See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/301509765

Appointing the Design Consultant as Supervision Consultant on Construction

Projects

Article  in  Journal of Legal Affairs and Dispute Resolution in Engineering and Construction · April 2016
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)LA.1943-4170.0000195

CITATIONS READS
2 786

1 author:

Rafiq M. Choudhry
Al Imam Mohammad Ibn Saud Islamic University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
56 PUBLICATIONS   1,438 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Improving construction safety practices in Pakistan View project

Construction Safety in Palestine View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Rafiq M. Choudhry on 29 September 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Scholarly Paper

Appointing the Design Consultant as Supervision

Consultant on Construction Projects
Rafiq M. Choudhry, Ph.D., P.E., M.ASCE 1

Abstract: This research presents a questionnaire based on a study of merits and demerits of appointing the same design consultant as
construction supervision consultant in the construction industry in Pakistan. The questionnaire comprises five sections corresponding to
the project phases including the project initiation, project planning and design, project execution, project monitoring and control, and project
closing. Responses of valid questionnaires are analyzed using commercially available software. The results show that clients, consultants,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by SDL Portal on 10/12/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

contractors, and researchers strongly support appointing the same design consultant as supervision consultant. Results further indicate that it
is not appropriate to employ different professionals on a project for these two services when close coordination is generally required for the
successful completion of the same. Research concludes that there is no harm in appointing a third party for proof engineering and design
vetting. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)LA.1943-4170.0000195. © 2016 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Construction sites; Design; Design consultant; Supervision consultants; Project phases.

Introduction planning, designing, constructing, inspecting, and managing the

Pakistan, with a population of over 191 million in September 2015,
is the world’s sixth largest country with a projected annual growth
rate of 2.05% (WPR 2015). Construction is one of the main
industries in the country, which presents both opportunities and
challenges (Choudhry and Iqbal 2013). There are enormous invest-
ment opportunities in the construction industry that involve
(1) heavy engineering construction such as dams, highways, air-
ports, seaports, power generation plants, hydraulic and irrigation
structures, oil and gas installations; (2) industrial construction, such
as petroleum refineries, petrochemical plants, manufacturing
plants; (3) building construction, such as schools, hospitals,
universities, commercial towers, government office buildings,
warehouses, fitness and recreation centers; and (4) residential con-
struction, such as single-family homes, multiunit townhouses,
high-rise apartments, and condominiums (Choudhry and Raza
2015). The construction industry provides 7% of employment after
agriculture (43.7%), sales (14.4%), manufacturing (14.1%), and
services (13.3%) (MOF 2014).
Consulting services include counseling services, feasibility
studies, detailed design, preparation of contract documents, special-
ized design and its development, supervision, project management,
and program management (Bunni 2005, pp. 66–82). Fédération
Internationale Des Ingénieurs-Conseils (FIDIC), states in FIDIC
policy statement on selection of consultants’ that the consulting
engineering industry (CEI) undertakes activities related to
1
Professor of Construction Engineering and Management, Dept. of
Civil and Environmental Engineering, College of Engineering, King Faisal
Univ., Al-Ahsa, Saudi Arabia 31982; formerly, Professor and Head, Dept.
of Construction Engineering and Management, School of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, National Univ. of Sciences and Technology
(NUST), Islamabad, Pakistan. E-mail: rchoudhry@kfu.edu.sa; choudhry03@
gmail.com
Note. This manuscript was submitted on July 5, 2015; approved on
February 12, 2016; published online on April 18, 2016. Discussion period
open until September 18, 2016; separate discussions must be submitted
for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Legal Affairs
and Dispute Resolution in Engineering and Construction, © ASCE,
ISSN 1943-4162.
infrastructure required for meeting the ever-increasing demands
for energy, transportation, shelter, health, and water (FIDIC
2004). Its Quality based consultant selection guide defines consult-
ing engineering as organizations and individuals who deliver
consultancy services as a commercial activity (FIDIC 2011c). A
consulting engineer is defined as a professional who primarily
has two mixed areas of expertise: practical professional experience
and those of a business individual who applies his capabilities in
delivering the services to the clients for a fee.
During the selection process, the owner of a project needs to
select a responsible consultant or a team of consultants for design
and supervision of works (Bunni 2005). The consulting services for
projects can cover the entire project lifecycle. The selection of the
correct consultant for a project is of supreme importance. Correct
selection of a consultant has foremost bearing on the quality, cost,
and accomplishment of the project, as well as on the value of the
delivered project (FIDIC 2011c). At the time of organizing the
project, the owner or sponsor has specific core questions that need
to be asked, i.e., how to manage the design and the supervision
work. FIDIC guidelines for integrity management in consulting
state that one of the important factors in success of a project is
obtaining the services of the most-competent and most-experienced
consultant (FIDIC 2011b). The combination of design and super-
vision in construction project consulting services is not clear. Nor is
it clear how consultants are selected for construction projects.
Perhaps, this is because very little research has been conducted,
so that little published data are available on this topic. This study
investigates reasons for hiring the best consultants for construction
projects. Specifically, its objective is to evaluate merits and demer-
its of appointing the same design consultant as supervision consul-
tant on construction projects for the benefit of stakeholders.
Literature Review
Construction projects are multifaceted because they encompass an
array of human and nonhuman factors with changing uncertainties
and intricate relationships among the contestants (Choudhry et al.
2014). Also, construction investments are generally considered

© ASCE 04516005-1 J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr.

J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr., 2016, 8(4): 04516005

 expensive. In planning and developing a project, the stages of fea-
sibility studies, planning and scheduling, design work, procure-
ment, site construction, supervision, and project commissioning
are tightly linked (Yi and Xu 2011). A career as a consultant
can be rewarding for those willing to excel in their area of expertise.
The term consultant is applicable to a wide variety of private and
public entities, including national and international consulting
firms, design firms, construction firms, management firms,
procurement agents, inspection agents, auditors, and other multina-
tional organizations, universities, research institutions, government
agencies, nongovernment organizations (NGOs), and individuals
(ADB 2013). The FIDIC policy statement on selection of consul-
tants defines consulting services as technology-based intellectual
services for the built and natural environment (FIDIC 2004,
2011a). According to the Consulting services operations (CSO)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by SDL Portal on 10/12/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
manual developed by Asian Development Bank (ADB), consul-
tants are defined as individuals or entities able to provide special
expertise in one or more technical fields and are provided by skilled
experts with specialized knowledge and experience (ADB 2008).
The CSO manual further states that the consultants render intellec-
tual services for a finite time period under a well-defined scope of
services defined in the terms of reference (TOR).
A consulting engineer is always very significant for the client.
According to the Quality-based consultant selection guide, it is the
responsibility of the client to select an appropriate consultant as it
will impact on the overall quality of the project and cost of design
services, usually in the range of 3–4% of the lifecycle cost of a
project (FIDIC 2011c). A number of selection processes are in
use; nonetheless, not all of them acknowledge the true value of the
services provided by consultants. Most of these procedures are
deliverable-oriented. These procedures are essentially quality-
based or cost-based. Quality-based selection (QBS) procedures
are generally considered to be appropriate for selection of a
competent consultant to carry out the required services to the sat-
isfaction of the client. Cost-based selection procedures are focused
on selecting consultants by giving priority to price. A cheaper price
may not necessarily ensure the client of quality services. The
Guidelines: Selection and employment of consultants by World
Bank borrowers emphasizes that the most important concern to
be addressed by clients should be the maintenance of quality of
consulting services, without compromising suitability, sustainabil-
ity, economy, efficiency, risk management, public welfare, fair
opportunity, business integrity, and thorough transparency of the
selection process (World Bank 2010).
Public Procurement Regulatory Authority (PPRA) of Pakistan
has published regulations for procurement of consultancy services,
known as Procurement of consultancy services regulations 2010
(PPRA 2010). Earlier PPRA has promulgated rules for public
procurement in 2004 which were amended in 2008 (PPRA
2011). Different methods for carrying out selection of consultants
have been documented in the literature (PPRA 2010; ADB 2013).
According to PPRA consultancy regulations (2010) there are five
methods for appointment of consultants: (1) quality-based
selection (QBS); (2) quality and cost-based selection (QCBS);
(3) least-cost selection (LCS); (4) single-source selection (SSS);
and (5) fixed-budget selection (FBS). The Public Procurement
Regulatory Authority’s regulations explain all these methods in
details (PPRA 2010). QBS needs to be used where the owner or
sponsor wants only quality of work irrespective of the cost of
the project. This method is suited to large projects that involve
works and assignments of a highly complicated nature, such as
power plants and petrochemical installations. QCBS is the most
preferred method as it ensures maximum economy and efficiency.
This method allows for flexibility in weighing quality and costs
© ASCE 04516005-2
J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr., 2016, 8(4): 04516005
depending on the owner and project requirements. This method
is suitable where high quality is the leading concern, whereas cost
is a secondary contemplation. The LCS method is suitable for
projects where work is of routine nature and simple and well-
recognized practices exist already. The SSS method is appropriate
in special cases, i.e., for works that are a continuation of preceding
work, where continuity of technical services is inevitable, work of a
repetitive nature, in case of some emergency, and where only a
single consultant has such work expertise. The fixed budget selec-
tion method is suitable for projects that have well-defined terms of
reference and where the project budget is fixed. Nonetheless, there
is a move for clients to adopt a qualification-based selection system
for consultant selection (ASCE 2012).
According to FIDIC procurement procedures guide, the differ-
ence between design and supervision consultants is in the services
they provide (FIDIC 2011a). When owners engage a design firm to
design a project, they want to convert their ideas about the project
into drawings with the help of professional experience and
knowledge, so that the construction company can execute the
project. The scope of the supervision consultants includes construc-
tion supervision, project and program management, and quality
management (FIDIC 2011a). In construction projects, design
consultants are engaged to undertake the design or construction
supervision. Principles to evaluate quality encompass the consul-
tant’s relevant experience, the qualifications of key personals,
and the method proposed (World Bank 2010).
Considering the vital role of consultants and to incorporate
transparency, the Pakistan Engineering Council (PEC) issued
Standard procedures for pre-qualification of consultants (PEC
2009b). Additionally, PEC issued Standard procedures for evalu-
ation of proposals for procurement of engineering services (PEC
2009a). Al-Reshaid and Kartam (2005) reveal that consultants’ du-
ties are very important from beginning to completion of the project.
During the postconstruction phase, they are required to settle any
outstanding claims and to draw up a list of defects (ASCE 1995).
Researchers have discussed the consultant’s performance evalu-
ation to improve the transparency of engineering consultants
(Ng and Chow 2004). Pellicer (2005) proposed the cost-control
methodology for consulting engineering companies, which is based
on considering the production as a function of time. Ling (2004)
revealed that employers look beyond fees to select consultants bear-
ing in mind that the fee is not a cost-significant item compared to
the overall development cost of projects. It is unusual for clients to
demand more services for lower fees (Kometa et al. 1996). Sturts
and Griffis (2005) revealed that the selection of consultants is based
on quality, availability, reputation, resume, and references, and it
may or may not include price. On account of the sophisticated
and dynamic nature of civil engineering projects, a vital decision
has to be made by a client to determine who is to perform the design
and supervision services for their project. Owing to this, the current
study poses a very interesting question that has not been thoroughly
addressed in the literature.
Methodology
This study reports results of the questionnaire survey and inter-
views conducted in the construction industry of Pakistan. A rigor-
ous study is conducted to assimilate the relevant literature
(e.g., Oppenheim 1992; Yin 1984) in understanding the research
domain. Based on the literature review, a survey questionnaire is
designed to collect data. A checklist format is used for the develop-
ment of the questionnaire. The checklist questions are specially de-
signed for a group of respondents who have accurate information
J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr.
 and can answer the questions with a high degree of certainty
(Naoum 2007). The designed questionnaire consists of 42 ques-
tions and comprises five sections outlining project phases, includ-
ing project initiating phase, project planning and design phase,
project execution phase, project monitoring and control phase,
and project closing phase. Each question has three categories,
i.e., merit, demerit, and not sure. Respondents have to choose only
one category out of the three.
A pilot study surveyed experts in the industry before finalizing
the questionnaire. For this purpose, 12 questionnaires were
presented to experts from universities (3), clients (3), consultants
(3), and contractors (3), followed by interviews. The questionnaire
is further modified by the feedback from the pilot survey to adopt it
for the construction industry. A cover letter is attached to the
questionnaire for each respondent in order to relay objectives of
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by SDL Portal on 10/12/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
the survey. A final questionnaire is distributed for their responses
to engineers and architects who used to work with firms registered
with the PEC (Pakistan Engineering Council) (PEC 2013).
According to the 40,000 firms registered with PEC, Dillman
(2000) reported that a sample size of 61 is enough with
10%
sampling error and 95% confidence level. The judgmental sam-
pling method is used and the questionnaire was sent to 175 top
registered firms. Out of the 175 questionnaires sent out, 98 valid
responses were analyzed, representing a response rate of 56%.
Owen and Jones (1994) reveal that a response rate of 20% is
considered satisfactory. Black et al. (2000) report that good
response rate is 30% in construction.
From the 98 valid responses, the client response rate is 28.6%,
that of consultants 40.8%, that for contractors 25.5%, and that
for academics 5.1%. Approximately 46% have over 10 years of
experience, 65.3% of the respondents belong to a private organi-
zation, and 52% of the respondents have a a master’s degree,
whereas 42.9% of the respondents have a bachelor’s degree. Of
the organizations, 38.8% respondents’ organizations employ more
than 500 employees and most of respondents are used to working
on buildings and infrastructure projects. For the cost of the projects,
63.3% organizations have undertaken projects costing more than
500 million rupees (US$1.00 ¼ 99.5 rupees).
Twelve interviews were conducted with the CEO of the
companies who have filled in the questionnaire, and their responses
analyzed. These persons have accumulated extensive working
experience and provide valuable information to the researcher.
The duration of each interview is around 1 h. A saturation point is
felt to be reached when no new information is gathered and efforts
are diverted towards analysis. This study uses the analytical
descriptive method. The collected data are analyzed using the
Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS-19) through an
analysis explained by Pallant (2007). A 0.05% level of significance
presents a statistically significant relationship in the data.
Results and Analysis
Ranking of Merits
The results show that 61% of respondents see merits or advantages
in appointing the same design consultant as supervision consultant,
28% see demerits or disadvantages, and 11% provided a not-sure
response (Fig. 1). The results clearly indicate that merits are double
that of demerits when the same design consultant is appointed
as supervision consultant. Overall, 89% respondents are well
conversant with the involvement of designer and supervision
consultant in the construction industry.
© ASCE 04516005-3
J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr., 2016, 8(4): 04516005
Percentage of respondents
Merit Demerit Not Sure
Category of response
Fig. 1. Responses indicating whether or not to include a designer as
construction supervisor
Responses show that out of 42 questions asked from the
respondents, 31 were seen as having merits and 11 as having
demerits. The results indicate that by appointing the same design
consultant as the supervision consultant, merits are more than
double to that of demerits. The overall responses of respondents
concerning merits were then ranked. The responses with higher
percentage are ranked as 1. The frequency (percentage) of a merit
response to the question “by appointing the same design consultant
as the supervision consultant, there shall be comfortable co-
ordination and communication between the designer and the
supervision team” is 90.8% and this factor ranks first (Table 1).
This indicates that 90.8% of the respondents rank this issue as
the top merit out of the 42 factors. The frequency of the option
“by appointing the same design consultants as the supervision
consultant, consultants become fully conversant with the project
background right from the initial phase of the project” is 87.8%
and this factor ranks second. All 42 factors are ranked according
to the frequency in term of merit as presented in Table 1.
Ranking of Demerits
Overall response of the respondents concerning demerits is ranked.
The frequency of demerit responses to the question “by appointing
the same design consultant as the supervision consultant, domina-
tion in the consultant’s decision may increase” is 68.4% and this
ranks at the top (68.4%) out of the 42 factors. The frequency for
the question “by appointing the same design consultants as the
supervision consultant, client can be kept in dark by the consultant
concerning quality and defects in the project” is 67.3% and this
ranks in second position. Similarly, all the factors are ranked in
terms of demerit frequency (Table 1).
Ranking of Not Sure Responses
Overall response of the respondents concerning not sure category is
ranked. The frequency for the question “by appointing the same
design consultant as the supervision consultant, consultant-
contractor interaction can be considered closely related to protect
their rights by the client” is 20.4%, and this ranks at the top out of
the 42 factors. The not sure response frequency for the question
“by appointing the same design consultants as the supervision
consultant, consultancy fee or charges for the consultant can be
reduced” is 19.4% and this ranks in second position. All the 42
factors are ranked according to their frequency in terms of not sure
responses in Table 1.
J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr.
 Table 1. Overall Ranking of Merit, Demerit, and Not Sure Responses
Merit Demerits Not sure
By appointing the same design consultant as the supervision consultant Percentage Rank Percentage Rank Percentage Rank
There shall be comfortable coordination and communication between the 90.8 1 8.2 40 1.0 42
designer and the supervision team
Consultants become fully conversant with the project background right 87.8 2 10.2 38 2.0 41
from the initial phase of the project
Project construction can be effectively carried out within the scope 86.7 3 8.2 41 5.1 37
Project scope can be managed well 85.7 4 6.1 42 8.2 29
Approval process requires less time for construction methods, materials 83.7 5 10.2 39 6.1 35
and for shop drawings
More realistic work-breakdown structures (WBS) can be developed 79.6 6 16.3 26 4.1 39
Quick decisions are possible during construction execution by eliminating 79.6 7 13.3 32 7.1 33
lengthy processes
Stakeholder’s involvement in the project can be well identified at the initial stage 78.6 8 14.3 28 7.1 34
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by SDL Portal on 10/12/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Sequencing of activities and resource estimation can be done more appropriately 77.6 9 14.3 29 8.1 32
Consultant will not put blames on each other and the designer 76.5 10 14.3 30 9.2 26
Construction conflicts can be minimized 76.5 11 12.3 35 11.2 21
Correspondence between the designer and the supervision consultant will be easy 75.5 12 15.3 27 9.2 27
Comprehensive scope and parameters can be developed for the participants 74.5 13 17.3 25 8.2 30
Practical construction schedule of the project can be developed in an effective way 74.5 14 12.2 36 13.3 14
Buildability or constructability from the design can be well adopted 73.5 15 14.3 31 12.2 19
Contractor’s claims may be reduced due to the input of both consultants in the 73.4 16 13.3 33 13.3 15
planning phase as well as in the design phase
Smooth and efficient progress monitoring of the project can be done 72.4 17 18.4 23 9.2 28
There may be quick response to the Request for Information (RFI) raised 71.4 18 13.3 34 15.3 10
by the contractor
Consultancy fee or charges for the consultant can be reduced 69.4 19 11.2 37 19.4 2
There is better interpretation for the contract terminology and documents 66.3 20 20.4 21 13.3 16
Possible improvements in design can increase 65.3 21 24.5 15 10.2 24
Estimate of project duration and costs of the project can be assessed more effectively 65.3 22 17.4 24 17.3 6
This arrangement can facilitate the acceptance of works and to obtain the 64.3 23 24.5 16 11.2 22
certificate of acceptance from the client
Ambiguities in the contract documents can be minimized 63.3 24 25.5 14 11.2 23
There shall be more realistic progress monitoring and follow-up 62.2 25 24.5 17 13.3 17
Effective documentation of the lessons learned can be prepared and shared 61.2 26 21.5 20 17.3 7
among the contracting parties
Unnecessary variations or change orders can be minimized 61.2 27 20.4 22 18.4 4
Realistic feasibility reports can be prepared for the owner 59.2 28 26.5 13 14.3 12
Contractor’s resource compatibility with the design changes is given preference 58.2 29 22.4 19 19.4 3
during the construction phase
Project can become more cost efficient 57.1 30 24.5 18 18.4 5
Risks and hazards can be identified more efficiently 56.1 31 27.6 12 16.3 9
Supervision may be possible with comparatively fewer staff 37.7 32 54.1 8 8.2 31
Client’s confidence to cancel the contract with the consultant may reduce 35.7 33 51.0 11 13.3 18
Defiance of the consultant is camouflaged 30.6 34 52.1 10 17.3 8
Client can be kept in dark by the consultants concerning quality and 28.6 35 67.3 2 4.1 40
defects in the project
Both the designer and the consultants may try to hide design discrepancies 28.6 36 65.3 3 6.1 36
during the construction phase
It shall be difficult to maintain independence and the final report or review 27.6 37 62.2 4 10.2 25
of the project may be biased
The client is not taken into confidence in communication by the designer and the 27.6 38 60.2 5 12.2 20
supervision team on project matters
Domination in the consultant’s decision may increase 26.5 39 68.4 1 5.1 38
Performance evaluation and vetting out of the two consultants may 26.5 40 59.2 6 14.3 13
become difficult for client
The consultant’s undue supports to the contractor may lead to low 26.5 41 58.2 7 15.3 11
quality and corruption
Consultant–contractor interaction can be considered closely related to 26.5 42 53.1 9 20.4 1
protect their rights by the client

Stakeholders Ranking
The results indicate that stakeholders strongly support “appointing
the same design consultant as the supervision consultant.” The
clients indicate that “by appointing the same design consultant
as the supervision consultant” merits are 62.8%, demerit 26.7%,
and not-sure responses are 10.5%. The responses indicate that
63.3% see merits “by appointing the same design consultant as
the supervision consultant,” 27.8% see demerits, and 8.9%
are not sure. In response to the question “by appointing the same
design consultant as the supervision consultant,” 54.5% see merits,

© ASCE 04516005-4 J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr.

J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr., 2016, 8(4): 04516005

 Merit
Percent of stakeholder response
Owner/Client Consultants Contractor
Stakeholders
Fig. 2. Stakeholders strongly support appointing the same design
consultant as supervisor consultants
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by SDL Portal on 10/12/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
30.2% see demerits, and 15.3% are not sure. Regarding “appointing
the same design consultant as the supervision consultant,” 60.9% of
respondents see merits, 24.3% see demerits, and n 14.8% are not
sure (Fig. 2). The results indicate that the merits are more than the
double to that of the demerits for the question of “appointing
the same design consultant as the supervision consultant” in the
construction industry.
The ratio of merit and demerit for clients is 2.35, for consultants,
it is 2.27, for contractors, it is 1.80, and for academics and research-
ers, it is 2.51. Although, the contractors have a slightly lower ratio;
nonetheless, all stakeholders have mostly similar perceptions. A
total of 84.0% of respondents see merits in “having the same design
consultant as the supervision consultant” at the project initiation
phase, and they rank this phase at the top. For the question “by
having the same design consultant as the supervision consultant”
at project planning & design phase, 65.6% see merits, and they rank
this phase second. Respondents rank the execution phase; the
monitoring and control phase; and closing phase in third, fourth,
and fifth place, respectively (Fig. 3).
Discussion
In construction, decisions affecting as much as 80% of the project
cost are taken when the design is developed (Pilcher 1994). Some
owners appoint consultants on a competitive basis without due
deliberation regarding the suitability and performance of their
Fig. 3. Respondents strongly support appointing the same design
consultant as supervisor consultants in the various project phases
© ASCE
J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr., 2016, 8(4): 04516005
Demerit Not Sure
consultants (Hamilton 2001). A design consultant should be able
to suggest state-of-the-art and alternative designs to improve the
quality and reduce cost, time, and risk (Ullman 2001). A supervi-
sion consultant deals with all opinions and complaints of the
contractor in an impartial manner and provides necessary support
to the client (Ng and Chow 2004).
Results of this study clearly indicate that it is appropriate to ap-
point the same design consultant as the supervision consultant in
the construction industry. The findings indicate that the majority
Academia/Researcher of the respondents are well conversant with the involvement of
consultants in a project. Results indicate that merits are more than
double than of demerits for “appointing the same design consultant
as the supervision consultant,” and respondents further indicate that
the same firm handling design and construction is beneficial to
clients when it concentrates duty and liability of the design and
supervision of construction in the same organization. Interviews
conducted support these results; for example, a CEO and senior
structural engineer reported that it is highly important for the design
consultant to supervise construction because of the intricacies of
design. The project manager of the DHA Valley project in Islama-
bad revealed that it is essential to appoint the design company as
construction supervision consultant on their geotechnical related
project where uncertainty in the soil conditions is significant.
The results of this work are in line with Bunni (2005), who reveals
that design and supervision service are to be simultaneously pro-
vided by one consulting engineer. In this research, the clients score
is 62.7%, consultants 63.2%, contractors 54.5%, and academics
61.0%, all of which indicates that the stakeholders have high per-
ceptions regarding “appointing the same design consultant as the
supervision consultant” on construction projects.
The response of the respondents for merits at project initiation
phase is 84.0%; 65.6% at the project planning and design phase;
56.4% at the project execution phase; 55.3% at the monitoring and
control phase; and 51.0% at the project closing phase. These results
indicate that respondents have high perceptions for appointing the
same design consultant as the supervision consultant during all
phases of projects. The results show that the trend is declining from
the project initiation phase towards the project closing phase
(Fig. 3). This indicates that it is more beneficial to have the same
design consultant as the supervision consultant at the project
initiation phase as compared to the project closing stage.
For many projects (e.g., Centauras Islamabad, and New
Islamabad Airport), the designers hired an outside reviewer to
ensure design issues were addressed without any failure modes
and to safeguard that the client was not kept in dark. This work
emphasizes that it is highly beneficial to have a third party for
proof engineering to conduct rigorous and truly independent
internal review. Interview results reveal that there is no harm
in appointing a third party for the design vetting, irrespective
of whether the same design consultant is appointed as the super-
vision consultant or vice versa. In the United States, the Hyatt
Regency walkways collapse in Kansas City on July 17, 1981,
is an example of inadequate internal review. The incident could
have been avoided by having a neutral third party conduct proof
engineering and by employing the same firm to handle both
design and construction. Proof engineering by an independent
party coupled with the same firm handling the design and con-
struction services ensures responsibility and liability rests in
the same company. The authors postulate that design vetting
by a neutral and independent designer preferably from a
geographically different office can ensure that design errors
are detected and corrected in an adequate manner and according
to the specifications, accepted standards and codes.
04516005-5 J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr.
 Constraints and Limitations
This work addresses an interesting topic that has not been widely
considered in the literature. Based on the number of constraints and
limitations, there are some useful aspects beyond the scope of the
present research that will now be emphasized. The survey is done in
one country where almost all the public-sector projects are executed
using a design-bid-build delivery method. Interviews conducted re-
veal that almost all the projects are based on unit-price contracts
and the design-bid-build delivery method. This indicates that the
study has its limitations that caution against generalizing widely
from its results. Further studies may be conducted, for example,
on stipulated-sum contracts and design-build delivery methods.
Nonetheless, the methodology used might be valuable for leading
similar inquiries in other cultures, so that findings can be associated
and wider inferences can be attained.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by SDL Portal on 10/12/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Summary
This work investigates whether design work and the supervision
work should be performed by a single consulting firm having the
required qualification and capacity. The interviewed clients, consul-
tants, contractors, and researchers strongly support appointing the
same design consultant as the supervision consultant in the construc-
tion industry. Stakeholders perceive that it is quite appropriate to have
the same design consultant as the supervision consultant at all project
phases. Results show that by appointing the same design consultant
as the supervision consultant, merits are greater at the project initia-
tion phase as compared to the project closing phase. By appointing
the same design consultant as the supervision consultant, the strong-
est merit or advantage is the ease of coordination and communication
between the designer and the supervision team. By appointing the
same design consultant as the supervision consultant, the strongest
disadvantage or demerit is the domination of one party in the
consultant’s decision-making. Results indicate that it is not appropri-
ate to employ different professionals on a project for these two serv-
ices when close coordination is generally required for the successful
completion of the project.
References
Works Cited
ADB (Asian Development Bank). (2008). Consulting services operations
manual, Manila, Philippines.
ADB (Asian Development Bank). (2013). Guidelines on the use of consul-
tants by ADB and its borrowers, Manila, Philippines.
Al-Reshaid, K., and Kartam, N. (2005). “Design-build pre-qualification
and tendering approach for public projects.” Int. J. Project Manage.,
23(4), 309–320.
ASCE. (1995). “Consulting engineering: A guide for the engagement of
engineering services.” New York.
ASCE. (2012). “How to select and work effectively with consulting engi-
neers: Getting the best project.” Reston, VA.
Black, C., Akintoye, A., and Fitzgerald, E. (2000). “An analysis of success
factors and benefits of partnering in construction.” Int. J. Proj. Manage.,
18(6), 423–434.
Bunni, N. (2005). The FIDIC forms of contract, 3rd Ed., Wiley, Oxford,
U.K.
Choudhry, R. M., Aslam, M. A., Hinze, J. W., and Arain, F. M. (2014).
“Cost and schedule risk analysis of bridge construction in Pakistan:
Establishing risk guidelines.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 40(7), 20–29.
Choudhry, R. M., and Iqbal, K. (2013). “Identification of risk management
system in construction industry in Pakistan.” J. Manage. Eng., 10.1061/
(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000122, 42–49.
© ASCE 04516005-6
View publication stats J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr., 2016, 8(4): 04516005
Choudhry, R. M., and Raza, M. N. K. (2015). “Study of merits and demerits
of appointing the design consultant as supervision consultant in the
construction industry in Pakistan.” Proc., 7th Int. Civil Engineering
Congress (ICEC-VII), Sustainable Development through Advancement
in Civil Engineering, Institution of Engineers Pakistan, and NED
University of Engineering & Technology, Karachi, Pakistan, 16–21.
Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design
method, 2nd Ed., Wiley, New York.
FIDIC (International Federation of Consulting Engineers). (2004). “Policy
statement on selection, engagement and remuneration of consulting
engineers.” Geneva.
FIDIC (International Federation of Consulting Engineers). (2011a). FIDIC
procurement procedures guide, Geneva.
FIDIC (International Federation of Consulting Engineers). (2011b). Guide-
lines for integrity management in consulting industry, 1st Ed., Geneva.
FIDIC (International Federation of Consulting Engineers). (2011c). Quality
based consultant selection guide, Geneva.
Hamilton, D. (2001). “How long can you go? Price-based bidding in the
consulting industry.” Engineering Dimensions, 22(2), 27–28.
Kometa, S. T., Olomolaiye, P. O., and Harris, F. C. (1996). “A review of
client-generated risk to project consultants.” Int. J. Project Manage.,
14(5), 273–279.
Ling, F. Y. Y. (2004). “Consultancy fees: Dichotomy between A/E’s need to
maximize profit and employers’ need to minimize cost.” J. Prof. Issues
Eng. Edu. Pract., 130(2), 120–123.
MOF (Ministry of Finance). (2014). “Pakistan Economic Survey 2013–
2014.” Government of Pakistan, Islamabad, Pakistan.
Naoum, S. G. (2007). Dissertation research and writing for construction
students, Butterworth-Heinemann, London.
Ng, S. T., and Chow, L. (2004). “Framework for evaluating the performance
of engineering consultants.” J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Prac., 10.1061/
(ASCE)1052-3928(2004)130:4(280), 280–288.
Oppenheim, A. N. (1992). Questionnaire design, interviewing and attitude
measurement, Pinter Publishers, London.
Owen, R., and Jones, R. (1994). Statistics, Pitman, London.
Pallant, J. (2007). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data
analysis SPSS for windows, 3rd Ed., Allen & Unwin, NSW, Australia.
PEC (Pakistan Engineering Council). (2009a). Standard procedure for
evaluation of proposals for procurement of engineering services,
Islamabad, Pakistan.
PEC (Pakistan Engineering Council). (2009b). Standard procedure for
pre-qualification of consultants, Islamabad, Pakistan.
PEC (Pakistan Engineering Council). (2013). “Contractors/firms.” 〈http://
www.pec.org.pk/〉 (Jan. 8, 2013).
Pellicer, E. (2005). “Cost control in consulting engineering firms.” J. Man-
age. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0742-597X(2005)21:4(189), 189–192.
Pilcher, R. (1994). Project cost control in construction, Blackwell Science,
Oxford, U.K.
PPRA (Public Procurement Regulatory Authority). (2010). Procurement of
consultancy services regulations, Islamabad, Pakistan.
PPRA (Public Procurement Regulatory Authority). (2011). Pakistan
procurement code, 3rd Ed., Islamabad, Pakistan.
SPSS version 19 [Computer software]. IBM, Armonk, NY.
Sturts, C. S., and Griffis, F. H. (2005). “Addressing pricing: Value bidding
for engineers and consultants.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 131(6),
621–630.
Ullman, D. G. (2001). “Robust decision-making for engineering design.”
J. Eng. Design, 12(1), 3–13.
World Bank. (2010). Guidelines: Selection and employment of consultants
by World Bank borrowers, Washington, DC.
WPR (World Population Review). (2015). “Pakistan population 2015.”
〈http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/pakistan-population/〉
(Sep. 12, 2015).
Yi, B., and Xu, W. (2011). “Primary study on the combination mode of
design and supervision in the construction project consulting service
in China.” J. Politics Law, 4(2), 61–66.
Yin, R. K. (1984). Case study research: Design and methods, Sage,
Newbury Park, CA.
J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr.