QBS vs Best-Value Procurement in Engineering Projects
This paper examines two major procurement methods used in engineering and construction: Qualifications-Based Selection (QBS) and Best-Value (BV) procurement. Drawing on Hegarty's (2011) guide on engineering proposals, Harrison's (2015) discussion of procurement pitfalls, and Alleman et al.'s (2017) comparative study of CM-GC highway projects, the paper outlines the strengths and limitations of each approach. The author argues that QBS, with its emphasis on contractor qualifications and long-term project success, is the more effective method for complex projects — particularly those involving significant design uncertainty — where expertise matters more than upfront pricing.
- Introduction: Overview of QBS vs BV procurement methods
- Qualifications-Based Selection (QBS): QBS prioritizes expertise over price for project success
- Best-Value (BV) Procurement: BV balances cost and qualifications but carries risks
- Comparative Analysis and Position: Author favors QBS for complex engineering projects
- Conclusion: QBS better suited than BV for contractor selection
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper synthesizes three distinct sources — a practitioner guide, a trade article, and a peer-reviewed empirical study — to build a well-rounded argument rather than relying on a single perspective.
- It acknowledges a counterargument honestly: Alleman et al. found no statistically significant performance difference between QBS and BV, yet the author still reasons clearly to a QBS preference based on context (project complexity, design completion level).
- The concluding position takes a direct, defensible stance — including addressing the fairness question for newer contractors — which gives the paper intellectual honesty and voice.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates source triangulation: it uses one source that strongly favors QBS (Hegarty), one that raises practical procurement dangers (Harrison), and one empirical comparative study (Alleman et al.) that is more neutral. By working across all three, the author shows how to build an argument that engages with complexity rather than cherry-picking supportive evidence.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with a framing introduction, then devotes a dedicated section to each procurement method before moving to a personal position section and a synthesizing conclusion. This method-by-method structure makes comparisons easy to follow and mirrors the organizational logic of a policy analysis brief — appropriate for an engineering management or public procurement course.
Introduction
The choice between Qualifications-Based Selection (QBS) and Best-Value (BV) procurement methods is an important one when considering project cost and contractor suitability. Both processes are designed to help secure the most appropriate contractor, but they do so through different approaches. Drawing on Hegarty's (2011) guide on developing engineering proposals, Harrison's (2015) discussion of procurement pitfalls, and Alleman et al.'s (2017) comparative study on QBS and BV procurement, this paper examines both methods and argues that QBS is the superior approach.
Qualifications-Based Selection (QBS)
QBS is a procurement process in which the focus is placed on the qualifications, expertise, and past performance of bidders rather than on price. Hegarty (2011) advocates for QBS as the preferred approach because it prioritizes long-term project success by identifying the most qualified professionals for the job. Price-focused decisions can lead to inferior outcomes; for example, cutting corners during the planning phase can later produce problems that require significantly more capital to resolve, ultimately inflating overall project costs. Hegarty's (2011) argument against price-based selection stems from the idea that it produces a kind of "hit-and-run" engineering, where immediate savings obscure longer-term expenses. Similarly, Harrison (2015) argues for QBS on the grounds that it offers better fraud protection — bidders must demonstrate their worth — and that it simplifies the selection process, since demonstrated experience speaks for itself and streamlines evaluation.
In contrast to Hegarty's clear preference for QBS, Alleman et al. (2017) approach the subject empirically by examining 29 Construction Manager–General Contractor (CM-GC) highway projects. They find no statistically significant difference in performance outcomes between QBS and BV. However, they emphasize that QBS is more commonly used in complex projects with a low level of design completion at the time of procurement, precisely because it focuses on contractor qualifications rather than price estimates. Alleman et al. (2017) also note that agencies with greater experience in CM-GC projects tend to prefer QBS, as it supports more effective risk management during the pre-construction phase.
Best-Value (BV) Procurement
Best-Value procurement integrates both qualifications and pricing in an attempt to balance cost efficiency with expertise. However, Harrison (2015) highlights the dangers of placing too much emphasis on price. Rather than issuing a request for proposal — which can be costly to prepare — Harrison (2015) recommends a request for qualifications. This approach helps screen out unqualified bidders and reduces the administrative cost of writing detailed proposals. At the same time, it may disadvantage newer contractors who lack an established track record, raising questions of fairness in the bidding process.
Alleman et al. (2017) point out that one of BV's primary advantages is that it provides upfront pricing. However, initial cost estimates in BV procurement are not always reliable. A significant challenge with BV is that it can accommodate incomplete designs, leading decision-makers to base pricing on assumptions rather than confirmed scope — a vulnerability that can contribute to cost overruns later in a project.
Conclusion
Overall, Hegarty (2011) and Alleman et al. (2017) both identify the risks associated with price-driven decisions in engineering projects, with Hegarty providing practical guidance on how to avoid the pitfalls of poorly designed RFP/Q processes. Although BV procurement may appear attractive due to the promise of cost savings, its potential for cost overruns and its limited capacity to foster innovation make it a less desirable option for projects that require meaningful contractor input during the design phase. The emphasis on qualifications that characterizes QBS — as noted by Harrison (2015) — helps agencies select contractors based on demonstrated expertise, which should be the primary criterion. Is this approach fair to newer market entrants? Perhaps not entirely. However, it may be reasonable to expect that contractors build their experience at lower levels before competing for government contracts of significant complexity and public consequence.
References
Alleman, D., Antoine, A., Gransberg, D. D., & Molenaar, K. R. (2017). A comparison of qualifications-based selection and best-value procurement for Construction Manager–General Contractor highway construction. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2630, 59–67. doi:10.3141/2630-08
Hegarty, J. R. (2011). How to develop and evaluate an engineering services proposal. Prein & Newhof.
Harrison, C. (2015). How bad can it be? Canadian Consulting Engineer. Retrieved from https://www.canadianconsultingengineer.com/features/how-bad-can-it-be/
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.