASCE 04518017-9 J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr.

J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr., 2018, 10(3): 04518017

 Table 4. Reporting post hoc mean ranks using M-W analysis for relational trust
Parameter Competency trust N Mean rank Sum of ranks z R Effect sizes
Overall satisfaction: construction process Low 3 2.00 6.00 −2.449 −0.8165 Much larger
High 6 6.50 39.00 than typical
Total 9 — —
Experience: frequency of claims that Low 3 8.00 24.00 −2.546 −0.84853 Much larger
arose at the field level High 6 3.50 21.00 than typical
Total 9 — —
Experience: severity (in terms of cost impact Low 3 8.00 24.00 −2.449 −0.8165 Much larger
and time to resolve) of largest dispute that arose on project High 6 3.50 21.00 than typical
Total 9 — —
Experience and competence level of contractor’s Low 3 2.00 6.00 −2.558 −0.8528 Much larger
project individuals High 6 6.50 39.00 than typical
— —
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Tufts University on 06/19/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Total 9
Note: M-W = Mann-Whitney.

Table 5. Statistically significant relationships, Spearman rho correlation test

Independent variable Dependent variable r r2 p-value
Project delivery method Contractual claims: increase in scope (directed or cardinal changes) −0.485 a
0.24 0.049
Damage claims: correction of defective and nonconforming work −0.537a 0.29 0.026
Overall satisfaction: construction process 0.421b 0.18 0.008
Relational trust 0.331a 0.11 0.045
Competency trust Overall satisfaction: construction process 0.666b 0.44 0.000
Overall satisfaction: overall success of this project 0.455a 0.21 0.013
Contractor’s upper managerial support and responses (effectiveness in responding and support) 0.703b 0.49 0.000
Contractor’s organizational experience with this type of project 0.582b 0.34 0.001
Experience and competence level of contractor’s project individuals 0.780b 0.61 0.000
Quality of the input shared during preconstruction phase of project 0.555b 0.31 0.002
Level of experience and effort of financial planners and adequacy of financial plan 0.446a 0.20 0.015
Formality of communication among team members 0.572b 0.33 0.001
Organizational trust Overall satisfaction: construction process 0.486b 0.24 0.008
Has the project ever been in a form of dispute resolution, such as litigation? 0.457a 0.21 0.013
Contractor’s upper managerial support and responses (effectiveness in responding and support) 0.630b 0.40 0.000
Contractor’s organizational experience with this type of project 0.433a 0.19 0.019
Experience and competence level of contractor’s project individuals 0.561b 0.31 0.002
Quality of the input shared during preconstruction phase of project 0.368a 0.14 0.050
Level of experience and effort of financial planners and adequacy of financial plan 0.460a 0.21 0.012
Formality of communication among team members 0.574b 0.33 0.001
Electronics file and information sharing used by project team 0.556b 0.31 0.002
Adequacy of technical plans and specifications 0.375a 0.14 0.045
Relational trust Overall satisfaction: construction process 0.581b 0.34 0.001
Contractor’s upper managerial support and responses (effectiveness in responding and support) 0.508b 0.26 0.005
Contractor’s organizational experience with this type of project 0.485b 0.24 0.008
Experience and competence level of contractor’s project individuals 0.633b 0.4 0.000
Formality of communication among team members 0.459a 0.21 0.012
a
p < 0.05.
b
p < 0.01.

effort and the development of major innovations in these re-
search areas.
According to the reported results, the PDMs and procurement
and contractual methods do not have any statistically significant
impact or difference on the claims frequency or severity, an obser-
vation that can easily relate to the earlier studied literature
(Hasanzadeh et al. 2018), which mostly confirmed that it was either
explanatory claims or personal opinions. This can also be attributed
to the fact that conflicts, claims, and disputes are very situational in
nature and are affected by more than one, two, or three variables.
However, the results show that PDM selection can affect the design
and construction overall success in terms of stakeholder satisfac-
tion, contractor performance, and the competency and relational
trust between the stakeholders. In addition, the Spearman correla-
tion analysis showed significant yet weak association between the
PDM chosen and the contractual claims such as an increase in
scope (directed or cardinal changes) and a significant strong asso-
ciation to damage claims such as correction of defective and non-
conforming work, which can be attributed to the liability shift under
DB projects. Thus, the architecture, engineering, and construction
(AEC) industry should be looking closely in developing more tools
that facilitate the PDM selection based on each project’s uniqueness

© ASCE 04518017-10 J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr.

J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr., 2018, 10(3): 04518017

 in scope, owner’s priorities, and much more. In other words, cus-
tomer satisfaction and priorities, contractor anticipated perfor-
mance levels, and perceived trust should be considered as inputs
in PDM selection models. From the inferential statistics (K-W test),
it can be also concluded that partnering can greatly affect the con-
tractor and project performance in terms of risk identification and
allocation. Hence, partnering can indirectly have a great effect on
claims and disputes due to the fact that unclear allocation of risks
have been reported to be some of the most common reasons for
claims and disputes in the literature (Kumaraswamy 1997; Price
and Chahal 2006). Finally, it is undoubtedly important to under-
stand the effect of trust on the contractor and design-builder
performance, an observation that should garner a considerable
research effort in pursuing the issue of fostering trust between
the different stakeholders. Particularly, owners, contractors, and
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Tufts University on 06/19/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
design-builders alike should put forth a considerable effort in build-
ing competence, organizational, and relational trust to improve the
overall project performance and operations, and consequently the
claim and dispute probability will go down in such a project. This
study is mostly limited to public and infrastructure projects, and
further studies and research might render different results or trends
in the private sector or in different types of projects (e.g., commer-
cial, residential).
Conclusion
The current study intended to empirically investigate (1) the impact
of the different PDMs and procurement and contract methods on
the claims and dispute performance (frequency and severity);
(2) the impact of the partnering process and stakeholders on any
of the project performance issues including claims and disputes
or their causes; and (3) more importantly, determine if there are
any observational trends that can help in reducing claims and dis-
putes and improve the overall project performance. The data were
collected using a web-based survey questionnaire that was distrib-
uted to state DOTs and other organizations working on public proj-
ects and later analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics.
Based on the analysis, the hypothesis was rejected. The analysis
also showed several other significant relationships and differences
between the different variables as explained in detail in the research
discussion. Nevertheless, some of the major contributions of this
study can be concluded as follows. First, the complexity of claims
is beyond a certain PDM or procurement or contractual method
because of its circumstantial nature and the involvement of the un-
predicted human factors. Even if the hypothesis was proven true,
it would have been just a useless statistical value since it is not
feasible to use a specific PDM based on a single statistic to reduce
claims and disputes. In other words, it is almost impossible to iden-
tify a PDM, procurement, and/or contract to serve as the magic for-
mula to reduce claims and disputes in all projects. Instead, research
should be focused on developing a more comprehensive model
for PDM selection that addresses some of the human factors
(e.g., owner priorities, experiences, and collaboration readiness),
along with more case studies to identify the reasons or predictors
that lead to certain circumstances. Second, based on the trust var-
iables discussion results, research efforts should be directed toward
finding the different mechanisms that can foster a trusting environ-
ment between stakeholders. Hence, increasing the contractor or
design-builder overall project performance and success in many
areas such as upper management responsiveness and support,
quality of shared input during the preconstruction phase, and risk
identification, all of which are indirect causes of a project
with less conflicts, claims, and disputes. Finally, more light should
© ASCE 04518017-11
J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr., 2018, 10(3): 04518017
be shed on the partnering agreements and their evolution into a
more structured tool that helps in a better risk identification and
allocation process between the stakeholders, which will help in
reducing the probability of claims and disputes as well. Significant
efforts are also needed to establish easier and more accessible
data collection protocols for claims and disputes data, especially
within the public sector domain, to benefit future studies in this
research area.
References
Works Cited
Abdul Rashid, R., I. Mat Taib, W. Ahmad, W. Basiron, M. Nasid, W. N.
Wan Ali, and Z. Mohd Zainordin. 2006. “Effect of procurement systems
on the performance of construction projects.” Int. Conf. on Construction
Industry. Padang, Indonesia: Universiras Bung Hatta.
Acharya, N. K., Y. Dai Lee, and H. Man Im. 2006. “Conflicting factors in
construction projects: Korean perspective.” Eng. Constr. Archit. Man-
age. 13 (6): 543–566. https://doi.org/10.1108/09699980610712364.
Al-Dubaisi, A. H. 2000. “Change orders in construction projects in Saudi
Arabia.” M.S. thesis, Construction Engineering and Management Dept.,
King Fahd Univ. of Petroleum and Minerals.
Alleman, D., A. Antoine, D. D. Gransberg, and K. R. Molenaar. 2017.
“A comparison of qualifications-based selection and best value procure-
ment for construction manager–general contractor highway construc-
tion.” Transp. Res. Rec. 59–67. https://doi.org/10.3141/2630-08.
Assbeihat, J. M., and G. J. Sweis. 2015. “Factors affecting change orders in
public construction projects.” Int. J. Appl. 5 (6): 56–63.
Brahm, F., and J. Tarziján. 2014. “Transactional hazards, institutional
change, and capabilities: Integrating the theories of the firm.” Strategic
Manage. J. 35 (2): 224–245. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2094.
Bresnen, M., and N. Marshall. 2000. “Partnering in construction: A critical
review of issues, problems and dilemmas.” Constr. Manage. Econ.
18 (2): 229–237. https://doi.org/10.1080/014461900370852.
Bureau of Economic Analysis. 2017. “BEA industry facts—Construction.”
Accessed April 7, 2017. https://www.bea.gov/industry/factsheet
/factsheet.cfm?IndustryId=23.
Cantirino, J., and S. S. Fodor. 1999. “Construction delivery systems in the
United States.” J. Corporate Real Estate 1 (2): 169–177. https://doi.org
/10.1108/14630019910811015.
Chan, A. P. C., D. W. M. Chan, and K. S. K. Ho. 2003. “Partnering in
construction: Critical study of problems for implementation.” J. Man-
age. Eng. 19 (3): 126–135. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0742-597X
(2003)19:3(126).
Chan, D. W. M., A. P. C. Chan, P. T. I. Lam, and J. M. W. Wong. 2010.
“Empirical study of the risks and difficulties in implementing guaran-
teed maximum price and target cost contracts in construction.”
J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 136 (5): 495–507. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000153.
Chan, D. W. M., A. P. C. Chan, P. T. I. Lam, and J. M. W. Wong. 2011. “An
empirical survey of the motives and benefits of adopting guaranteed
maximum price and target cost contracts in construction.” Int. J. Project
Manage. 29 (5): 577–590. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2010.04
.002.
Charoenngam, C., S. T. Coquinco, and B. H. W. Hadikusumo. 2003.
“Web-based application for managing change orders in construction
projects.” Constr. Innovation 3 (4): 197–215. https://doi.org/10.1108
/14714170310814936.
Cheung, S. O., K. T. Yiu, and P. S. Chim. 2006. “How relational are con-
struction contracts?” J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract. 132 (1): 48–56.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1052-3928(2006)132:1(48).
Cohen, J. 1988. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences.
Hilsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Creswell, J. W. 2013. Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and
mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Diekmann, J. E., and M. C. Nelson. 1985. “Construction claims: Frequency
and severity.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 111 (1): 74–81. https://doi.org
/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(1985)111:1(74).
J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr.
 Doloi, H. 2009. “Relational partnerships: The importance of communica-
tion, trust and confidence and joint risk management in achieving
project success.” Constr. Manage. Econ. 27 (11): 1099–1109.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01446190903286564.
El Wardani, M. A., J. I. Messner, and M. J. Horman. 2006. “Comparing
procurement methods for design-build projects.” J. Constr. Eng. Man-
age. 132 (3): 230–238. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364
(2006)132:3(230).
Eriksson, P. E., and M. Westerberg. 2011. “Effects of cooperative procure-
ment procedures on construction project performance: A conceptual
framework.” Int. J. Project Manage. 29 (2): 197–208. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.ijproman.2010.01.003.
Farnsworth, C. B., R. O. Warr, J. E. Weidman, and D. Mark Hutchings.
2016. “Effects of CM/GC project delivery on managing process risk
in transportation construction.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 142 (3):
04015091. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001091.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Tufts University on 06/19/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Feuer, M., S. Glick, and C. M. Clevenger. 2015. “Benefits of owner man-
dated CM/GC contract amendment templates.” J. Facil. Manage.
13 (3): 282–296. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFM-03-2014-0009.
Gad, G. M., A. K. Momoh, B. Esmaeili, and D. G. Gransberg. 2015.
“Preliminary investigation of the impact of project delivery method on
dispute resolution method choice in public highway projects.” In Proc.,
5th Int./11th Construction Specialty Conf. Vancouver, BC, Canada:
Canadian Society for Civil Engineering.
Gebken, R. J., and G. E. Gibson. 2006. “Quantification of costs for dispute
resolution procedures in the construction industry.” J. Professional
Issues Eng. Educ. Pract. 132 (3): 264–271. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)1052-3928(2006)132:3(264).
Ghassemi, R., and B. Becerik-Gerber. 2011. “Transitioning to integrated
project delivery: Potential barriers and lessons learned.” Lean Constr.
J. 32–52.
Gordon, C. M. 1994. “Choosing appropriate construction contracting
method.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 120 (1): 196–210. https://doi.org/10
.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(1994)120:1(196).
Hanna, A. S., R. Camlic, P. A. Peterson, and E. V. Nordheim. 2002. “Quan-
titative definition of projects impacted by change orders.” J. Constr.
Eng. Manage. 128 (1): 57–64. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733
-9364(2002)128:1(57).
Harper, C. M., and K. R. Molenaar. 2014. “Association between construc-
tion contracts and relational contract theory.” In Proc., Construction
Research Congress 2014. Atlanta: ASCE.
Hasanzadeh, S., B. Esmaeili, S. Nasrollahi, M. Gad Ghada, and D.
Gransberg Douglas. 2018. “Impact of owners’ early decisions on
project performance and dispute occurrence in public highway proj-
ects.” J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr. 10 (2): 04518004.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)LA.1943-4170.0000251.
Hasanzadeh, S., G. M. Gad, S. Nasrollahi, B. Esmaeili, and D. D.
Gransberg. 2016. “Impacts of levels of trust on dispute occurrences
in highway projects.” In Proc., Construction Research Congress
2016. San Juan, PR: ASCE.
Hinchey, J. W. 2012. “Rethinking conflict in construction project delivery
and dispute resolution.” Int. Constr. Law Rev. 29 (1): 24–50.
Hosseini, A., P. A. Wondimu, A. Bellini, N. Haugseth, B. Andersen, and
O. Lædre. 2016. “Project partnering in Norwegian construction
industry.” In Proc., SBE16 Tallinn and Helsinki Conf.; Build Green
and Renovate Deep, 241–252. Tallinn, Helsinki.
Ibbs, C. W., Y. H. Kwak, T. Ng, and A. M. Odabasi. 2003. “Project delivery
systems and project change: Quantitative analysis.” J. Constr. Eng.
Manage. 129 (4): 382–387. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733
-9364(2003)129:4(382).
Konchar, M., and V. Sanvido. 1998. “Comparison of U.S. project delivery
systems.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 124 (6): 435–444. https://doi.org/10
.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(1998)124:6(435).
Kruskal, W. H., and W. A. Wallis. 1952. “Use of ranks in one-criterion
variance analysis.” J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 47 (260): 583–621. https://doi
.org/10.1080/01621459.1952.10483441.
Kumaraswamy, M. M. 1997. “Conflicts, claims and disputes in construc-
tion.” Eng. Constr. Archit. Manage. 4 (2): 95–111. https://doi.org/10
.1108/eb021042.
© ASCE 04518017-12
J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr., 2018, 10(3): 04518017
Maharjan, R. 2013. “Evaluation of alternative project delivery methods
in water and wastewater projects.” M.S. thesis, Dept. of Civil and
Environmental Engineering and Construction, Univ. of Nevada,
Las Vegas.
Mante, J., I. Ndekugri, N. Ankrah, and F. Hammond. 2012. “The influence
of procurement methods on dispute resolution mechanism choice in
construction.” In Proc., 28th Annual ARCOM Conf. Association of
Researchers in Construction Management, edited by S. D. Smith,
979–988. Edinburgh, UK: Association of Researchers in Construction
Management.
McGeorge, D., P. Love, P. Davis, M. Jefferies, P. Ward, and B. Chesworth.
2007. Dispute avoidance and resolution a literature review. CRC for
Construction Innovation Rep. No. 1. Brisbane, Australia: Cooperative
Research Centre for Construction Innovation.
Mehany, M. S. H. M., G. M. Gad, and B. Esmaeili. 2017. “Dispute pre-
vention and resolution methods used on public highway projects em-
ploying different project delivery methods.” In Proc., Transportation
Research Board 96th Annual Meeting. Washington, DC: Transportation
Research Board.
Mehany, M. S. H. M., and N. Grigg. 2016. “Delay claims in road construc-
tion: Best practices for a standard delay claims management system.” J.
Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr. 7 (2): 04514006. https://doi.org
/10.1061/(ASCE)LA.1943-4170.0000186.
Mitkus, S., and T. Mitkus. 2014. “Causes of conflicts in a construction
industry: A communicational approach.” In Vol. 110 of Proc., 2nd
Int. Scientific Conf. on Contemporary Issues in Business, Management
and Education 2013, 1–1294. Vilnius, Lithuania: Vilnius Gediminas
Technical Univ.
Morgan, G. A., N. L. Leech, G. W. Gloeckner, and K. C. Barrett. 2012. IBM
SPSS for introductory statistics: Use and interpretation. New York:
Routledge.
Ndekugri, I., and A. Turner. 1994. “Building procurement by design and
build approach.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 120 (2): 243–256. https://doi
.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(1994)120:2(243).
Neill, A., M. S. Leader, and H. AL-Battaineh. 2011. “Compare risk allo-
cation for 961 different project delivery methods in Canada.” In Proc.,
Maintenance and Construction session at the 2011 Annual Conf. of the
Transportation of Canada. Edmonton, Alberta, Canada: Transportation
Association of Canada.
Nesius, J. J. 1998. “The effect of contract remuneration on construc-
tion project performance factors.” M.S. thesis, Dept. of Civil,
Architectural and Environmental Engineering, Univ. of Texas at
Austin.
Park, J., and Y. H. Kwak. 2017. “Design-bid-build (DBB) vs. design-build
(DB) in the U.S. public transportation projects: The choice and conse-
quences.” Int. J. Project Manage. 35 (3): 280–295. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.ijproman.2016.10.013.
Perkins, R. A. 2009. “Sources of changes in design-build contracts for a
governmental owner.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 135 (7): 588–593.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2009)135:7(588).
Pesämaa, O., P. E. Eriksson, and J. F. Hair. 2009. “Validating a model of
cooperative procurement in the construction industry.” Int. J. Project
Manage. 27 (6): 552–559. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2008.10
.007.
Price, A. D. F., and K. Chahal. 2006. “A strategic framework for change
management.” Constr. Manage. Econ. 24 (3): 237–251. https://doi.org
/10.1080/01446190500227011.
Puddicombe, M. S. 2009. “Why contracts: Evidence.” J. Constr. Eng. Man-
age. 135 (8): 675–682. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364
(2009)135:8(675).
Rajendran, S., B. Clarke, and M. L. Whelan. 2013. “Contract issues & con-
struction safety management.” Professional Saf. 58 (9): 56.
Riley, D. R., B. E. Diller, and D. Kerr. 2005. “Effects of delivery systems on
change order size and frequency in mechanical construction.” J. Constr.
Eng. Manage. 131 (9): 953–962. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733
-9364(2005)131:9(953).
Schumacker, R. E. 2015. Using R with multivariate statistics. Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Semple, C., F. T. Hartman, and G. Jergeas. 1994. “Construction claims and
disputes: Causes and cost/time overruns.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr.
 120 (4): 785–795. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(1994)
120:4(785).
Shrestha, P. P., J. T. O’Connor, and G. E. Gibson Jr. 2011. “Performance
comparison of large design-build and design-bid-build highway proj-
ects.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 138 (1): 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000390.
Songer, A. D., and K. R. Molenaar. 1996. “Selecting design-build: Public
and private sector owner attitudes.” J. Manage. Eng. 12 (6): 47–53.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0742-597X(1996)12:6(47).
Tajul, A. H. L., and M. Sutrisna. 2010. “Developing a framework to
minimize the occurrence of construction conflict and disputes in differ-
ent procurement strategies: An initial review of literature.” In Proc.,
26th Annual Conf. of the Association of Researchers in Construction
Management. Leeds, UK: Association of Researchers in Construction
Management.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Tufts University on 06/19/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Tran, D. Q., and K. R. Molenaar. 2013. “Impact of risk on design-build
selection for highway design and construction projects.” J. Manage.
Eng. 30 (2): 153–162. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479
.0000210.
Wong, P. S.-P., and S.-O. Cheung. 2004. “Trust in construction part-
nering: Views from parties of the partnering dance.” Int. J. Project
Manage. 22 (6): 437–446. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2004.01
.001.
Yusof, A. M., S. Ismail, and L. S. Chin. 2011. “Procurement method as
conflict and dispute reduction mechanism for construction industry
in Malaysia.” Int. Proc. Econ. Dev. Res. 15: 215.
Zuppa, D., S. Olbina, and R. Issa. 2016. “Perceptions of trust in the
US construction industry.” Eng. Constr. Archit. Manage. 23 (2):
211–236. https://doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-05-2015-0081.

© ASCE 04518017-13 J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr.

J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr., 2018, 10(3): 04518017