Bond UniversityResearch Repository
Evaluation of design-builder qualifications through the analysis of requests for qualifications
Xia, Bo; Skitmore, Martin; Zuo, Jian
Published in:Journal of Management in Engineering
DOI:10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000095
Licence:Other
Link to output in Bond University research repository.
Recommended citation(APA):Xia, B., Skitmore, M., & Zuo, J. (2012). Evaluation of design-builder qualifications through the analysis ofrequests for qualifications. Journal of Management in Engineering, 28(3), 348-351.https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000095
General rightsCopyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright ownersand it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.
For more information, or if you believe that this document breaches copyright, please contact the Bond University research repositorycoordinator.
Download date: 16 Mar 2022
This may be the author’s version of a work that was submitted/acceptedfor publication in the following source:
Xia, Paul, Skitmore, Martin, & Zuo, Jian(2012)Evaluation of design-builder qualifications through the analysis of requestsfor qualifications.Journal of Management in Engineering - ASCE, 28(3), pp. 348-351.
This file was downloaded from: https://eprints.qut.edu.au/48624/
c© Consult author(s) regarding copyright matters
This work is covered by copyright. Unless the document is being made available under aCreative Commons Licence, you must assume that re-use is limited to personal use andthat permission from the copyright owner must be obtained for all other uses. If the docu-ment is available under a Creative Commons License (or other specified license) then referto the Licence for details of permitted re-use. It is a condition of access that users recog-nise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. If you believe thatthis work infringes copyright please provide details by email to [email protected]
Notice: Please note that this document may not be the Version of Record(i.e. published version) of the work. Author manuscript versions (as Sub-mitted for peer review or as Accepted for publication after peer review) canbe identified by an absence of publisher branding and/or typeset appear-ance. If there is any doubt, please refer to the published source.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000095
Accep
ted M
anus
cript
Not Cop
yedit
ed
1
Evaluation of design-builder qualifications through the
analysis of Requests for Qualifications (RFQs)
Bo Xia1, Martin Skitmore
2, Jian Zuo
3
1 Lecturer, School of Urban Development, Queensland University of Technology, Garden
Point Campus, 2 George Street, Brisbane QLD 4000, Australia.
Email: [email protected]
2 Professor, School of Urban Development, Queensland University of Technology, Garden
Point Campus, 2 George Street, Brisbane QLD 4000, Australia.
Email: [email protected]
3 Lecturer, School of Natural and Built Environments, University of South Australia, City
East Campus, GPO Box 2471 Adelaide SA 5001, Australia
Email: [email protected]
ABSTRACT
The two-phase best-value process has been widely used by public agencies for Design
and Build (DB) procurement, with a key issue in the first phase of pre-qualification
being the determination of evaluation criteria. This study identified a set of general
qualification criteria for design-builders and compares their relative importance by a
thorough content analysis of 97 Requests for Qualification (RFQ) for public DB
projects advertised between 2000 and 2011 in various regions of the USA. The thirty-
Journal of Management in Engineering. Submitted May 23, 2011; accepted August 23, 2011; posted ahead of print August 25, 2011. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000095
Copyright 2011 by the American Society of Civil Engineers
Accep
ted M
anus
cript
Not Cop
yedit
ed
2
nine qualification criteria found are summarized and classified into eight categories
comprising: experience; project understanding and approach; organizational structure
and capacity; past performance record; professional qualifications; responsiveness to
RFQs, office location and familiarity with local environment; and legal status in
descending order of their relative importance. A comparative analysis of different
types of projects shows that the relative weightings of the qualification criteria vary
according to different characteristics of the DB projects involved.
Key words:
Design/Build, content analysis, request for qualification
INTRODUCTION
Design-build is an alternative delivery method where one entity or consortium is
contractually responsible for both design and construction, and has been gaining in
popularity in public sectors in recent years (Hale et al. 2009; Park et al. 2009; Rosner
et al. 2009). In order to find the right person for the right job, the best-value
procurement process has been widely used by public agencies (Jackson 2010).
Specifically, the preferred approach is a two-phase process where the first phase
consist of an evaluation of bidders’ qualifications and the second phase involves the
technical and price submission of a short-listed group of bidders. According to
Molenaar et al. (1999), the two-phase best-value method outlined in the 1996 Federal
Acquisition Reform Act delivers the best overall budget and schedule performance.
Journal of Management in Engineering. Submitted May 23, 2011; accepted August 23, 2011; posted ahead of print August 25, 2011. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000095
Copyright 2011 by the American Society of Civil Engineers
Accep
ted M
anus
cript
Not Cop
yedit
ed
3
With the two-phase best-value procurement method, considerable attention is placed
on the issue of DB RFQs. In particular, in order to solicit design-builders with
necessary and desirable qualifications, owners need to establish clear, objective
selection criteria to measure and determine the potential design-builders to be invited
to prepare and submit a design-build proposal. According to Beard et al. (2001), the
determination of pre-qualification selection criteria is a key issue that an owner must
consider when evaluating prospective DB contractors. When the selection criteria and
process is sufficiently transparent to all the interested DB contractors, it is more likely
that the selected qualified design-builders will adequately address the owner’s
requirements and expectations. However, for many owners the formulation of
selection criteria is not an easy task. Owners should carefully define and summarize
the evaluation criteria for specific types and sizes of projects as every design-builder
has unique qualifications. Otherwise, design-builders that are better qualified may not
be selected as the selection criteria do not address their advantages.
In order to facilitate the determination of selection criteria in RFQ, this paper presents
an examination of key qualification criteria in 97 design-build RFQs collected across
the U.S.. Unlike other opinion-based research studies, the analysis of different sets of
selection criteria and their weightings in RFQs reflect the perceptions and real
practices of owners in the selection of design-builders. Although the determination of
qualification criteria is done separately for each project, it is clear that the analysis of
Journal of Management in Engineering. Submitted May 23, 2011; accepted August 23, 2011; posted ahead of print August 25, 2011. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000095
Copyright 2011 by the American Society of Civil Engineers
Accep
ted M
anus
cript
Not Cop
yedit
ed
4
a general set of criteria will not only demonstrate owners’ understanding of qualified
design-builders but also reflect their philosophies of DB practices in general.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Content analysis was adopted to identify the qualification factors and their importance
weighting adopted by public owners in DB RFQs. The content analysis is defined as
the systematic, objective, quantitative analysis of message characteristics (Neuendorf
2002). It is an observational and power data reduction technique for dealing with large
volumes of data (Stemler 2001) to summarize any form of content by counting the
number of times an activity happens or a topic is depicted (Kolbe and Burnett 1991).
The first step in conducting a content analysis is to identify the materials to be
analyzed (Guthrie et al. 2004). A sizable sample of actual DB RFQs was collected
from those posted online by a variety of public sectors in the U.S.. Table 1 illustrates
that the sample consists of 97 RFQs from 33 States and with a total contract value of
over $12.1 billion, the majority (85%) being advertised in the past 5 years. The RFQs
cover a fairly wide range of project types and allow an examination of the most
current approaches to DB project delivery.
Please insert Table <1> here
The second step is to determine whether the form of content analysis to be used is to
be qualitative or quantitative (Fellows and Liu 2008). In a qualitative content analysis,
Journal of Management in Engineering. Submitted May 23, 2011; accepted August 23, 2011; posted ahead of print August 25, 2011. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000095
Copyright 2011 by the American Society of Civil Engineers
Accep
ted M
anus
cript
Not Cop
yedit
ed
5
emphasis is on determining the meaning of the data (i.e. grouping into categories).
Quantitative content analysis extends this to generate numerical values of the
categorized data (frequencies, ratings, ranking, etc) which may be subject to statistical
analyses. Both qualitative and quantitative methods were adopted in the current study.
The qualitative method was first used to record, examine, and consolidate different
expressions of qualification criteria and then group them into themes or categories
according to their meanings. Then, the overall frequency of each criterion and
category throughout the entire collection of DB RFQs was examined for its popularity.
The importance weightings of the qualification categories and their average points in
RFQs were also calculated to indicate the different preferences of the DB owners
involved.
RESULTS
Thirty-nine (39) qualification factors in different expressions were identified and
recorded through the content analysis. Those conveying the same meanings were
combined and rephrased, and 18 qualification criteria were finally consolidated. The
cluster of themes of these factors were then summarized and organized based on their
meanings. Finally, eight (8) categories of the qualification criteria were coded,
comprising:
1. experience
2. project understanding and approach
3. organizational structure and capacity
Journal of Management in Engineering. Submitted May 23, 2011; accepted August 23, 2011; posted ahead of print August 25, 2011. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000095
Copyright 2011 by the American Society of Civil Engineers
Accep
ted M
anus
cript
Not Cop
yedit
ed
6
4. past performance record
5. professional qualifications
6. office location and familiarity with local environment
7. legal status
8. responsiveness to RFQs.
In order to observe the popularity of these categories, the frequencies of the
qualification criteria and coded categories were calculated by dividing the number of
their appearance by the total number of RFQs. Table 2 indicates that, with frequencies
of more than 50%, experience, project understanding and approach, organizational
structure and capacity, and past performance record are the most frequently used
factors in evaluating design-builder qualification.
Please insert Table <2> here
Of the 97 RFQs, 57 allowed the relative weightings of qualification categories to be
obtained and these were further examined to enable their prioritization. Of the 57
RFQs, 51 provide detailed weightings or score points to qualification categories, and
the relative weightings of these were simply recorded or calculated. The remaining 6
RFQs provide vague expressions such as “elements are listed in descending order of
importance, and “the factors listed are of equal significance”. For such expressions,
an algorithm introduced by Gransberg and Barton (2007) was adopted to convert the
expressions of keywords to importance weightings.
Journal of Management in Engineering. Submitted May 23, 2011; accepted August 23, 2011; posted ahead of print August 25, 2011. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000095
Copyright 2011 by the American Society of Civil Engineers
Accep
ted M
anus
cript
Not Cop
yedit
ed
7
Once all the importance weightings of qualification categories in each RFQ were
recorded, the relative importance for each category in the sample population was
obtained. Figure 1 indicates that experience is the most important criteria category
(accounting for 26% of the total weightings), followed by project understanding and
approach (24%) and organizational structure and capacity (20%).
Please insert Figure <1> here
For the next stage of the analysis, each RFQ received a total of 100 points to be
distributed among the qualification categories according to their stipulated importance
weightings. The average number of points for each category, which delivers a direct
message on the relative weighting of the category, was calculated by dividing the total
number of points by the number of RFQs in which it appears. Figure 2 shows the
results, with project understanding and approach having the highest points (31 points)
and the legal status the lowest (7 points).
Please insert Figure <2> here
The final stage of the analysis involved examining the relative importance of the
qualification categories within different project types. Although the number of RFQs
in each group is comparative small, the results in Table 3 convey an interesting
message concerning the owners’ view of DB qualifications. First, it is found that
categories of experience and office location and familiarity with local environment
have higher weights for commercial buildings than for other types. This may be due
to the fact that, for commercial buildings, owners consider a quick start-up and short
Journal of Management in Engineering. Submitted May 23, 2011; accepted August 23, 2011; posted ahead of print August 25, 2011. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000095
Copyright 2011 by the American Society of Civil Engineers
Accep
ted M
anus
cript
Not Cop
yedit
ed
8
duration to be the first priority, and it is advantageous to reach out immediately to a
sufficiently experienced design-builder. Additionally, the design-builders’ familiarity
with the local environment (e.g. regulations, practice) helps to speed up project
progress. Second, project understanding and approach is the most important
qualification category in heavy civil and highway projects, which is understandable as
most heavy civil and highway projects are large and technically challenging - a
thorough project understanding and suitable technical and management approaches
being needed to help for a successful project. Finally, renovation projects have the
greatest weight given to past performance record of all project types. As most
renovation projects require improvements being made to current status, it is likely that
owners pay extra attention to the past performance of potential design-builders in such
cases.
Please insert Table <3> here
DISCUSSION
The results of the analysis demonstrate, experience, project understanding and
approach, organizational structure and capacity, past performance record and
professional qualifications are the major categories for pre-qualification, accounting
for 95% of the total importance weights. Responsiveness to RFQs, office location and
familiarity with local environment, and legal status comprise the remaining 5% of the
importance weighting.
Journal of Management in Engineering. Submitted May 23, 2011; accepted August 23, 2011; posted ahead of print August 25, 2011. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000095
Copyright 2011 by the American Society of Civil Engineers
Accep
ted M
anus
cript
Not Cop
yedit
ed
9
Experience of design-builders is the most important category for prequalification. A
design-builder with sufficient experience will invariably be considered responsible
enough to deliver DB projects. One limitation on the use of experience in judging DB
qualification, however, is that the experience criterion only focuses on the nature of
the contractor’s past work without considering the quality of the past experience. In
order to address this issue, owners also adopt the criterion of past performance for the
evaluation of DB qualification. The previous performance of design-builders may
include documented records of budget, schedule, quality and safety, statements of
customer satisfaction, and compliance with applicable laws and regulations. What is
needed is a design-builder with a satisfactory performance record in addition to
extensive DB experience.
The category of project understanding and approach examines how design-builders
understand owner’s goals and how they achieve these goals. When design-builders
have a clear understanding of the mandates, goals and design needs of the owner, it is
more likely that they will propose suitable techniques and management approaches. A
project approach contains practical solutions to the problems involved, which mainly
concern conceptual design, proposed construction techniques, and overall
management plan for quality, budget, schedule, safety and risk. This category is more
important for prequalification for larger and more technically challenging projects.
Journal of Management in Engineering. Submitted May 23, 2011; accepted August 23, 2011; posted ahead of print August 25, 2011. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000095
Copyright 2011 by the American Society of Civil Engineers
Accep
ted M
anus
cript
Not Cop
yedit
ed
10
Finally, design-builders should possess sufficient organizational capabilities and
relevant professional qualifications. Organizational capability is the major basis for
developing a sustainable competitive advantage, and enables organizations to fully
coordinate and utilize their resources. In the RFQ, owners use organizational structure,
sufficiency and stability of staff resources, skilled labor, equipment, and financial
resources as the major criteria to measure the organizational capability of design-
builders. The category of professional qualification requires DB contractors and the
team members to possess all the necessary licenses and certificates to carry out the
functions of their respective professions. In the selection of design-builders, only
those with both sufficient organizational capability and appropriate qualification
certificates are regarded as sufficiently able to execute DB projects.
The remaining categories, including the response to the RFQs, office location and
familiarity with local environment, and legal status, are comparatively less important
with small relative weightings (less than 3%). Some owners may use the “Pass/Fail”
method (with the proposer either meeting the criteria or not) with these criteria for the
prequalification/short-listing of design-builders. However, it should be noted that the
use of Pass/Fail criteria may create a situation where the most highly qualified
proposers could be eliminated by a clerical error rendering it nonresponsive or a
legitimate outstanding claim against the owner. Therefore, when drafting RFQs,
owners and consultants should seriously consider whether or not the emphasis on
responsiveness or the DB mentality to find the design-builder is worth the risk of
Journal of Management in Engineering. Submitted May 23, 2011; accepted August 23, 2011; posted ahead of print August 25, 2011. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000095
Copyright 2011 by the American Society of Civil Engineers
Accep
ted M
anus
cript
Not Cop
yedit
ed
11
eliminating the best qualified proposers. Additionally, owners should avoid including
an evaluation criterion that simply reflects their own preference, such as the office
location rather than a qualification requirement of prospective design-builders.
CONCLUSIONS
This paper identifies a general empirical set of qualification categories and their
relative importance for design-builders through a content analysis of a sample of 97
USA RFQs. Experience, project approach and organizational capability are the most
highly valued categories, with each of claiming more than 20% of the total
importance weighting. A comparative analysis of projects of different types shows
that owners place different emphasis on qualification categories according to the
different characteristics of the DB projects involved. Furthermore, the prioritized
qualification categories identified in this paper will facilitate the decision making
process for DB owners – a particularly difficult and important task in practice,
The research findings of this study also offer a number of practical implications. For
DB owners, especially inexperienced ones, it is desirable to clearly define the
evaluation factors of DB qualification in RFQs. This helps owners reduce the cost of
reviewing the proposals. Additionally, it is necessary to adjust the relative weightings
of the qualification criteria according to the different characteristics of the projects. It
encourages the more qualified design-builders to submit proposals for the projects.
Future work is needed to validate the research findings in view of the known
Journal of Management in Engineering. Submitted May 23, 2011; accepted August 23, 2011; posted ahead of print August 25, 2011. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000095
Copyright 2011 by the American Society of Civil Engineers
Accep
ted M
anus
cript
Not Cop
yedit
ed
12
subjectivity and possible bias involved in the content analysis. Additionally, a
guideline for pre-qualifications in two-steps best value procurement method could be
further developed based on the research findings in the current study,
REFERENCES
Beard, J.L., Loulakis SR. M. C., and Wundram E.C. (2001). Design-Build—Planning
through Development, McGraw-Hill, NY.
Fellows, R. and Liu, A. (2008). Research methods for construction (3rd Edition).
Blackwell Science, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Gransberg, D.D., Barton, R.F. (2007). “Analysis of federal design-build request for
proposal evaluation criteria.” Journal of Management in Engineering, 23 (2), 105-
111.
Guthrie, J., Petty, R., Yongvanich, K. and Ricceri, F. (2004). “Using content analysis
as a research method to inquire into intellectual capital reporting.” Journal of
Intellectual Capital, 5 (2), 282-93.
Hale, D.R., Shrestha, P.P, Gibson, G.E., and Migliaccio, G.C. (2009). “Empirical
comparison of design/build and design/bid/build project delivery methods.”
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 135(7), 579-587.
Jackson, B.J. (2010) Design-build Essentials, Delmar, NY.
Journal of Management in Engineering. Submitted May 23, 2011; accepted August 23, 2011; posted ahead of print August 25, 2011. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000095
Copyright 2011 by the American Society of Civil Engineers
Accep
ted M
anus
cript
Not Cop
yedit
ed
13
Kolbe, R.H., and Burnett, M.S. (1991). “Content analysis research: an examination of
applications with directives for improving research reliability and objectivity.”
Journal of Consumer Research, 18, 243-250.
Molenaar, K.R., Songer, A.D., and Barash, M. (1999). “Public-sector design-build
evaluation and performance.” Journal of Management in Engineering, 15 (2), 54-
62.
Neuendorf , K.A. (2002). The content analysis guidebook, Sage Publications, CA.
Park, M., Ji, S.H., Lee, H.S., and Kim, W. (2009). “Strategies for Design-Build in
Korea Using System Dynamics Modeling.” Journal of Construction Engineering
and Management, ASCE, 135 (11), 1125-1137.
Rosner, J. W., Thal, A. E., and West, C. J. (2009). “Analysis of the design-build
delivery method in Air Force construction projects.” Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management, 135, 710-717.
Stemler, S. (2001). “A review of content analysis.” Practical Assessment, Research
& Evaluation, 7 (17), Available on website:
http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=7&n=17.
Journal of Management in Engineering. Submitted May 23, 2011; accepted August 23, 2011; posted ahead of print August 25, 2011. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000095
Copyright 2011 by the American Society of Civil Engineers
14
Table 1 Summary of the data sample
Project type RFQs
No. Owner agencies Locations
Commercial building 15 Local (County, Town, City, State)
government, U.S Army Corps of
Engineers, Naval Facilities
Engineering Command, U.S. Air
Force, Department of Defense,
Department of Veteran affairs,
National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, Federal Highway
Administration, Public schools,
Colleges and Universities
AK, AL, AZ, CA,
CO, CT, FL, GA,
IL, KS, MD,ME,
MI, MN, MO,
MS, MT, NJ, NM,
NV, NY, OH,
OK, RI, SC, SD,
TN, TX, UT, VA,
WA, WV, WI
Institutional building 40
Residential building 3
Heavy civil and
highway 15
Industrial and
processing 17
Renovation projects 7
Total 97 90 different owners 33 states
Accepted Manuscript Not Copyedited
Journal of Management in Engineering. Submitted May 23, 2011; accepted August 23, 2011; posted ahead of print August 25, 2011. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000095
Copyright 2011 by the American Society of Civil Engineers
15
Table 2 Coded categories of qualification factors
No. Criteria category Frequency (%)
1 Experience 83.51
Experience of design-builders with similar DB projects 58.76
Experience of personal assigned to the project 39.17
Specialized experience (value engineering, partnering, LEED, etc.) 24.74
2 Project understanding and approach 63.92
Understanding of the mandates, owner’s goals and needs. 17.53
Technical approach in design and construction techniques. 34.02
Management approach/plan for cost, quality, safety, risk, Small business
participation ,etc.
43.30
3 Organization structure and capacity 61.86
Organizational/team structures, organizational chart 32.99
Sufficiency of available staff resources 23.71
sufficiency of equipment to accomplish the work 8.25
Sufficiency and stability of financial resources 46.39
4 Past performance record 53.61
Past performance record on budget, schedule, quality, safety, customer
satisfaction and compliance with applicable laws and regulations.
53.61
5 Professional qualifications 41.24
Proper license/certificates/resumes of all personal 32.99
Business reference and pertinent certificates of design-builders and
subcontractors
13.40
6 Office location and familiarity with the locality 17.53
Office location and local participation 11.34
Familiarity with the locality (local practice, regulation, etc.) 8.25
7 Legal status 12.37
Active litigation and litigation history 12.37
8 Responsiveness to the RFQ 10.31
Adequate and compete response to the requested information 9.28
Proposal adheres to submission requirements set forth in RFQ 3.09
Accepted Manuscript Not Copyedited
Journal of Management in Engineering. Submitted May 23, 2011; accepted August 23, 2011; posted ahead of print August 25, 2011. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000095
Copyright 2011 by the American Society of Civil Engineers
16
Table 3 Relative importance of qualification categories by project type
Qualification
categories
Commercial
buildings
Institutional
buildings
Industrial and
processing
Heavy civil and
highway
Renovation
Experience (%) 33.6 25.9 30.0 19.7 23.8
Approach (%) 15.0 26.1 22.1 29.5 19.5
Organization (%) 18.4 20.0 25.0 21.7 12.5
Performance (%) 18.5 11.1 12.9 13.8 28.5
Qualification (%) 6.5 10.4 6.4 14.8 13.2
Responsiveness (%) 1.9 3.6 0.7 -- 2.5
Locality (%) 6.1 1.4 2.2 0.5 --
Legal status (%) -- 1.5 0.7 -- --
Project number 8 28 7 10 4
Accepted Manuscript Not Copyedited
Journal of Management in Engineering. Submitted May 23, 2011; accepted August 23, 2011; posted ahead of print August 25, 2011. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000095
Copyright 2011 by the American Society of Civil Engineers
Accep
ted M
anus
cript
Not Cop
yedit
ed
Figure 1 Relative importance of qualification categories
Figure 2 Score points of qualification categories
Figure Caption List
Journal of Management in Engineering. Submitted May 23, 2011; accepted August 23, 2011; posted ahead of print August 25, 2011. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000095
Copyright 2011 by the American Society of Civil Engineers
Figure 1 Relative importance of qualification categories
Figure 1.pdf
Accepted Manuscript Not Copyedited
Journal of Management in Engineering. Submitted May 23, 2011; accepted August 23, 2011; posted ahead of print August 25, 2011. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000095
Copyright 2011 by the American Society of Civil Engineers
Figure 2 Score points of qualification categories
Figure 2.pdf
Accepted Manuscript Not Copyedited
Journal of Management in Engineering. Submitted May 23, 2011; accepted August 23, 2011; posted ahead of print August 25, 2011. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000095
Copyright 2011 by the American Society of Civil Engineers