Introduction
Qualification-based selection procurement is a perfect fit for design-build projects since individuals can search for professionals with specific skills and experience in working on the project they need to have completed. This type of procurement enables the project owner to assess and track the quality of the contractors’ work more accurately. Qualification-based selection for a design-build project is utilized in cases when maximum quality with optimal costs is needed (El Wardani et al., 2006). This approach involves competition among professional offers and the selection of the best one in terms of quality and price. The team is typically chosen depending on the design-builder reputation, past performance, technical capacity, and financial security (El Wardani et al., 2006). It is preferable for project owners to select the design-build team based on positive past experience of completing projects with minimal costs and within the set deadline.
Difference Between ‘Best Value: Total Cost’ and ‘Best Value: Fees’
In the ‘best value: total cost’ approach, total cost consists of the proposed funds spent on materials, equipment, team members’ salaries, and other work expenses. This procurement method aims at searching for a contractor who offers the best overall cost for the project (Adamtey, 2020). The ‘best value: total cost’ approach is well-suited for large projects where the owner can receive a lower overall cost through effective resource utilization. The project owner procures with the aim of obtaining the maximum possible quality for a certain amount of money.
Meanwhile, ‘best value: fees’ is a procurement method based on searching for a contractor who proposes the best cost-quality balance. This approach includes all the funds the project owner spends on purchasing goods, materials, equipment, and staff salaries (El Wardani et al., 2006). The goal of this procurement type is to gain the maximum possible benefit for the project owner in terms of cost savings. This method enables the owner to receive a high-quality project at an affordable price. Both types of procurement are beneficial to the project owner, as they provide the latter with the opportunity to obtain the services or goods offered at the most advantageous prices. The difference between them is that the first procurement type evaluates the quality of the contractors’ work while the second type provides the maximum savings for the project owner.
One-Step Best Value
The ‘one-step best value’ is a specific procurement method in which the buyer seeks to purchase a product with the aim of obtaining the maximum benefit. In such cases, a single-stage approach should be used when the buyer requests products and services at the same time and stage, and the suppliers offer their prices (Adamtey, 2020). This procurement approach implies the presence of one offer that is the best of all. This method is suitable for projects when the owner wants to receive the best offer within the shortest time.
Conclusion
The ‘two-step best value’ is a procurement method in which the buyer submits an application for the purchase of goods or services, and then the suppliers participate in an auction. In such cases, a two-stage approach should be used: the buyer requests prices for goods and services first in the first stage and then holds an auction in the second stage (El Wardani et al., 2006). This approach implies two stages: the first stage assumes the selection of the best offers, and the second involves a detailed comparison of prices and quality of suppliers. This method is suitable for projects when the owner wants to gain the best price-quality ratio through a detailed analysis of offers.
References
Adamtey, S. A. (2020). An empirical study to assist owners in selecting the right procurement method for design-build projects. International Journal of Construction Education and Research, 18(1), 1–18. Web.
El Wardani, M. A., Messner, J. I., & Horman, M. J. (2006). Comparing procurement methods for design-build projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 132(3), 230–238. Web.