IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/vrs/otamic/v9y2017i1p1593-1603n7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cost and time performance of traditional-, direct labour- and management-procured public projects in Ondo State, Nigeria

Author

Listed:
  • Aghimien Douglas Omoregie

    (Federal University of Technology Akure Ondo State, NIGERIA)

  • Osanyinro Olufemi

    (B.Tech., Murty International Limited, Suite 308, Midel Centre, Plot 14, Off Oladipo Diya way, Sector Centre D, Gudu, Abuja, Nigeria)

  • Adegbembo Taiwo Fadeke

    (M.Tech., Department of Quantity Surveying, Federal University of Technology, Akure, P.M.B. 704, Ondo State, Nigeria)

Abstract

Procurement method over time has proven to have significant influence on the successful delivery of construction projects. Making the right decision in the selection of a procurement option to adopt is therefore crucial if a project is to succeed. This study therefore assessed the cost and time performance of selected public building projects procured using traditional, direct labour and management procurement options in Ondo State, Nigeria. A pro forma was used to gather cost and time data from government procuring entities in the state. In addition, a structured questionnaire was used to obtain information from construction professionals in these procuring entities, in order to ascertain the factors influencing the choice of procurement options adopted. The cost and time data gathered were analyzed using percentages and the paired-samples t-test, while those gathered on the factors influencing the choice of procurement options were analyzed using mean item scores and analysis of variance (ANOVA). The results revealed that although there is no significant difference between the initial and final costs of the assessed projects, some measure of cost overrun still exists. In addition, a considerable amount of time overrun was experienced on projects executed using the three different procurement options. The most significant factors influencing the choice of a procurement option are price competition, speed, time certainty and complexity of the project. It is believed that the findings of this study will provide public procuring entities with insight on the cost and time capability of these procurement methods and aid them in selecting the procurement option that will help in delivering public building projects within the budget and on schedule.

Suggested Citation

  • Aghimien Douglas Omoregie & Osanyinro Olufemi & Adegbembo Taiwo Fadeke, 2017. "Cost and time performance of traditional-, direct labour- and management-procured public projects in Ondo State, Nigeria," Organization, Technology and Management in Construction, Sciendo, vol. 9(1), pages 1593-1603, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:vrs:otamic:v:9:y:2017:i:1:p:1593-1603:n:7
    DOI: 10.1515/otmcj-2016-0022
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1515/otmcj-2016-0022
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1515/otmcj-2016-0022?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sai-On Cheung & Tsun-Ip Lam & Mei-Yung Leung & Yue-Wang Wan, 2001. "An analytical hierarchy process based procurement selection method," Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(4), pages 427-437.
    2. D. R. Ogunsemi & G. O. Jagboro, 2006. "Time-cost model for building projects in Nigeria," Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(3), pages 253-258.
    3. Caroline T. W. Chan, 2007. "Fuzzy procurement selection model for construction projects," Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(6), pages 611-618.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Nan Zhao & Fei J Ying & John Tookey, 2022. "Construction Procurement Selection Criteria: A Review and Research Agenda," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(22), pages 1-16, November.
    2. Franco Cheung & Judy Leung Fung Kuen & Martin Skitmore, 2002. "Multi-criteria evaluation model for the selection of architectural consultants," Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(7), pages 569-580.
    3. Per Erik Eriksson & Ossi Pesamaa, 2007. "Modelling procurement effects on cooperation," Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(8), pages 893-901.
    4. Odubiyi Tawakalitu Bisola, 2018. "Nigerian Professional Female Construction Workers in Vocational Occupations: Diversification or Deviation?," Organization, Technology and Management in Construction, Sciendo, vol. 10(1), pages 1696-1703, February.
    5. Odhigu Festus Onosakponome & Nazatul Shima Abdul Rani & Junaid M. Shaikh, 2011. "Cost Benefit Analysis of Procurement Systems and the Performance of Construction Projects in East Malaysia," Information Management and Business Review, AMH International, vol. 2(5), pages 181-192.
    6. Akinkunmi Olutayo Gabriel & Aghimien Douglas Omoregie & Awodele Oluwaseyi Alabi, 2018. "Appraising the use of labour-only procurement system for building construction in Nigeria," Organization, Technology and Management in Construction, Sciendo, vol. 10(1), pages 1719-1726, May.
    7. Sofia Lingegård & Malena I. Havenvid & Per-Erik Eriksson, 2021. "Circular Public Procurement through Integrated Contracts in the Infrastructure Sector," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-19, October.
    8. Ji-Wei Zhu & Li-Nan Zhou & Liang Li & Wajhat Ali, 2020. "Decision Simulation of Construction Project Delivery System under the Sustainable Construction Project Management," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-21, March.
    9. Narasimhan, Ram & Talluri, Srinivas & Mahapatra, Santosh, 2008. "Effective response to RFQs and supplier development: A supplier's perspective," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 115(2), pages 461-470, October.
    10. Oke Ayodeji Emmanuel, 2016. "Effect of bond administration on construction project delivery," Organization, Technology and Management in Construction, Sciendo, vol. 8(1), pages 1390-1396, December.
    11. Sai-On Cheung & Henry Suen, 2002. "A multi-attribute utility model for dispute resolution strategy selection," Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(7), pages 557-568.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:vrs:otamic:v:9:y:2017:i:1:p:1593-1603:n:7. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.sciendo.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.