Introduction
Choosing between contracting methods is not an easy task, since the fate of the entire project is in the hands of the person who decides what contract methods are to be used. It is important that the contract method predetermine the number of future costs for the project (Rowings, 2000). Taking a closer look at the two key types of contracting methods, one can possibly define the most efficient one. In their article titled Cost analysis between SABER and Design Bid Build contracting methods, Henry and Brothers specify the key positive aspects and the downsides of each contracting method to figure out whether one of these methods is more efficient than another one.
Main Body
The given problem might seem somewhat far-fetched; indeed, the existing two methods have taken the time test, and it has been proven that each of the models offers a good framework for a business project and helps take into account the costs and revenues of a specific project rather efficiently. While one of the methods in question presupposes dealing with the costs after the project has been completed, and the second one involves speculations about the future incomes and costs, they both have a legitimate theory to ground on.
However, Henry and Brothers not only manage to prove that the issue in question remains essential for business development to solve but also prove that the DBB approach is more profitable than the SABER: “In general, the DBB project had a greater total construction cost, ranging from $999,709 to #23,436 with a cost/m2 range of $1952.50 to $57.10” (Henry & Brothers, 2001, 364).
To consider the advantages and the disadvantages of both SABER and Design Bid Built contrasting methods, Henry and Brothers develop a very peculiar research methodology of their own. Starting with an introduction to the DBB and SABER, the researchers specify the differences between the two and analyze the effect that each method will have in an abstract business situation. As Henry and Brothers explain, the key problem with the DBB method is that with the minimum requirements, the result may appear very poor. As for the SABER method, it suffers from a number of limitations.
The positive aspect of the SABER is that it presupposes “longer terms of relationships of the contract” (Henry & Brothers, 2001, 360). In its turn, the use of the SABER contracting method can be justified by the fact that it is based on a “familiar method of contracting” (Henry & Brothers, 2001, 360).
Conclusion
With the help of an efficient research method and a clear definition of the research problem, Henry and Brothers manage to come up with a solution that can satisfy the manager of a project perfectly. Moreover, the authors of the article offer a very fresh look at the problem. It will be wrong to deny that the given article has no limitations and flaws, as well as to assume that the information offered in the research conducted in 2002 has not been dated yet. Nevertheless, it is worth admitting that Henry and Brothers offer a decent overview of the problem and its existing solutions.
Reference List
Henry, E. & Brothers, H. S. (2001). Cost analysis between SABER and Design Bid Build contracting methods. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 127(5), 359–366.
Rowings, J. E. Jr. (2000). Design/build methods for electrical contracting industry. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 126(1), 15.