Performance of performance specifications in design-build highway projects

Abstract

Design-build contracts with performance-based specifications are believed to raise productivity and the innovation rate. Such specifications for highway and bridge contracts may create risks, be too detailed or difficult to verify. The purpose has been to analyse how performance-based requirements are used in Swedish design-build contracts for highway projects. How contractors are encouraged to provide innovative technologies is emphasized. Generic documents from the Swedish Transport Administration for design-build contracts have been studied, and case studies of six design-build contracts with performance-based requirements have been made. Technical specifications for these contracts have been analysed and interviews held with both client and contractor project managers. Results include that it is along the time axis that major obstacles to innovation arise. Before the contractor is able to develop innovative solutions, the initial design plan restricts the highway geometry. During construction, a mix of performance and prescriptive requirement formulations is more of a challenge than clashes between performance requirements. The client may avoid performance language, more so for bridges than road surfaces, because of concerns with efficient maintenance in the future. It is recommended that performance-based specifications should be less detailed and that a life cycle view of highway projects should support innovative technologies.

How public client’s control systems affect contractors’ innovation possibilities

“…The ex ante steering identified in the empirical data has a direct effect on the innovation possibilities for contractors. If the client procures a DB contract with detailed demands (Bröchner and Silfwerbrand, 2019), there is not much room for change by the contractor during design and execution. However, functional demands could still be hindered by rules and regulations that are decided by the central organization, even if the client has chosen an output control system in the project (Eriksson, 2006).…”

“…Detailed demands ( process control) seem to reduce the potential for innovation, confirming the studies conducted by Gann et al (1998) and Bröchner and Silfwerbrand (2019). The empirical data from both the client and the contractors indicates that process control has the most negative impact of the three control systems, on innovation possibilities.…”

“…Therefore, even if there is an Public client's control systems intention by the client to stimulate innovation, the empirical findings suggest many factors that inhibit innovation possibilities. Detailed demands (process control) seem to reduce the potential for innovation, confirming the studies conducted by Gann et al (1998) and Bröchner and Silfwerbrand (2019). The empirical data from both the client and the contractors indicates that process control has the most negative impact of the three control systems, on innovation possibilities.…”

“…Responding to RQ1 , our findings show that creating opportunities for contractor innovation as a client (through the inter-organizational relationship) is rather complex when viewed from an organizational control system perspective. There are several ways in which different client control systems may affect construction innovation throughout the supply chain (Bossink, 2004; Gann et al , 1998; Bröchner and Silfwerbrand, 2019; Blayse and Manley, 2004; Eriksson and Szentes, 2017), making it vital to understand how different control mechanisms on a detailed level may affect innovation possibilities. The empirical data suggest that the client not supporting innovation could be the result of a lack of time and/or resources, e.g.…”

“…Innovation in construction projects can be achieved through regulations and standards (Gann et al, 1998). Strict regulations that force organizations to innovate according to detailed specifications are most common but inhibit creativity (Gann et al, 1998;Bröchner and Silfwerbrand, 2019), meaning that the freedom for a contractor to find alternative solutions is limited. Instead, performance-based building regulations, which stimulate contractors to innovate in a certain direction, are progressive and can be an effective driver of innovation CI 24,7 (Gann et al, 1998).…”