A Second Look: Stakeholders’ Perceptions of Some Issues in Design-Bid-Build Procurement Practice in Nigeria
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The construction product is an outcome of many procurement possibilities, among which the most dominant has been the design-bid-build (otherwise called the traditional) method. The procurement method’s real or perceived drawbacks have warranted or even been rationalized for the emergence of alternative methods. Yet there is a continued use of the method in both private and public sector projects in Nigeria. This study thus sought to investigate stakeholders’ perception on the use of the traditional method. 241 questionnaires were administered purposively on construction industry client, consulting and contracting organizations. 100 were received and analyzed through the use of descriptive and inferential statistical tools. Respondents were requested to express their agreement or otherwise with twenty issues raised from literature and practice on the traditional project procurement. The aggregated rankings for the stakeholder organizations show that ‘where sought at all, inputs of contractors are at best advisory’ ranked first among issues being assessed on traditional project procurement practice. ‘Relationships among participants breed mistrust’ ranked least among the twenty issues. The results of the analysis further indicate that there are no significant differences between the three stakeholder groups on some selected issues in traditional project procurement practice and documentation. It is recommended that the homogeneity of perceptions about the traditional method can be a springboard and form a baseline for further intervention efforts at improving construction project procurement in Nigeria.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".