Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Emergy based procurement framework to improve sustainability performance in construction. Ruparathna, Rajeev Jayanga 2013

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
24-ubc_2013_fall_Ruparathna_Rajeev.pdf [ 3.76MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 24-1.0074139.json
JSON-LD: 24-1.0074139-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 24-1.0074139-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 24-1.0074139-rdf.json
Turtle: 24-1.0074139-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 24-1.0074139-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 24-1.0074139-source.json
Full Text
24-1.0074139-fulltext.txt
Citation
24-1.0074139.ris

Full Text

  EMERGY BASED PROCUREMENT FRAMEWORK TO IMPROVE SUSTAINABILITY PERFORMANCE IN CONSTRUCTION  by  Rajeev Jayanga Ruparathna BSc (Eng), The University of Moratuwa, 2008  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF   MASTER OF APPLIED SCIENCE in THE COLLEGE OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Civil Engineering)   THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Okanagan) August 2013   ? Rajeev Jayanga Ruparathna, 2013 ii  Abstract In the recent past, sustainable development has been a topic of focus as it affects and is affected by the construction industry. Procurement is identified as a main driver in making construction practices more sustainable. However according to the published literature, traditional procurement practices have widely been criticized for their disregard of the environment and society. Currently there is a lack of awareness and lack of resources available for sustainable procurement in the construction industry, especially in Canada. This study conducts an assessment of sustainable procurement in the Canadian construction industry. In addition, much needed resources for sustainable procurement are expected to be developed through this study.   Based on the industry survey involving perspectives of construction managers and project owners across Canada, it was concluded that sustainable procurement is rarely being used in the Canadian construction industry. The empirical study indicated that a limited number of sustainability initiatives are used in construction procurement. Furthermore respondents pointed to lack of funding as the main challenge for sustainable procurement.  An in-depth review was conducted on sustainable procurement and current guides available for sustainable procurement. This information was used to develop a conceptual framework for sustainable procurement in construction projects. The framework is expected to support project owners and project managers in implementing sustainable procurement. A design and build proposal evaluation tool (Em-procure) was developed that considers the triple bottom line (TBL) of sustainability. Em-procure tool uses emergy in converting TBL of sustainability into a bid evaluation. Interviews with industry experts confirmed that the Em-procure tool and procurement framework is suitable for industrial use.   iii  Preface A version of Chapter 2 has been submitted to the Journal of Management in Engineering as a journal article titled ?Review of the review on the evolution of construction procurement?. Versions of chapters 2, 4, and 5 have been combined and submitted to the International Journal of Project Management  as an article titled ?Sustainable procurement in Canadian construction industry: Current status?. Versions of chapters 2, 4, and 6 have been published in CSCE 2013, titled ?Sustainable procurement in Canadian construction industry: An industry review?. Journal article titled ?Procurement support sustainable development in construction industry? (part of Chapter 2 and Chapter 7) are currently in progress. The above papers were written by Rajeev Ruparathna under the supervision of Dr. Kasun Hewage. This project was approved by NSERC for a collaborative research grant with Aplin and Martin Consultants Limited. In addition the project was approved by Behavioral Research Ethics Board Okanagan under the minimal risk amendment (UBC BREB NUMBER: H12-02281).    iv  Table of Contents  Abstract.......................................................................................................................................... ii Preface ???????????????????????????....??????.. iii Table of Contents ......................................................................................................................... iv List of Tables .............................................................................................................................. xiii List of Figures .............................................................................................................................. xv List of Equations ....................................................................................................................... xvii Abbreviations ........................................................................................................................... xviii Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................... xix Chapter 1 : Introduction ............................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Background ...................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Problem Statement ........................................................................................................... 3 1.3 Research Objectives and Approach.................................................................................. 4 1.4 Thesis Organization.......................................................................................................... 6 Chapter 2 : Literature Review ................................................................................................... 7 2.1 Canadian Construction Industry ....................................................................................... 7 2.2 Sustainable Development ................................................................................................. 8 2.2.1 History of sustainable development .......................................................................... 9 2.2.2 Sustainable development on a global scale. ............................................................ 11 2.2.3 Sustainable development initiatives by the government of Canada ....................... 11 2.2.4 Corporate social responsibility ............................................................................... 12 2.3 Construction Industry?s Effect on Sustainable Development ........................................ 12 2.3.1 Environmental effect of Canadian construction sector ........................................... 14  v  2.3.2 Social impact of Canadian construction sector ....................................................... 14 2.3.3 Economic impact of Canadian construction sector ................................................. 15 2.4 Sustainable Construction ................................................................................................ 16 2.4.1 Sustainable buildings .............................................................................................. 18 2.4.2 Costs of sustainable construction ............................................................................ 19 2.4.3 Benefits of sustainable construction ....................................................................... 20 2.5 Review of Construction Procurement Practices ............................................................. 20 2.5.1 Analysis of current construction procurement practices ......................................... 25 2.5.2 Construction procurement processes ...................................................................... 26 2.6 Construction procurement methods ............................................................................... 27 2.6.1 Fixed price contracting (Lump sum contracting).................................................... 29 2.6.2 Design and construct ............................................................................................... 29 2.6.3 Construction management (CM)............................................................................. 31 2.6.4 On call contracting .................................................................................................. 32 2.6.5 Guaranteed maximum price .................................................................................... 32 2.6.6 Full cost reimbursable ............................................................................................. 33 2.6.7 Total package options ............................................................................................. 33 2.6.8 Partnering ................................................................................................................ 34 2.6.9 Public private partnerships (P3) .............................................................................. 34 2.6.10 Performance based contracting ............................................................................... 36 2.6.11 Force account .......................................................................................................... 36 2.6.12 Procurement policies and procedures ..................................................................... 38 2.6.13 Issues with traditional procurement practices ......................................................... 40 2.6.13.1 Poor basis for selection and evaluation of bidders ...................................................... 40  vi  2.6.13.2 Obsession over profits ................................................................................................. 41 2.6.13.3 Adversarial relationships within the project team ....................................................... 42 2.6.13.4 Disdain for sustainability ............................................................................................ 42 2.6.13.5 Technical issues of procurement process .................................................................... 42 2.7 Bid Evaluation Methods ................................................................................................. 43 2.7.1 By awarding bonus points ....................................................................................... 43 2.7.2 Developing an evaluation matrix ............................................................................ 43 2.7.3 Using the carbon measurement ............................................................................... 43 2.7.4 Risk and opportunity analysis ................................................................................. 44 2.7.5 Qualitative judgments ............................................................................................. 44 2.7.6 Value for money ..................................................................................................... 44 2.8 Future trends in procurement ......................................................................................... 44 2.9 Sustainable Procurement ................................................................................................ 48 2.9.1 Benefits of sustainable procurement ....................................................................... 52 2.9.1.1 Environmental benefits ................................................................................................... 52 2.9.1.2 Social benefits ................................................................................................................. 52 2.9.1.3 Economic benefits ........................................................................................................... 53 2.9.1.4 Other benefits .................................................................................................................. 53 2.9.2 Challenges for sustainable procurement ................................................................. 53 2.10 Available Sustainable Procurement Guides ............................................................... 54 2.10.1 United Nations: Buying for a better world ............................................................. 54 2.10.2 ICLEI : Procura plus ............................................................................................... 54 2.10.3 Canada Policy on Green Procurement .................................................................... 55 2.10.4 BS 8903: Principles and framework for procuring sustainable .............................. 56  vii  2.10.5 Buying green ........................................................................................................... 56 2.10.6 Buying Social .......................................................................................................... 56 2.11 Environmental and Social Labels ............................................................................... 59 2.12 Emergy Analysis......................................................................................................... 60 Chapter 3 : Methodology .......................................................................................................... 62 3.1 Research Deliverables .................................................................................................... 63 3.2 Method for Literature Review ........................................................................................ 63 3.2.1 Document analysis .................................................................................................. 64 3.2.2 Review of contemporary construction procurement ............................................... 64 3.2.3 Review of sustainable development and effect of construction industry on it. ...... 65 3.2.4 Review of sustainable procurement ........................................................................ 65 3.3 Method to Review Sustainable Procurement in Canadian Construction Industry ......... 65 3.3.1 Qualitative research ................................................................................................ 66 3.3.2 Case studies ............................................................................................................. 67 3.3.2.1 Obtaining the procurement documents ........................................................................... 68 3.3.3 Semi structured interviews ...................................................................................... 70 3.3.4 Quantitative research .............................................................................................. 72 3.3.5 Questionnaire surveys ............................................................................................. 73 3.3.5.1 Sample size determination .............................................................................................. 73 3.3.5.2 Determining the power .................................................................................................... 75 3.3.5.3 Designing the questionnaire ............................................................................................ 75 3.3.6 Analysis of research tools selected. ........................................................................ 78 3.3.7 Triangulation ........................................................................................................... 78 3.4 Identifying Challenges and Benefits of Sustainable Procurement ................................. 79  viii  3.4.1 SPSS ........................................................................................................................ 79 3.4.2 Non parametric tests ............................................................................................... 79 3.5 Establishing Validity and Reliability ............................................................................. 81 3.5.1 Measures to establish validity and reliability: Objective 3 ..................................... 82 3.5.1.1 Establishing validity ........................................................................................................ 82 3.5.1.2 Establishing reliability .................................................................................................... 84 3.5.2 Measures to establish validity and reliability: Objective 4. .................................... 84 3.5.2.1 Establishing validity ........................................................................................................ 84 3.5.2.2 Establishing reliability .................................................................................................... 85 3.6 Sustainable Procurement Framework............................................................................. 85 3.7 Developing Emergy Based Bid Evaluation Tool ........................................................... 86 3.7.1 Validation of framework and the bid evaluation tool ............................................. 88 Chapter 4 : Sustainable Procurement in the Canadian Construction Industry .................. 89 4.1 Questionnaire Survey ..................................................................................................... 89 4.1.1 Respondents ............................................................................................................ 89 4.1.2 Current procurement practices in respondent organizations ................................... 89 4.1.3 Sustainability initiatives used in construction procurement ................................... 90 4.1.4 Construction project proposal/bid evaluation ......................................................... 92 4.1.5 Industry perception on sustainable procurement .................................................... 93 4.1.6 Drivers for sustainable procurement ....................................................................... 93 4.2 Case Studies ................................................................................................................... 93 4.3 Semi Structured Interviews ............................................................................................ 95 4.4 Triangulation .................................................................................................................. 96 Chapter 5 : Challenges and Benefits of Sustainable Procurement ....................................... 99  ix  5.1 Challenges for Sustainable Procurement........................................................................ 99 5.1.1 Calculation of Bonferroni adjustment ................................................................... 101 5.2 Benefits for Sustainable Procurement .......................................................................... 102 5.3 Interview Feedback on Challenges and Benefits of Sustainable Procurement. ........... 105 Chapter 6 : Sustainable Procurement Framework for Construction Projects.................. 106 6.1 Overview of the Sustainable Procurement Framework................................................ 106 6.2 Organizational Considerations ..................................................................................... 108 6.3 Operational Considerations .......................................................................................... 110 6.4 Procurement process improvements............................................................................. 111 6.4.1 Pre contractual phase ............................................................................................ 111 6.4.1.1 Requirement definition ................................................................................................. 111 6.4.1.2 Plan the procurement process ....................................................................................... 111 6.4.1.3 Pre-tender survey .......................................................................................................... 112 6.4.1.4 Obtaining approvals ...................................................................................................... 113 6.4.1.5 Bid solicitation .............................................................................................................. 113 6.4.2 Contracting phase.................................................................................................. 114 6.4.2.1 Pre bid conference ......................................................................................................... 114 6.4.2.2 Tender evaluation .......................................................................................................... 114 6.4.2.3 Bidder selection............................................................................................................. 115 6.4.2.4 Contracting .................................................................................................................... 115 6.4.3 Construction and contract administration ............................................................. 116 6.4.3.1 Monitor progress, Follow up delivery / issue contract amendments ............................. 116 6.4.4 The post contractual phase .................................................................................... 117 6.4.4.1 Complete audits / Check proofs of delivery  ................................................................. 117  x  6.4.4.2 Ensure completeness and accuracy of file documentation ............................................ 117 6.5 Sustainable Procurement Initiatives and their Applicability ........................................ 118 Chapter 7 : Em-procure Sustainable Procurement Bid Evaluation Tool .......................... 124 7.1 Overview of the Tool ................................................................................................... 124 7.2 Justification for Developing a Bid Evaluation Tool..................................................... 124 7.3 Em-procure Sustainable Procurement Bid Evaluation Tool ........................................ 125 7.3.1 Project background ............................................................................................... 127 7.3.1.1 General project information. ......................................................................................... 127 7.3.1.2 Bidder information. ....................................................................................................... 128 7.3.1.3 Defining  weights for bid evaluation. ............................................................................ 128 7.3.2 Technical evaluation ............................................................................................. 129 7.3.3 Financial Evaluation ............................................................................................. 130 7.3.4 Sustainability evaluation ....................................................................................... 131 7.3.5 The final report ..................................................................................................... 133 7.4 Bid Evaluation Mechanism of the Em-procure Bid Evaluation Tool .......................... 133 7.4.1 Financial evaluation .............................................................................................. 134 7.4.1.1 The formula used for LCC calculations ........................................................................ 134 7.4.1.2 Calculating the operating and disposal costs ................................................................ 135 7.4.2 Environmental evaluation ..................................................................................... 136 7.4.3 Socio-economic Evaluation .................................................................................. 141 7.4.3.1 Building impact on human health ................................................................................. 141 7.5 Final Evaluation ........................................................................................................... 145 7.6 Assumptions Used in developing the Em-procure tool ................................................ 148 7.7 Em-procure sustainable procurement tool.................................................................... 148  xi  7.8 Validation of the Sustainable procurement framework and Em-Procure Sustainable Procurement Tool.................................................................................................................... 149 7.8.1 A discussion of the concepts used in the tool and the framework. ....................... 150 7.8.2 The discussion of the deficiencies of the tool and the framework ........................ 151 7.8.3 The respondents' perception of the tool ................................................................ 151 7.8.4 Feedback on how to promote this tool in the construction industry ..................... 151 7.8.5 Modifications to the tool ....................................................................................... 152 Chapter 8 : Conclusions, Recommendations, Strengths, and Limitations ......................... 153 8.1 Conclusions .................................................................................................................. 153 8.2 Recommendations ........................................................................................................ 155 8.3 Limitations of the Study ............................................................................................... 156 8.4 Research Contributions ................................................................................................ 158 8.5 Recommendations Future Research ............................................................................. 159 References???????????????????????????????..? 160 Appendices??????????????????????????????...?.. 173 Appendix A  : Okanagan research ethics board approval ....................................................... 173 Appendix B  : TCPS 2 research ethics certificate ................................................................... 174 Appendix C  : Recruitment letter ............................................................................................ 175 Appendix D  : Consent form ................................................................................................... 176 Appendix E  : Interview script ................................................................................................ 179 Appendix F  : Questionnaire ................................................................................................... 180 Appendix G : Interview Responses......................................................................................... 185 G.1 : Interview 1 ................................................................................................................. 185  xii  G.2 : Interview 2 ................................................................................................................. 187 G.3 : Interview 3 ................................................................................................................. 188 G.4 : Interview 4 ................................................................................................................. 189 G.5 : Interview 5 ................................................................................................................. 190 G.6 : Interview 6 ................................................................................................................. 191 G.7 : Interview 7 ................................................................................................................. 192 G.8 : Interview 8 ................................................................................................................. 193 G.9 : Interview 9 ................................................................................................................. 194 Appendix H   : Split half reliability test for measures. ........................................................... 195 Appendix I    : Coding the factors challenges for sustainable procurement ........................... 196 Appendix J    : Descriptive statistics of challenges of sustainable procurement .................... 197 Appendix K   : Wilcoxon test results of challenges of sustainable procurement ................... 201 Appendix L   : Coding the factors : benefits of using sustainable procurement ..................... 207 Appendix M  : Descriptive statistics of the benefits of using sustainable procurement ......... 208 Appendix N  : Wilcoxon test results ....................................................................................... 212      xiii  List of Tables Table 2-1  : Impacts of construction industry ............................................................................... 13 Table 2-2  : Definitions for procurement ...................................................................................... 22 Table 2-3  : Summary of differences between procurement options ............................................ 37 Table 2-4  : Standard procurement procedures ............................................................................. 39 Table 2-5  : Percentage of construction contracts used in UK based on value ............................. 45 Table 2-6  : Summery of analysis of sustainable procurement guide documents ......................... 58 Table 3-1  : Procurement documents categorized according to the location  ............................... 69 Table 3-2  : Procurement documents categorized according to the project .................................. 70 Table 3-3  : Analysis of interview script ....................................................................................... 71 Table 3-4  : Interview respondents................................................................................................ 72 Table 4-1  : Interview responses on use of environmental and social criteria for procurement ... 90 Table 4-2  : Environmental sustainability initiatives observed in the questionnaire .................... 91 Table 4-3  : Social sustainability initiatives observed in the questionnaire .................................. 92 Table 4-4  : Sustainability initiatives categorized according to document type. .......................... 94 Table 4-5  : Sustainability initiatives categorized according to the project type. ......................... 95 Table 5-1  : Shapiro-Wilk normality test results (Challenges for sustainable procurement) ........ 99 Table 5-2  : Friedman test results (Challenges for sustainable procurement) ............................. 100 Table 5-3  : Statistics of Friedman test (Challenges for sustainable procurement) .................... 101 Table 5-4  : Shapiro-Wilk normality test results (Benefits for sustainable procurement) .......... 102 Table 5-5  : Friedman test results (Benefits of sustainable procurement) .................................. 103 Table 5-6  : Statistics of Friedman test (Benefits for sustainable procurement) ......................... 104 Table 6-1  : Social sustainability initiatives ................................................................................ 119  xiv  Table 6-2  : Environmental sustainability initiative .................................................................... 121 Table 6-3  : Economic sustainability initiative ........................................................................... 123 Table 7-1  : Electricity prices and landfilling costs in major cities in Canada ........................... 136 Table 7-2  : Average energy prices in Canada ............................................................................ 136 Table 7-3  : Emergy values of common building materials in Canada ....................................... 138 Table 7-4  : Emergy values of recycled material ........................................................................ 139 Table 7-5  : End of life cycle scenarios....................................................................................... 139 Table 7-6  : Emergy transformity values for operational emergy requirement .......................... 140 Table 7-7  : Main electricity generation methods in Canada. ..................................................... 140 Table 7-8  : Human health effect from construction material ..................................................... 143 Table 7-9  : E$ Values for Canadian provinces .......................................................................... 144 Table H-1 : Split half reliability measures???????????.?????????. 195 Table I-1   : Coding the factors challenges for sustainable procurement .................................... 196 Table J-1   : Descriptive statistics of challenges of sustainable procurement ............................. 197 Table K-1  : Wilcoxon test results of challenges of sustainable procurement??????? 201 Table K-2  : Comparison of challenges for sustainable procurement......................................... 206 Table L-1  : Coding the factors: benefits of using sustainable procurement???????.. 207 Table M-1 : Descriptive statistics of the benefits of using sustainable procurement????. 208 Table N-1  : Descriptive statistics of the benefits of using sustainable procurement????. 212 Table N-2  : Comparison of significance: Benefits of sustainable procurement?????? 217     xv  List of Figures Figure 1-1    : Thesis organization .................................................................................................. 6 Figure 2-1    : Triple Bottom Line (TBL) of sustainability ........................................................... 10 Figure 2-2    : Factors affecting the project procurement process ................................................ 24 Figure 2-3    : Conventional procurement options ........................................................................ 25 Figure 2-4    : Activities involved in the procurement process ..................................................... 27 Figure 2-5    : Construction cost continuum for project delivery.................................................. 28 Figure 3-1    : Research methodology outline ............................................................................... 62 Figure 3-2    : Breadth and depth of social research tools ............................................................. 78 Figure 3-3    : Development of sustainable procurement framework ........................................... 86 Figure 3-4    : Energy flow diagram .............................................................................................. 87 Figure 6-1    : Sustainable procurement framework ................................................................... 108 Figure 7-1    : Logo of Em-procure sustainable procurement tool.............................................. 124 Figure 7-2    : Home page of the Em-procure tool ...................................................................... 126 Figure 7-3    : Project information of Em-procure tool ............................................................... 127 Figure 7-4    : Bidder information for Em-procure tool. ............................................................. 128 Figure 7-5    : Assigning weights for bid/proposal evaluation. ................................................... 129 Figure 7-6    : Interface for inserting technical score of proposals. ............................................ 130 Figure 7-7    : Financial evaluation ............................................................................................. 131 Figure 7-8    : Interface for inserting material quantities. ........................................................... 132 Figure 7-9    : Interface for inserting operational energy requirement........................................ 132 Figure 7-10  : Interface for inserting quantities related to disposal phase. ................................. 133 Figure 7-11  : Socio economic criteria for proposal/bid evaluation. .......................................... 141  xvi  Figure 7-12  : Evaluation results ................................................................................................. 147 Figure 7-13  : Evaluation report .................................................................................................. 147 Figure A-1   : Research ethics board approval ............................................................................ 173 Figure B-1   : TCPS 2 certificate of completion ......................................................................... 174    xvii  List of Equations Equation 2-1   : Emergy flow formula .......................................................................................... 60 Equation 3-1   : Calculating d value.............................................................................................. 74 Equation 3-2   : Calculating the sample size ................................................................................. 74 Equation 3-3   : Calculating   ....................................................................................................... 75 Equation 3-4   : Bonferroni adjustment......................................................................................... 81 Equation 7-1   : Present value of future cash flow ...................................................................... 134 Equation 7-2   : Present value of escalating cost ........................................................................ 135 Equation 7-3   : Present value of escalating costs, calculating ?a? ............................................. 135 Equation 7-4   : Emergy loss due to building impact on human health ...................................... 142 Equation 7-5   : Calculating DALY ............................................................................................ 142 Equation 7-6   : Em procure score formula ................................................................................. 145 Equation 7-7   : LCC formula ..................................................................................................... 145 Equation 7-8   : Environmental emergy formula ........................................................................ 145 Equation 7-9   : Socio economic emery formula ........................................................................ 145 Equation 7-10 : Economic score formula ................................................................................... 146 Equation 7-11 : Environmental score formula ............................................................................ 146 Equation 7-12 : Social emergy score formula............................................................................. 146      xviii  Abbreviations BC British Columbia CAD Canadian dollars CIRIA Construction industry research and information association CO2 Carbon Dioxide CSR Corporate Social Responsibility DOT US Department of Transportation  EU European Union FSDS Federal Sustainable Development Strategy GDP Gross domestic product ICLEI International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives KPI Key performance indicators Mt Mega tonnes RFP Request for proposal RFQ Request for qualifications TBL Triple bottom line UBCO University of British Columbia Okanagan UN United Nations    xix  Acknowledgements I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude to Dr. Kasun Hewage for his unfailing support throughout my Masters Degree at the University of British Columbia. His immense support, wisdom, and advice have guided me to successfully finish my studies. I am forever grateful for the inspiration, motivation, and energy he showed, which influenced me in many ways to pursue my masters studies and beyond. I would like to thank my committee members, Dr. Cigdem Eskicioglu and Dr. Solomon Tesfamariam. The advice and encouragement I received from them has helped me to improve the quality of this thesis. In addition I would like to thank Professor Susan Wells, Dr. Rehan Sadiq, Dr. Abbas Milani, Dr. Carolyn Labun and Ms. Laura Patterson from whom I gained valuable knowledge and learned efficient techniques that I applied in my thesis. I would like to thank the faculty of the School of Engineering and the administrative staff of the University of British Columbia Okanagan for their support. I would like to especially recognize the support of Mr. Derek Gratz, Ms. Renee Labone, and  Ms. Shanon Hohl.  The input from many external institutes and individuals was crucial for successful completion of this study. I would like to thank Mr. James Kay, Regional Manager, Focus Corporation, BC. His assistance helped a great deal in the smooth progress of my research. In addition I would like to acknowledge Aplin and Martin Consultants Limited and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada for the financial support for this research. Furthermore I would like to take this opportunity to express my sincere thanks to many construction industry professionals who provided their feedback for my questionnaire survey and semi-structured interviews.   xx  The support I received from the research team of the project life cycle management laboratory has been immense. I would like to express my special thanks to Mr. Priyanjith Mendis, Mr Navid Houssani, and Mr. Feng Heibo.  I would like to thank my parents for the support and faith they have given me. Their support and guidance has made me into the person I am.  Last but not least I would like to thank my wife for her warm support during the past two years. Without her support accomplishing any of this would not have been possible.    xxi   To My Family   1  Chapter 1 : Introduction 1.1 Background Sustainability has become a prime concern in the construction industry, because it affects and is affected by construction activities (Jones et al., 2010; Sev, 2009; Spence and Mulligan, 1995). The Brundtland Report defines sustainable development as meeting the needs of today without compromising the needs of future generations (World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987). Project procurement is identified as a main driver to applying sustainability initiatives into construction practices (Adetunji et al., 2003; H?kkinen and Belloni, 2011). A construction project is a complex process that integrates interests of a large number of stakeholders towards an eventual goal of realizing a constructed facility (Oyegoke et al., 2009; Brown et al., 2001). Each construction project is organized through various linkages throughout its life cycle (Bower, 2003). Procurement links the highly fragmented supply side of the construction industry (i.e. engineers, architects, contractors, builders, surveyors, suppliers, and laborers) with the less fragmented demand side (i.e. project owners and representatives) (Cox and Townsend, 1998). Furthermore procurement is an integral part of a construction project and includes sourcing , purchasing, and all activities related to providing knowledge, manpower, construction equipment, materials, supplies, supervision, and management services necessary to accomplish the project objectives (Martins, 2009; Clough et al., 2000). Since each construction project passes through a procurement phase, a significant potential exists with procurement to improve the project management (Bower, 2003). Traditional procurement methods have primarily focused on selecting the bid with the lowest initial cost (Hampton, 1994; Walker and Hampson, 2008). Consequently, these methods have had an adverse effect on the environment and society (Walker and Hampson, 2008) by causing environmental degradation. Related social  2  and environmental effects would ultimately be borne by supporting communities rather than by the entities that are responsible for the root cause (Walker and Hampson, 2008). In addition, environmental issues can result in indirect costs for project owners when remediation is necessary (Walker and Hampson, 2008). A movement towards a sustainable construction procurement practice is hindered by many factors such as lack of funding, lack of awareness, lack of research and development, etc. (Sourani and Sohail, 2011; Walker and Hampson, 2008). In addition the full potential of procurement is not yet utilized by the construction industry (Oyegoke et al., 2009; Clough et al., 2000).  The construction industry is considered one of the largest exploiters of natural resources, which has a significant effect on the natural environment through energy use, waste production, and impact on the landscape (Jones et al., 2006; Spence and Mulligan, 1995). This has created significant potential in the construction industry for the improvement of environmental problems. Further, the historical record of the construction industry indicates poor performance with regard to human health and safety. Several strides are initiated within the construction industry to reduce its effect on sustainable development. However literature shows a lack of management frameworks in implementing sustainability initiatives into construction projects.  Sustainable procurement is a developing concept in several industries. Sustainable procurement task force (2006) defined sustainable procurement as, ?A process whereby organizations meet their needs for goods, works and utilities in a way that achieves value for money on a whole life basis in terms of generating benefits not only to the organization, but also to society and the economy, whilst minimizing damage to the environment.?  3  Sustainable procurement can be a management framework to combine sustainability initiatives into construction projects.  1.2 Problem Statement Based on the initial literature review, a number of drawbacks were identified in relation to construction procurement. According to Rwelamila and Edries (2007) confusion exists among civil engineering consultants because of their lack of knowledge of alternative procurement systems. In the published literature, there is still a less clear view of procurement as a process in a construction project. According to Rivas and Serpell (1999) there is a lack of compiled knowledge of construction procurement practices. Consequently construction owners and representatives find it difficult to navigate the various procedures and methods available (Miller et al., 2009). The United Nations World Summit on Sustainable Development in 2002  recommended that sustainable development considerations be brought into public procurement. Shiers et al. (2006) stated that there is a lack of client demand and reluctance among contractors to implement sustainable practices in construction projects. Lately there has been an increasing trend towards incorporating social and environmental criteria into procurement decisions (Tysseland, 2008; Price Water Coopers, 2009; Liu and Wilkinson, 2011). However, Meehan and Bryde (2011) stated that even though organizations have established sustainable procurement policies, the same is less likely to be found in strategy and practice. A comprehensive literature review has revealed that no recent industry-wide information is currently available for incorporating sustainability criteria into construction procurement in Canada.  Carter and Fortune (2007) stated that in delivering sustainable building projects there is a lack of structured framework to assist the project teams. According to Lastewka (2005) Canada  4  currently does not have policies, tools, or comprehensive databases or mechanisms to incorporate or measure the relationships between social, economic, and environmental factors in procurement, and the relative costs and benefits. Furthermore since construction work has not yet started at the time of procurement, many parameters are unknown, making sustainable procurement implementation more complicated (Varn?s, 2008).  Based on the above noted concerns in construction procurement, the following specific research questions emerged in this project: a) What are the contemporary construction procurement methods, processes, procedures, and trends? b) What are the current initiatives and resources applicable to sustainable procurement in the construction industry? c) What is the current status of using sustainable procurement in the Canadian construction industry? d) From the perspective of Canadian construction professionals, what are the benefits and challenges for sustainable procurement within the Canadian construction industry? 1.3 Research Objectives and Approach The overall objective of this research project is to improve the sustainability performance of construction projects by using sustainable procurement practices. The following are specific sub-objectives: 1. Identify contemporary trends in construction procurement.  2. Identify and analyze existing state-of-the-art sustainability initiatives of construction procurement (in the world).  3. Review the current status of sustainable procurement in the Canadian construction sector.  5  4. Analyze challenges and benefits of using sustainable procurement in the Canadian construction sector. 5. Develop an integrated triple bottom line (TBL) based framework for construction procurement. 6. Develop a bid evaluation tool that combines TBL of sustainability for construction projects and assess its potential for industry-wide adoption. Objective 3, 4, 5 and 6 are the main contributions of this study.  A comprehensive literature review was conducted to be familiar with sustainable procurement in different parts of the world. Observations of procurement documents, review of procurement manuals and field observations including interviews, and questionnaire surveys were used as the main research tools in this project. Microsoft Excel was used to develop the software tool for bid evaluation.     6  1.4 Thesis Organization This thesis consists of eight chapters with the following contents:   Chapter 1 Background Research questions, objectives, and approach Chapter 2 Methodology Chapter 3 Literature review  Chapter 4 Descriptive analysis: Sustainable procurement in Canadian construction sector Chapter 5 Statistical analysis: Challenges and benefits of sustainable procurement Chapter 6 Sustainable procurement framework  Chapter 8 Conclusions, contributions and limitations Figure 1-1: Thesis organization Chapter 7 Em-Procure bid evaluation tool  7  Chapter 2 : Literature Review The literature review is divided into five main sections, namely, 1. Background review on the Canadian construction industry and sustainable development.  2. Review of construction procurement practices. 3. A review of sustainable construction. 4. Review of sustainable procurement practices. 5. Emergy analysis. 2.1 Canadian Construction Industry According to the Industry Canada (2012), the construction sector is comprised of establishments primarily engaged in constructing, repairing, and renovating buildings and engineering works, and in subdividing and developing land. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of the construction sector in Canada increased from $57.8 billion in 2002 to $76.5 billion in 2011. The construction industry is a vital sector in the Canadian economy (Statistics Canada, 2009), and accounts for 6% of the GDP (Industry Canada, 2012). In 2010, industries, engineering, repair, and other construction services accounted for 54.0% ($39.9 billion) of construction GDP. Residential building construction contributed 31% ($23.4 billion), while non-residential building construction contributed 15% ($10.8 billion) (Statistics Canada, 2012). A current infrastructure deficit of $300 billion (Financial Post, 2011) and estimated municipal infrastructure rehabilitation cost of $123 billion (Federation of Canadian Municipalities, 2012) in Canada suggest significant activity in the construction industry in the time to come. Canadian municipalities are planning to complete engineering and architectural projects worth $10 billion in 2012 (Federation of Canadian Municipalities, 2012).  8  The global construction industry is expected to increase by 67%, from $7.2 trillion in 2011 to $12 trillion by 2020. The same report states that total spending for the decade will be $97.7 trillion. By 2020 the global construction industry will account for 13.2% of global GDP. Canada, along with Australia, will lead construction growth among developed countries mainly supported by their natural resources (Betts et al., 2011). From 2000-2010 construction GDP increased 42.7%, whereas GDP for all industries increased 20.2% (Statistics Canada, 2012) . 2.2 Sustainable Development The term ?sustainability? originally associated with ecology and referred to the ability of an ecosystem to prevail over a long time. Lately, by adding the concept of development into sustainability, the main focus was shifted towards society. The contemporary principal focus of sustainable development is on society, and its aim is to include environmental considerations in the steering of societal change, especially through changes to the way in which the economy functions (Baker, 2013) . Baker (2013) stated that a new effort is going towards sustainable development, to integrate environmental, economic and social considerations into a new development paradigm. Sustainable development aims at promoting a method of development that is contained within the ecological carrying capacity of the planet, which is socially just and economically inclusive. Encouraging sustainable development is about navigating the balance between: i The social: this relates to human morals and values, relationships and institutions. ii The economic: this concerns the allocation and distribution of scarce resources. iii The ecological: this involves the contribution of both the economic and the social, and their effect on the environment and its resources.  9  Adhering to principals of sustainable development can benefit an organization in many ways. According to Environment Canada (2010) sustainable development initiatives can attract business partnerships and investors, expand new market opportunities, manage risks, improve stakeholder relations, reduce production and operating costs, stimulate innovation, attract and retain employees, and preserve a ?social license to operate?. Upholding sustainable development should be a continuous process, of which anticipated characteristic changes over time, location, and within different social, political, cultural, and historical contexts. In order to promote sustainable development a vision should be established on different futures, through attitude and value changes, policy innovations, political transformations, and economic restructuring (Baker, 2013). The UK government has established the following as sustainable development principles: i Maintenance of stable levels of economic growth and employment ii Careful use of natural resources iii Effective protection of the environment iv Social development that meets the necessities of everyone. 2.2.1 History of sustainable development Apprehension around sustainability can be traced back to the 18th century when thinkers were worried about scarcity of resources due to population increase and energy (coal) shortages (Baker, 2013). Fairfield Osborn (1953) and Samuel Ordway (1953) raised this issue in the mid-20th century. Public opinion intensified in the 1960s and 1970s as critiques of conventional, growth-oriented, economic development increased (Baker, 2013).  The United Nations Conference on Human Environment in 1972 recognized the interconnection of economic development and the environment (Environment Canada, 2010a).  10  Furthermore, the Club of Rome report (1972) by MIT concluded that continued present trends in population growth, food production, resource use, and pollution would exceed the carrying capacity of the planet within the next century, eventually resulting in ecosystem collapse, famine, and war (Baker, 2013). The concept of ?sustainable development? was effectively established within society when the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources presented the World Conservation Strategy in 1980 (International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, 1980). Even though the purpose of the above publication was achieving sustainable development through conservation of living resources, it focused primarily on ecological sustainability while ignoring social and economic aspects.  Extending from definition for sustainability in the Brundtland Report during the United Nations 2005 World Summit in New York, it was noted that in order to achieve sustainable development, balance among TBL of sustainability (i.e. Environment, social, and economic factors) is required (Figure 2-1).   Figure 2-1 Triple Bottom Line (TBL) of sustainability  Social Factors Economic Factors Environmental factors  11  2.2.2 Sustainable development on a global scale. Despite the immense global interest towards sustainable development, results around the world are mixed. According to Liu and Fellows (2008) there is a significant interest in Sweden and Australia pursue sustainability; the UK?s efforts can be classified as neutral; as a non-signatory of the Kyoto protocol the USA is lagging far behind when it comes to sustainability; and China is a significant polluter and consumes large quantities of non-renewable resources.  The United Nations (UN) has played a key part in stimulating and establishing sustainable development policies. The UN has organized several World Summits, including the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (1992) in Rio de Janeiro, well known as the Rio Earth Summit, and, more recently, the Johannesburg World Summit on Sustainable Development (2002) (Baker, 2013). The above summits have laid the foundation for several internationally obligatory environmental agreements such as the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, Kyoto Protocol, and  the Convention on Biological Diversity (Baker, 2013). In addition the UN has established institutions and organizations, such as the Women?s Environment and Development Organization and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, which engage in creating sustainable development policies for civil society and from the business community (Baker, 2013). 2.2.3 Sustainable development initiatives by the government of Canada The Federal Sustainable Development Act provides a specific direction by requiring a Cabinet committee should provide oversight of the development and implementation of the Federal Sustainable Development Strategy (FSDS). In the quest for sustainable development, the government of Canada identified the following themes as priorities (Environment Canada, 2010):   12  i. Addressing Climate Change and Air Quality; ii. Maintaining Water Quality and Availability;  iii. Protecting Nature; and iv. Shrinking the Environmental Footprint ? Beginning with Government. Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC), with the guidance of Environment Canada, leads greening of federal government operations. According to Environment Canada (2010a) PWGSC has been actively involved for the above purpose through establishing targets, implementation strategies, and performance measures.  2.2.4 Corporate social responsibility Environment Canada (2010) defines corporate social responsibility (CSR) as follows: ?Voluntary activities undertaken by an organization to operate in an economically, socially and environmentally sustainable manner".  CSR is a call for transparent and accountable behavior that supports sustainable development and considers the expectations of all the stakeholders. CSR is considered a priority theme by a majority of private and public entities. CSR enables more innovative, productive, and competitive operations, and supports favorable relations with the investment community to realize operational efficiency gains, improve access to capital, enhance employee relations, improve risk management, improve reputation and branding, and build stronger relationships with communities (Environment Canada, 2010a). 2.3 Construction Industry?s Effect on Sustainable Development In any economy the construction industry is a key sector that supports infrastructure needs, development of a country, and social wellbeing. The construction industry has a dramatic impact on sustainability during construction, demolition, renovation, and occupancy of built  13  assets (Industry Canada, 2011). The impact of the construction industry on sustainability as listed by Sev (2009) is described in Table 2-1. Table 2-1: Impacts of construction industry adopted from Sev (2009) Impact Environmental Social Economic Raw material extraction and consumption, related resource depletion *  * Land use change, including clearing of existing flora * * * Energy use and associated emissions of green house gas GHG *  * Other indoor and outdoor emissions *  * Aesthetic degradation  *  Water use and wastewater generation *  * Increased transport needs, depending on the site * * * Waste generation *  * Opportunities for corruption  * * Disruption of communities, through inappropriate design and materials  * * Health risks on worksheets and for building occupants  * *  According to Table 3-1, activities of the construction industry have a significant impact on all three pillars of sustainability. Separate studies have been done to address the above impacts in the published literature as well as conceptual studies to achieve sustainability. For example Teo and Loosemore (2003) studied waste reduction in the construction industry (Sev, 2009) and the need for an integrated approach to addressing sustainability; and Spence and Mulligan (1995) called for reduce inputs, efficient use of resources, and less environmentally  14  damaging material in the construction industry. However few studies have been done to integrate sustainable development into company strategies rather than looking at it as a separate target. 2.3.1 Environmental effect of Canadian construction sector Residential and commercial building has a significant environmental impact. According to Industry Canada (2011), buildings consume 50% of extracted natural resources and 33% of a country?s energy use. In addition buildings produce 25% of the landfill waste, 10% of airborne particles, and 35% of GHG emissions. The magnitude of the impact is partially due to the fact that Canadians spend about 90% of their time in built environments. GHG emissions from the building sector are expected to reach 91 Mt CO2e1 in 2020 from 79 Mt in 2010 (Environment Canada, 2012a; Environment Canada, 2012b). In 2010 total energy consumption of the construction industry was 72,812 PJ, exceeding 1990 levels for the first time (Nyboer and Kamiya, 2012).   Construction waste includes materials such as wood, drywall, certain metals, cardboard, doors, windows, wiring, etc. (Statistics Canada, 2010). In 2008 waste generated from construction, renovation, and demolition activities amounted to 720,076 tonnes (Statistics Canada, 2010).  2.3.2 Social impact of Canadian construction sector The construction industry needs to consider its effect on society because construction activities affects the local community. Therefore construction should uphold healthy living surrounding and built socially cohesive community by responding to societal expectation (Kashyap et al., 2003).                                                  1 Carbon dioxide equivalents  15  According to Human Resources and Skills Development Canada (2013), the construction industry employed 1.2 million workers in 2010, which is 7.1% of total employment in the economy. Employment generated by the construction industry grew at a pace of 4.2% annually (Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, 2013a). Canada?s 280,000 construction-related businesses are comprised of 60% specialty trade contractors, 29% residential and non-residential construction, and 11% heavy and civil engineering construction (Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, 2013; Nyboer and Kamiya, 2012). All the above establishments produced goods and services worth nearly $193 billion (Nyboer and Kamiya, 2012). The construction industry labor force is characterized by a 30% rate of self-employment. Construction industry-related major professions include trades and trades helpers and laborers, related workers, carpenters and cabinetmakers, contractors and supervisors, and managers in construction (Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, 2013a). Furthermore Canada?s Economic Action Plan has identified building infrastructure as a means of creating jobs (Government of Canada, 2013).   2.3.3 Economic impact of Canadian construction sector The construction industry has a key impact on the competitiveness and prosperity of a country?s economy. In 2011, 60.4% of construction industry employers were considered ?micro?, meaning they employed less than five employees. A further 38.7% were categorized as  ?small? establishments, and 0.9% of employers were categorized as ?medium-sized? establishments. Only 0.1% were classified as  ?large? employers, with more than five hundred persons on payroll (Industry Canada, 2012b). According to labor market research by Human Resources and Skills Development Canada (2013) 186,000 jobs are projected to be created from 2010-2020 at an average annual  16  rate of 1.4%. Predicted to employ 1.4 million workers, the construction sector is expected to account for 7.4% of overall employment by 2020 (Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, 2013b). On top of that, due to less labor-intensive engineering capital projects, the employment growth in the construction sector is estimated to decrease substantially compared to previous decades.   2.4 Sustainable Construction Kibert, (2012) and Kashyap et al. (2003) define sustainable construction as creating and operating a healthy built environment which is based on resource efficiency and ecological design. Sustainable construction is a main dimension of sustainable development and aims to provide constructed facilities that improve quality of life and offer customer satisfaction; provide flexibility and satisfy future user changes; offer and support desirable ecological and social environments; and make best use of resources (Kashyap et al., 2003). The International Council for Research and Innovation in Building and Construction set up 7 principals of sustainable construction: i Reduce resource consumption ii Reuse resources iii Use recyclable resources iv Protect nature v Eliminate toxics vi Apply life cycle costing vii Focus on quality Sustainable construction is the notion of economic growth with an emphasis on social and environmental integrity. The above includes a large number of processes associated with the  17  whole life cycle of a project (Kibert, 2012). A sustainable construction strategy is expected to be achieved by following a process of Procurement, Design, Innovation, People, and Better Regulation (Her Majesty Government and Strategic forum for Construction, 2008). Early consideration of sustainability initiatives appears key to realizing a sustainable building (Demaid and Quintas, 2006). Important considerations for sustainable construction include resource management, life-cycle design, design for humans and the environment, procurement, site planning, material selection and use, recycling waste, and energy minimization (Adetunji et al., 2003; Sev, 2009). Many entities have established sustainable development targets based on their respective operations. According to Liu and Fellows (2008) the UK government has established the following principles for construction to support sustainable development: i Constructing projects that cost less to build and maintain as they have been constructed with less and yield more. ii Constructing projects that support surrounding environment, using materials and systems that minimize the environmental footprint throughout the project life cycle. iii Upholding high living standards for people. According to Rezgui et al. (2010), knowledge of sustainable development in the construction industry is fragmented, dissimilar, disseminated in various documents, and not integrated across all macro and micro stakeholders. A number of issues related to sustainable construction were highlighted by Rezgui et al. (2010) and Liu and Fellows (2008): i Deficiency in division, use, and reuse of sustainable, non-coordinated construction practices and principles developed through practice across the industry. ii Lack of education and knowledge among project stakeholders and end users of constructed facilities.  18  iii Unavailability of structured sustainability information and know-how.  iv Blurred connections between sustainable development principles and present regulations and standards in the construction industry. v Uncertainty about predicting cost implications associated with sustainable solutions and technologies. vi The prevailing legislation is disorganized and addresses ?greening? rather than sustainability. 2.4.1 Sustainable buildings According to USEPA (2013a), sustainable building is construction, renovation, operation, maintenance and demolition of healthier and more resource-efficient buildings. The components of sustainable building are as follows:  ? Focus on energy efficiency and renewable energy ? Improved water efficiency ? Use of environmentally preferable building materials and specifications ? Reduce waste generation  ? Reduce toxics ? Improve indoor air quality ? Support smart growth and sustainable development Resource consumption and emissions of buildings in the USA are as follows (USEPA, 2012): ? 39% of total energy use ? 12% of total water consumption ? 68% of total electricity consumption ? 38% of CO2 emissions  19  Benefits of green buildings over conventional buildings are as follows (USEPA, 2012): ? 30% energy saving ? 30-50% water saving ? 35% reduction in carbon emission ? 50-90% reduction in construction waste ? 8-9% operating cost decrease 2.4.2 Costs of sustainable construction Sustainable construction practices can encourage industrial growth, which will increase the percentage of GDP and create more job opportunities (Addis and Talbot, 2001). Furthermore sustainable construction will increase client profits and investment return (Kashyap et al., 2003). Sustainable construction projects are associated with higher initial costs than traditional construction projects. The reasons for escalated costs are as follows (ICLEI, 2011): i Innovative design work with special requirements, for example incorporating innovative heating, cooling or renewable energy systems; ii Higher cost for better standard of materials; iii Fees for third-party certification to ensure compliance with an environmental standard; iv Costs associated with minimizing the environmental impact of the construction process such as waste management and recycling, minimizing impact on flora and fauna, noise reduction, etc.; v Specific contractual clauses covering intellectual property, insurance, and working conditions, which may eventually result in higher costs for contractors.   20  2.4.3 Benefits of sustainable construction According to Addis and Talbot (2001), several benefits are associated with sustainable construction. In addition Kashyap et al. (2003) have mentioned the benefits of using sustainable construction. According to the above authors, benefits of sustainable construction are as follows: i Reduced costs over the project life cycle ii Improving productivity and staff motivation iii Improved management and business performance iv Decreased risk and liability v Improved arket growth and opportunities for innovation vi Enhanced public relations and community liaison vii Added value to the constructed asset viii Encouraging ethical investment Entities wishing to achieve sustainable construction have approached it from various different ways. Kashyap et al. (2003) studied the use of concurrent engineering for sustainable construction. Ortiz et al. (2009) studied the use of LCA in the construction industry from the years 2000 to 2007 and concluded that LCA is a feasible means of improving the sustainability of construction projects. HM Government and Strategic forum for Construction (2008) identified procurement as a means for sustainable construction.   2.5 Review of Construction Procurement Practices The published literature shows considerable scholarly work on construction procurement. Kumaraswamy and Dulaimi (2001) studied innovative methods in construction procurement; Referring to savings made in procurement by NASA, the US Navy, and the US Air Force, the same authors suggested performance based contracting was responsible for those savings. Behm  21  (2008) and Wells and Hawkins (2011) studied the use of procurement to improve the safety of workers. Dzeng and Lin (2004) had developed intelligent agents for procurement negotiations to reduce time and cost, enabling better mutual agreement with benefits. Perng and Chang (2004) developed a data-mining model to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of government procurement. However in published literature there is still a less clear view of procurement as a process in a construction project. According to Rivas and Serpell (1999) there is a lack of compiled knowledge of construction procurement practices. Consequently construction owners or representatives find it onerous to determine the congruity of the various procedures and methods available (Miller et al., 2009).  The definition of procurement in general terms refers to the acquisition of goods, services, or construction, from a third party, at the best possible price, in an appropriate quantity, at the right time and place (Martins, 2009; Office of the Procurement Ombudsman, 2011). Table 2-2 lists definitions for construction procurement observed in the literature.     22  Table 2-2: Definitions for procurement Definition Source Acquisition of new buildings, space in the buildings, either by directly buying, renting or leasing from the open market or by deigning and building the facility to meet a specific need. Mohsini and Davidson (1989) Strategy to satisfy client operational needs with respect to the provision of constructed facilities for a discrete life cycle. Lenard and Mohsini (1998) The whole process of acquisition of goods, services and works from the initial assessment of a business need through to the end of the useful life of an asset or end of a service contract. Byatt (2001) The process which creates, manages, and fulfills contracts. International Organization for Standardization (2008) Construction procurement is the process of obtaining services and supplies for efficient and timely delivery of the end product. Choudhury and Sanampudi (2008) Framework within which construction is brought about, acquired or obtained (Construction Industry Board W92 definition). London (2008) The purchase of construction-related services with the ultimate aim of creating new building or structure, including all associated site works or alteration, refurbishment, maintenance, extension or demolition of an existing building or structure. The Scottish government (2011) Construction procurement is the process of identification, selection and commissioning of the inputs required to construct a project. Department of Business innovation and Skills (2012)  23  As stated in Table 2-2 definitions of construction procurement represent two paradigms: 1) The mere purchasing transaction of obtaining a constructed facility 2) The holistic process of satisfying a potential client?s need for constructed facilities. According to Table 2-2, all the definitions of construction procurement include the eventual expectation of realizing a constructed facility according to identified requirements (London, 2008; Choudhury and Sanampudi, 2008; The Scottish Government, 2005; Department of Business innovation and Skills, 2012). Lenard and Mohsini (1998) suggested a more realistic definition for construction procurement by considering eventual client satisfaction with the constructed facility. Their definition can be considered more applicable to the construction industry since the eventual responsibility of construction managers is to achieve project objectives by ensuring client satisfaction (Oyegoke et al., 2009; Hampton, 1994).  Customer satisfaction in the construction industry considers many qualitative factors beyond realizing just the constructed facility (Karna and Sorvala, 2009). Rowlinson and McDermott (1999) proposed the systems view of construction procurement (Figure 2-2) to illustrate a variety of factors to be considered in a construction procurement process.  24   Figure 2-2: Factors affecting the project procurement process adopted from Rowlinson and McDermott (1999) Figure 2-2 shows broader features related to construction procurement, which has evolved considerably from the traditional transaction-based view. A procurement process should focus not only on the functional aspects such as contract strategy, client, law, conditions of contract, and performance, but also on a wider range of factors such as culture, sustainability, economics, political environment, learning, leadership, satisfaction, self-esteem, and motivation. Therefore to satisfy Lenard and Mohsini's (1998) definition of construction procurement, i.e. to achieve eventual customer satisfaction, construction procurement should focus beyond the traditional transaction based strategies.    25  2.5.1 Analysis of current construction procurement practices  A traditional perception of procurement was that it should be a separate contract with an arm?s length relationship between contractors and client (Cox and Townsend, 1998). The same authors referred to the development of procurement methods as ?barefoot empiricism?, meaning the best fit for a specific situation. Organization of the procurement process is done according to the owner?s discretion. The project owner, representative, or an external party assumes the responsibility of managing the procurement process (Cox et al., 2006). The procurement options available to the owner or an owner?s representative are described in Figure 2-3.   Figure 2-3: Conventional procurement options adopted from Cox and Townsend (1998) According to Figure 2-3 the project owner could manage the project in-house, externally, or with an in-house/external combined team. The next challenge for the project management team is to decide the procurement method according to the situation. According to Cox and Townsend (1998) traditional procurement methods include single stage tender or two stage tender; single source methods include design build and turn key; management contracts are construction management and management contracts; and other emerging procurement methods  26  include partnering, performance based contracting, etc. Selection of a suitable procurement method is the main challenge faced by owners and their representatives (Cox and Townsend, 1998). According to Miller et al. (2009) in the construction industry project owners and project managers select a procurement approach that had been successful on previous occasions. As a result project owners forgo great opportunities to create financial benefits and reduce risks.   The main components of a construction procurement process can be divided into processes, procedures, and methods. The following sections analyze the processes, procedures, and methods observed in a construction procurement process. 2.5.2 Construction procurement processes The processes associated with procurement start with determining what needs to be procured and end after confirming the final product complies with the requirements (International Organization for Standardization, 2008). According to the Office of Procurement Ombudsman (2011), procurement processes are involved in all stages of the construction project life cycle. Responsibility for procurement activities is distributed among multiple parties in each project phase according to the selected procurement method. Figure 2-4 illustrates the activities of procurement processes in the different phases of a project.    27   Figure 2-4 : Activities involved in the procurement process adopted from Office of Procurement Ombudsman (2012) and Lester (2007). 2.6 Construction procurement methods Ogunlana (1999) stated that procurement methods determine the division of labor between the parties, contractual relations, and rules of operation. The main considerations of a procurement method are the price formation method, project delivery method, and conditions of contract (Sutt, 2011;Eriksson and Westerberg, 2011). Project owners or construction managers must determine a procurement method just after the determination of the project goals and  28  objectives (Sutt 2011). Inability to select a proper procurement method causes overruns on cost, time, and quality in projects (L?dre et al. 2006).  Osipova and Eriksson (2011) identified procurement as a method for project risk management. A selected procurement method directly affects the risks of contracting parties, which is eventually highlighted in the contract price. Walker and Hampson (2008) categorized procurement methods according to the risk levels of client and contractor (Figure 2-5).   Figure 2-5 : Construction cost continuum for project delivery adopted from Walker and Hampson (2008) As shown in Figure 2-5, risk levels of owners and contractors differ according to the procurement method. The lump sum/fixed cost contract would expose the contractor to high risk, while it would save the owner from adverse cost escalations. Full cost reimbursable contracts are  29  of low risk for a contractor (in terms of cost), while the owner is exposed to all potential cost escalations. The client or construction manager should decide the best procurement method as per the specific project needs and risk tolerance ability of the project participants. Procurement methods used in the construction industry are discussed below: 2.6.1 Fixed price contracting (Lump sum contracting)  Fixed price contracting is a traditional procurement method that involves discrete design development, tender, contract award, and construction delivery phases. The process starts with the client approaching a design consultant and getting completion of the design before calling for bids. The cheapest bid price is used as the general selection criteria (Walker and Hampson, 2008; Touran et al., 2008; Mearig, 2004).  According to Walker and Hampson (2008), the following are the major drawbacks of this method: 1) Impairment of relationship due to disputes over contract variations and fair price. 2) Separation of contractors and design team, which limits valuable construction management and constructability details. As indicated in Figure 2-5, fixed price contracting is expected to be less risky to the client. However, since the design is not completely finished at the time of solicitation, this method creates opportunities for extra claims, which would affect the final cost of a project. 2.6.2 Design and construct Design and construct offers the client a single point of contact for the construction project with a contractor who is responsible for both design and construction (Chan et al., 2002). The concept of the project is developed by the client, with the assistance of a design consultant, for which proposals are called (Kelley, 2012). A design and construction contractor is selected from  30  the proposals. Advantages of this method are, supporting innovative solutions, being cost effective, combining the expertise of the design and construction professionals, and reducing administrative work of the client. According to Walker and Hampson (2008) negative impacts of this method are as follows:  ? Inflated cost since bidding is being done with minimal design or site data.  ? Less attention towards the life cycle costs.  ? Quality of construction work is highly dependent on the contractor.  ? High time spent for proposal evaluation. According to the Design-Build Institute of America (2012), the design-build method is used for more than 40% of non-residential construction projects in North America. The following are the most common design and construct methods used in the construction industry (Walker and Hampson, 2008): 1) Traditional design and construct: Contractor is responsible for the complete design and construction of a project. 2) Enhanced design and construct: Contractor is responsible for the design development, working details, and construction.  3) Novated design and construct: Contractor is responsible for the detailed design development. Client develops a partially completed initial design. Contractors work on detailed construction with a design team, assigned by the client, who develop the partially completed initial design (Ng and Skitmore, 2002). 4) Turnkey: An outside company finances the project in addition to design and construction. The client makes payments after the commissioning of the project. This method suits  31  clients who lack initial funds since the payments are required upon delivery of the project. 2.6.3 Construction management (CM) CM is a non-traditional procurement method that became popular during the past two decades. A design contractor acts as the consultant to the client and provides advice on constructability, construction planning, cost control, coordination, and supervision of entities. In the CM method, all sub-contractors contract directly with the client.  Management contracting, which is sometimes confused with CM, is a different method of procurement where the contractors enter into contract with the management contractor, who acts as the agent of the client (Donohoe and Brooks, 2007). According to Walker and Hampson (2008), CM results in more balanced power and positively influences the relationship between the client and contractor. Advantages of using CM for owner and contractor are as follows (Walker and Hampson, 2008): i Reduced confrontation between design team and construction supervision team ii Early involvement of construction management expertise iii Overlap of design and construction iv More even development of project documentation v Fewer contract variations vi Public accountability There are two different methods for construction management, which are discussed below: 1) Agency construction management: Construction manager undertakes work as a consultant for a fee by providing constructability advice and coordination of construction work (Kelley, 2012).  32  2) Construction management at risk: Construction manager does not act as an agent of the owner. Instead the construction manager is responsible for obligations in the general contract, which include cost, quality, and timely completion. None of the sub-contractors and suppliers are in contract with the construction manager. Instead subcontractors and suppliers are in contract with the project owner. In this method contractors are procured through negotiation (Kelley, 2012).  2.6.4 On call contracting Here, the owner enters into a master contract with a consultant and divides the project into task orders (TO). The owner releases the TOs to the consultant in different project phases. This method has similarities to the fast track method but is more detailed and well planned, and contains a number of packages, more than fast tracking. The detailed designing contributes favorably to construction time performance (Walker and Hampson, 2008).  The main concern of this method is high administrative expenses. A hybrid of single and multiple contracts would remain advantageous for the client and would minimize or avoid adverse effects of the traditional procurement methods (Walker and Hampson, 2008). 2.6.5 Guaranteed maximum price In this method, the client accepts a part of the financial risk and agrees with the contractor to reimburse up to a guaranteed maximum amount for a fixed design. This allows use of the client?s knowledge in setting up budgets and prevents paying extra for any contractor mismanagement (Walker and Hampson, 2008). According to Chan et al. (2011) risk factors for the owner and contractor related to the guaranteed maximum price procurement method are as follows:   33  i Change in scope of work ii Insufficient design completion during tender invitation iii Unforeseeable design development risks at tender stage iv Errors and omissions in tender document v Exchange rate variations 2.6.6 Full cost reimbursable  The full cost reimbursable method allows a client to remain in control over the total design and construction process. This method is recommended for situations where the design requirements are constantly changing and unknown. Since in this approach the total financial risk is assumed by the client, a high level of compliance, supervision, and independent monitoring is required (Walker and Hampson, 2008). 2.6.7 Total package options  Under the total package option method, a project is realized through an external entity that contracts to design, build, operate, and transfer the facility to the client. A key advantage of the total package option is that it considers the total life cycle cost, effectiveness, and constructability of the project (Walker and Hampson, 2008). Clients have fewer risks using this method since contractors undertake financing, designing, and operating of the built asset. However, total package options may not be viable for projects of smaller scale. Furthermore, the total package option has failed in the past due to lack of trust and communication (Walker and Hampson, 2008).     34  2.6.8 Partnering   Partnering delivers a win-win solution to the whole construction team (Cox and Townsend, 1998; Liu and Wilkinson, 2011). According to the literature, partnering in construction procurement is a structured management approach that enables teamwork, trust, long term commitment, open culture, mutual objectives, customer focus, and innovation between contractual parties. According to Cox and Townsend (1998), the benefits of partnering include reduced costs, increased profits, reduced lead-times, improved quality, less confrontation, and innovation. Furthermore, Eriksson and Laan (2007) stated that trust building programs in the procurement process can gain better outcomes in a project. Partnering approaches are mainly being used as partnerships between the private sector and public sector to improve the efficiency of the public-sector projects (e.g. public infrastructure) (Tam, 1999;Akintoye et al., 2003). 2.6.9 Public private partnerships (P3) The public private partnership procurement method emerged in the early 1990s (Levy, 2011). In this method, the public sector enters into a partnership with the private sector. The public sector needs such partnerships mainly due to challenges such as lack of capital, lack of internal expertise, and inadequate consideration of life cycle asset management. During the early period of P3, the public sector assumed the primary responsibilities, however currently a major portion of responsibilities are shouldered by the private sector (Oyegoke et al., 2009).  P3s are also used as a long-term performance-based approach in procuring public infrastructure. The Private Participation in Infrastructure (PPI) project database has data on over 5,000 infrastructure projects in 139 low- and middle-income countries (The World Bank, 2012).  35  At present, there are a number of innovative approaches that allow private sector?s equity and resources (Levy, 2011; Oyegoke et al., 2009; Cox et al., 2006). The following are some innovative P3 procurement methods stated by the above authors:  i Build operate transfer (BOT): In this approach, a private entity designs, builds, and finances an infrastructure, which is ultimately owned by the public sector. The private entity operates and maintains the built asset during the concession period while collecting the revenue. At the end of the contract period the BOT entity returns the built asset to the project agency for little or no additional concession. ii Build own operate (BOO): This approach is similar to BOT except there is no return of the asset and the BOO entity owns and operates the facility over its life cycle. iii Design build operate maintain (DBOM): In this approach, a private entity designs, builds, and assumes operation and maintenance of the built asset, for the contracted period of time. This approach ensures that the project is high quality since the design build entity must maintain the asset for the entire contract period. iv Lease develop operate (LDO): In this approach a private entity leases a built asset from a public organization. The private sector entity provides capital to renovate, expand, or upgrade the built asset and operates it for a contracted number of years.  v Buy build operate (BBO): In this approach, the public sector entity sells an asset to a private entity that is capable of expansion or rehabilitation and eventually creating a profitable venture for the private entity to operate. vi Availability payment process: In this approach, a private sector entity delivers the built asset, and a public sector entity makes periodic payments to the private entity, in return for a specific delivery and or quality milestones, as part of the agreement.  36  vii Shadow tolling: In this approach, a private entity obtains revenue from tolls from the delivered built asset. The revenue is calculated by using a formula, rather than physically collecting tolls from the users. 2.6.10 Performance based contracting Performance-based contracting (PBC) is based on the post construction performance of a constructed asset rather than the means by which the facility is realized (Gruneberg and Hughes, 2011). PBC simplifies the private finance initiative as it separates the physical structure from the financial structures, which makes negotiations between clients and contractors less time consuming, more inexpensive, and less complex. Another advantage of PBC is that it requires less paperwork and offers ease of monitoring the construction work. The Michigan Department of Transportation (DOT) used PBC as an innovative approach for the M115 roadway construction project (DOT, 2011). Even though contractors are given considerable freedom, responsibility, and authority to perform work as they see fit through PBC, they are exposed to many risks during the execution. This is mainly due to delayed payments, as payments begin after the completion of construction. However, they can be compensated for this high risk with a higher profit margin (Gruneberg et al., 2007). 2.6.11 Force account The force account procurement method is frequently used in public construction projects with funding by institutes such as the World Bank and the International Fund for Agricultural Development (World Bank 2011a; International Fund for Agricultural Development 2010). The force account method is used in the following instances (World Bank, 2011a): 1) When amounts of work involved cannot be defined in advance  37  2) When works are small and distributed or in remote locations for which qualified construction firms are unlikely to bid at reasonable prices 3) When immediate action is needed due to an emergency 4) When the risks of unavoidable work interruption are better borne by the project owner. Selecting the most suitable procurement method is important for successful project completion. As per the above discussion, Table 2-3 summarizes the differences between state of the art procurement methods. Table 2-3 : Summary of differences between procurement options adopted from Walker and Hampson (2008) and Gruneberg and Hughes (2011)  Competition on Cost Selection of the contractor Supervision of construction Overlap of design and construction Entity responsible for design Lump Sum (Traditional) Competition Open or selective tendering Architect No Owner Design Build Competition Negotiation Contractor Yes Contractor Turn Key Competition Negotiation Contractor Yes Contractor Direct CM Competition at trade level Negotiation or competition on fees Construction Manager Yes Owner Agency CM Competition at trade level Negotiation or competition on fees Construction Manager Yes Owner On call contracting Competition at TO level Negotiation Project Manager Yes Owner or Contractor Cost Reimbursement No competition No competition Architect or Contractor Partial Owner or Contractor Total package options Competition Open or selective tendering Contractor Yes Contractor Partnering No competition Negotiation Architect or Contractor Partial Owner or Contractor Performance Based Contracting Competition Negotiation Contractor Yes Contractor Force Account No competition Project owner No competition Yes or No Owner  38  2.6.12 Procurement policies and procedures  Procurement policies and procedures govern the selections of a satisfactory contractor to support a preferred procurement method. The procurement policy is generally shaped by the values of the client organization (International Organization for Standardization, 2008). Touran et al. (2008) stated that procurement policies can generally be categorized into three groups: i Low bid procurement ii Qualification based procurement iii Value based procurement Low bid procurement is the main cause of major issues within current procurement systems, and consequently procuring entities are instead using qualification based and value based procurement systems. Government policy in procurement is to achieve the best value for money (HM Treasury, 1997;The Scottish Government, 2005; European Commission, 2011; Langdon and Everest, 2004). According to the Scottish Government (2005) and Akintoye et al. (2003), value for money is construction procurement achieving the optimum combination of whole life cost and quality to meet the customer's requirement.   Bid solicitation can be conducted nationally or internationally based on the client?s discretion, the availability of services, or according to the requirement of the financing institution (World Bank, 2011b). Selection and execution of proper procurement methods and procedures would be one of the most challenging responsibilities of the construction clients. Standard procurement procedures, according to the International Organization for Standardization (2008), are listed in Table 2?4. Selection of the procurement procedure would depend on the selected procurement method.  39  Table 2-4: Standard procurement procedures adopted from International Organization for Standardization (2008) Procedure Description Negotiation procedure Tender offer is solicited from a single bidder and price is decided on negotiation.  Competitive selection procedure The tender offer which has the lowest price or highest points according to the evaluation criteria. a) Nominated procedure List of bidders satisfying prescribed criteria is made and they are asked to bid for a project based on their position in the list and project specific criteria. b) Open procedure Bids are forwarded in response to an advertisement by a potential client. c) Qualified procedure Bids are invited from bidders who have responded to a call for interest and who satisfy objective criteria. d) Quotation procedure Tender offers are solicited from no less than 3 tenders as described by the institution. e) Proposal procedure using the  two envelope system A financial proposal and technical proposal are submitted and financial proposal of a bidder is opened only if the technical proposal is compliant. f) Proposal procedure using the two-stage system Non financial proposals are called and tender offers are called thereafter. Contract is negotiated with the highest point scorer. g) Shopping procedure Bids are solicited from readily available supplies. Competitive negotiation procedure The potential bidders are reduced through a series of negotiations until the remaining tenders are invited to submit final offers.  40  a)  Restricted competitive negotiations Expressions of interest are called and the potential bidders who express interest and satisfy the objective criteria are invited to submit tenders. Competitive negotiations are called after clients evaluate the offers. b)  Open competitions negotiations Bids are submitted in response to an advertisement by the organization to do so. The client evaluates the offers and determines who may enter into competitive negotiations. Electronic auction procedure Bid submissions are initially evaluated using defined methods and criteria. All responsive bidders are invited simultaneously to submit new evaluation parameters electronically and have their evaluation scored. Bidders may amend their offers up until such time as the auction is closed.  2.6.13 Issues with traditional procurement practices Deficiencies in construction procurement are frequently discussed in published literature (Walker and Hampson, 2008; Sourani and Sohail, 2011; Cox and Townsend, 1998; Hampson, 1994). The identified deficiencies in the literature review can be broadly sorted into the following categories. These issues have a compounding effect on one another.  2.6.13.1 Poor basis for selection and evaluation of bidders A key issue of procurement is the basis of evaluation. The majority of the owners or their representatives accept the cheapest price as the most economical solution in the long-term. This issue is the central theme of many scholarly works published on construction procurement (Walker and Hampson, 2008; Sourani and Sohail, 2011; Cox and Townsend, 1998; Hampton, 1994). The main reason for price based selection is the objectivity of the comparisons with the subjectivity of qualitative indicators (Lo and Yan, 2009). Having objective criteria creates an  41  equal basis for comparing the contractor bids. According to Lo and Yan (2009) flaws in the lowest initial cost selection include contractors trying to reduce the bid price, eventually resulting in quality and claims against the owner. According to Cox and Townsend (1998), there have been minor developments in the late 20th century from the lowest price perspective to qualitative evaluation procedures in construction procurement. Value for money is the procurement policy of many governments in the recent past (HM Treasury, 1997; The Scottish Government, 2005; Goff, 2006). Consequently, it has created the need for more quality based selection procedures (Jackson, 2004; Gransberg et al., 2006; Elvin, 2007; Gransberg and Shan, 2010).   Qualification based selection processes have the following fundamental issues (Hampton, 1994): i High subjectivity where one can arrive at predetermined decisions on selection;  ii Reduced competition as new firms would find it difficult to penetrate into the market merely because they have no experience. 2.6.13.2 Obsession over profits  Profit is the key goal of most business organizations. According to Cox and Townsend (1998), construction managers prefer to extract maximum reward for a minimum risk. At present, many construction managers pursue the lowest cost alternative, with the belief that best value addition can be realized through short term profits and a capital cost reduction process (Elyamany and Abdelrahman, 2010). This system encourages cost cutting instead of quality enhancing. The obsession with profits will ultimately forfeit a more sustainable and foresighted solution in favor of short-term monetary benefit (Walker and Hampson, 2008).   42  2.6.13.3 Adversarial relationships within the project team According to Eriksson and Laan (2007) adversarial and trust-lacking relationships are the main criticisms in traditional procurement methods. The success of the procurement process is based on effective leverage (Cox and Townsend, 1998). Inability to establish effective leverage causes adversarial contractual relationships, eventually resulting in litigation (Rwelamila and Meyer, 1999; Cox and Townsend, 1998). Eriksson (2008) states that a lack of collaboration creates issues regarding both costs and quality of the projects. A litigious atmosphere consequently would avoid the creativity and win-win possibilities.  2.6.13.4 Disdain for sustainability Over emphasis on profit maximization by project clients causes environmental degradation. Adverse consequences of the above would be borne by the supporting communities rather than by the persons who are responsible (Walker and Hampson, 2008). Consequently the supporting communities will experience an impaired quality of life, and owners will pay a high indirect cost for projects (Walker and Hampson, 2008). Furthermore, qualifications based selection can be favorable towards the non-minorities in the supply sector, for small and medium companies are lagging in management and financial resources compared to established firms. This inequality makes qualification based procurement less socially sustainable (Hampton, 1994).  2.6.13.5 Technical issues of procurement process There are a number of technical issues pointed out by Cox et al. (2006) on procurement functions in the construction supply chain. According Cox et al. (2006) delaying the involvement of procurement department with the project functions, and lack of expertise within an organization to carry out the procurement tasks, directly affect the owner. In procuring  43  consultants for construction works, lower fee technical contractors are likely to be selected in a fee based system (Drew et al., 2004). Furthermore, selection of incompetent suppliers and sub-contractors who do not satisfy the defined performance criteria affects project delivery (Cox et al., 2006).  2.7 Bid Evaluation Methods The following section discusses the bid evaluation methods involving TBL of sustainability. These methods were identified from procurement documents reviewed in the study.  2.7.1 By awarding bonus points In this method procurers should identify the minimum requirements from a market analysis to ?set the bar?. For the proposals with additional criteria exceeding the minimum, additional points will be awarded.  2.7.2 Developing an evaluation matrix To compare several proposals a matrix is created with multiple disciplines, including criteria such as technical, sustainability-based, and financial. A weight will be assigned to each criteria by the procurer. This matrix is specified in the calling for bids/proposal documents issued by the procurer. The scoring would be subjective since it is done by a panel of experts appointed by the procurer.  2.7.3 Using the carbon measurement This method follows an LCA approach and focuses on the measurement of the carbon footprint of the products across project life cycle, from cradle to grave. Bid/proposals are evaluated and compared based on the carbon emissions. The benefit of this method is that it  44  enables procurers to identify and incorporate carbon reduction initiatives at the early stages of the project (ISO, 2011).  2.7.4 Risk and opportunity analysis In this method procurers should review sustainability risks and opportunities of the planned procurement against the organization?s sustainability objectives. This step helps to prioritize proposals based on high impact initiatives for the project in question.  2.7.5 Qualitative judgments In this method bidders are requested to summarize their experience and methods related to TBL of sustainability. Based on the bidders? explanation the procurer assesses the proposals and selects the most appropriate proposals.  2.7.6 Value for money In this method procurers award the bid offering the best value for money relative to the requirements of the project. This method is commonly used in public sector contracts, which will eventually result in a sustainable solution. Since sustainability is the balance between multiple factors, the bid with the best environmental and social solution cannot help but be successful (Wardani et al., 2006).  2.8 Future trends in procurement For many decades procurement was perceived as being a clerical and bureaucratic function within an organization (Callender, 2009). The recent past witnessed procurement evolving into a strategic tool for achieving the best value for the owners by integrating social, economical, and environmental objectives (Oyegoke et al., 2009). In fact Porter (1985) had  45  identified procurement as a supporting activity in the ?Porters Value Chain? model. At present, in general, a paradigm shift can be observed in procurement practices. The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) has studied construction contract usage in the United Kingdom from 1985-2007 (RICS, 2008; RICS, 2012). Table 2?5 provides a glimpse of the patterns of procurement methods used in obtaining constructed assets in the United Kingdom.  Table 2-5: Percentage of construction contracts used in UK based on value adopted from RCIS (2008); RCIS (2012)  1991 1993 1995 1998 2001 2004 2007 2010 Total Value of projects ?2819m ?3224m ?3224m ?4767m ?3337m ?3035m ?7813m ?1673m Lump Sum 70.1 85.6 86.3 79.9 83.1 77.6 64  Target contracts - - - - - 11.6 7.6 17.1 Reimbursement 2.5 4.1 2.1 1.7 2.8 2.5 2.0 0.7 Prime cost + Fixed fee 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.3 0.3 <0.1 0.2 0.6 Management contracts 7.9 6.2 6.9 10.4 2.3 0.8 1.1 0.0 Construction Management 19.4 3.9 4.2 7.7 9.6 0.9 9.6 0.1 Partnership - - - - 1.7 6.6 15.6 0.9  As per Table 2?5, there is a decrease in lump sum contracts in construction procurement in the UK. The use of contracting methods such as reimbursement, prime cost + fixed fee, and  46  management contracts have been constantly fluctuating throughout the surveyed period. A notable observation is the increased use of partnership contracts for realizing built assets even though there was a drop in 2010. The evidence proves that partnering is becoming a popular procurement method in the construction industry. Liu and Wilkinson (2011) state that partnering approaches used in New Zealand for project procurement are considered a major advancement in the construction industry. Furthermore, according to a comprehensive survey, two thirds of Canadians support the use of PPP for delivering public infrastructure (Kenter, 2010). Therefore it can be deduced that the trend for construction procurement is shifting towards partnership based approaches.  The most notable other development in procurement is the interest towards green procurement. Green procurement is defined as ?purchase of goods and services that are less harmful to the environment and to human health than competing products and services? (Office of the Auditor General Canada, 2005). At present, green procurement is mainly promoted in the public sector. The industry wide adaptation of green procurement is yet a far reach. A study by Price Water Coopers (2009) showed that the member countries of the European Union managed to achieve only 26% of their total procurement packages incorporated with defined core green criteria, where the target was 50%. Out of all procurement packages they managed to achieve only 3% of construction procurement packages incorporated with core green criteria. The same report noted that the incorporation of green procurement in construction would enable 70% CO2 reductions and 10% of LCC reductions.  Electronic procurement is a method that, with proper application, would enable improvements in efficiency and effectiveness in procurement. Many countries are now using web-based technology to improve access to procurement information - an inexpensive but highly  47  effective means of increasing transparency and competition (EPS and Bid net in USA; MERX and BC Bid in Canada). The European Union (2012) stated that electronic procurement can gain 5-20% cost savings although e-procurement is adopted in only 5-10% of procurement procedures in Europe. Korea and Brazil are currently using electronic procurement for the majority of public procurements. The European Union has an ambitious target of transforming 100% of public procurement to electronic mediums by 2016. According to the European Union (2012), the two main barriers to electronic procurement are inertia by stakeholders and the market fragmentation created by the existence of multiple technologies around the member countries.  International Organization for Standardization has introduced the ISO 10845:2011 series to help the construction industry set up a procurement system that is fair, equitable, transparent, competitive, and cost-effective (International Organization for Standardization, 2011). Further, the British Standards Institute followed ISO 10845:2011 by developing BS 8534:2011, which provides guidelines and recommendations to develop policies, strategies, and procedures for the procurement of construction services (British Standards Institute, 2011).  During construction many parameters are unknown at the time of procurement. Therefore incorporating criteria such as sustainability and green practices in construction procurement is more onerous (Varn?s, 2008b). Many private sector clients are lagging in knowledge of construction procurement strategies since it is not their core business area (Lastewka, 2005). However, at present, the strategic importance of procurement is acknowledged by many private sector organizations (Erridge et al., 2001; Callender, 2009; Construction industry review committee, 2001).  48  2.9 Sustainable Procurement Until the mid 20th century the emphasis was on buying primary inputs. Until procurement emerged as a concept, purchasing management, supplier partnerships, and supplier involvement were rare. Procurement has become a key function to all industries with management activities related to purchasing, such as managing relations with suppliers (Boomsma, 2008). The United Nations (2011) states sustainable procurement should consider the environmental, social, and economic consequences of design, manufacture, and production methods; non-renewable material use; logistics; recycling options; use; operation; maintenance; reuse; suppliers? capabilities; service delivery and disposal; followed up by addressing the above issues throughout the supply chain. The published literature suggests a new paradigm of public procurement action has increasingly considered economic and equity-driven goals within the local constituency and beyond (Walker and Brammer, 2009; Nijaki and Worrel, 2012). Governments use sustainable procurement as a strategy through their power as some of the largest purchasers and at the same time regulating to advance principals such as sustainable development; ensuring a strong, healthy, and just society; living within environmental limits; and promoting good governance. Perera et al. (2007) interpreted Sustainable Public Procurement as laws, policies, and practices incorporating a triple bottom line of sustainability into public procurement processes and decisions.  There is a considerable dissimilarity between countries in terms of environmental, social, and economic priorities. Therefore national determination of sustainable procurement is required (Perera et al., 2007). Sustainable procurement initiates from federal policies such as national sustainable development action plans, green house gas mitigation efforts, initiatives to increase  49  the uptake of environmental technologies, and efforts to promote products/services from minority suppliers. This is observed in sustainable procurement programs in Germany, Austria, France, and Switzerland, which reveals different origins and influences (Perera et al., 2007). Corporate social responsibility (CSR) has become a popular concept among corporations and it is seen prominently at the board level (Jones et al., 2006). According to a survey on the New York-based business associations, strategic motivation for CSR within corporations has increased from 38% in 2004 to 48% in 2006 (Franklin, 2008). Even though there is high interest within organizations towards integrating sustainability into their operations, their actual performance is much lower (Walker and Brammer, 2009). According to a McKinsey survey, out of 400 chief executive officers 60% stated their companies should improve global supply chain management issues to address environmental, social, and governance issues; however less than 30% were actually doing so (Walker and Brammer, 2009). In addition Meehan and Bryde (2011) state that though corporations consider sustainability an important organizational consideration, it may not necessarily be reflected in their procurement strategy and practice (Perera et al., 2007). Addis and Talbot (2001) published a book on using sustainable procurement in the construction industry, a project under CIRIA. The book contains guidance for linking sustainable procurement with construction projects. The book puts forward a number of case studies from the UK related to sustainable procurement. This book contains information regarding TBL of sustainability in a broad scope and is intended for a general audience associated with the construction industry, such as owners, engineers, cost estimators, contractors, local authorities, and specialist contractors. Other scholarly and industrial work on sustainable procurement is discussed in below sections.   50  Recently there has been an increasing trend towards incorporating environmental criteria in the procurement process (Tysseland, 2008; Price Water Coopers, 2009). However no significant evidence is available on the success of that trend. In 2006, the European Union targeted to achieve 50% of their total procurement packages incorporated with pre-defined green initiatives by 2010. They ultimately achieved only 26% (Price Water Coopers, 2009). The procurement framework of London Olympic Park 2012 obtained ISO 14001 certification (i.e. ISO certification for environmental management) (Epstein et al., 2011), which is evidence of successful green procurement. Many government institutes pursue best value as the basis for procurement decisions (Langdon and Everest, 2004). International organizations such as the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank, the Inter-American Development Bank, the United Nations, and the African Development Bank are using sustainable procurement (United Nations, 2011).  However there are still no holistic achievements in sustainable procurement to be observed within the construction industry. Prior scholarly publications related to sustainable construction procurement have predominantly concentrated on environmental criteria and project life cycle cost. Due to its complexity, social sustainability through procurement was rarely being researched (Sarkis et al., 2012). Ofori (2000) studied its feasibility by using environmental criteria for construction supply chains in Singapore. He identified designing a proper supply chain and overcoming the traditional attitudes within the construction industry as the main obstacles. Mustow (2006) studied the importance of focusing on ethical considerations in construction procurement. He identified a lack of information as the main hurdle for adhering to ethical considerations. Adetunji et al. (2008) studied social factors related to construction supply chains in a case study based on research of road maintenance projects. Varn?s et al. (2009) developed a conceptual  51  framework for improving environmental performance through procurement in the construction industry. Tysseland (2008) and Gransberg et al. (2005) conducted case studies on using life-cycle cost based approaches for procurement decisions in the construction industry. Sarkis et al. (2012) developed a decision model and framework for contractor selection using triple bottom lines of sustainability. Chen et al. (2008) developed a knowledge-framed analytic network process to select the most suitable tender for sustainable construction. Tarantini et al. (2011) developed a life cycle approach for green procurement of building elements.  Sourani (2008) conducted an industry wide survey to identify key factors for sustainable procurement for public sector construction. The study identified 43 factors, which consisted of 12 environmental sustainability factors, 12 economic sustainability factors, 19 social sustainability factors. Sustainable procurement initiatives are presented in Section 6.6.  Akadiri (2012) identified 24 assessment criteria to be used by architects and building designers in the selection of sustainable building materials. The study ranked the factors, aesthetics, maintainability, and energy saving and thermal insulation as the top 3 criteria. Hollos et al. (2011), in their study of western European firms, revealed that an environmental criterion in procurement attracts cost benefits and performance. Contrary to this idea, Cheung, Chan, and Kajewski (2010) conducted a study on public private partnerships in Hong Kong and stated that environmental considerations cause cost escalations and project overruns. Walker and Brammer (2012) studied electronic procurement (e procurement) and its relationship to sustainable procurement. They concluded that even though e procurement helps with suppliers? environmental, labor, health, and safety aspects, it reduces the buying opportunities for small and medium sized firms.   52  A sustainable construction procurement practice is hindered by a number of factors, such as lack of funding, lack of awareness, lack of research and development, etc. (Sourani and Sohail, 2011; Walker and Hampson, 2008). Shiers et al. (2006) stated that there is a lack of client demand and reluctance among contractors to implement sustainable practices in construction projects. However, lately there has been an increasing trend towards incorporating social and environmental criteria into procurement decisions (Tysseland, 2008;Price Water Coopers, 2009; Liu and Wilkinson, 2011).  2.9.1 Benefits of sustainable procurement Use of sustainable procurement  has several benefits, which ICELI (2007) and ASOSAI, (2006) have identified as follows: 2.9.1.1 Environmental benefits i Reduction in harmful emissions and waste generation - improved air and water quality ii Reduced use of natural resources iii Reduced environmental impact of operations through the supply chain iv Meeting existing and forthcoming legislation around the climate change agenda v Supporting resource efficiency  2.9.1.2 Social benefits i Improvements in working conditions - labor standards, health and safety ii Assisting disadvantaged groups in society iii Improving wage rates to those on low pay ? through the London Living Wage policy  iv Enhancing skills of the workforce to meet the future needs of the organization   53  2.9.1.3 Economic benefits i Improved efficiency in the public sector, more funds to invest in social and economic development ii Improving the efficiency and transparency of procurement procedures and organizational structures iii Financial savings by considering the whole life cycle cost through avoiding expenditure for resources that are turned into pollutants, the cost of cleaning them up, the cost to health and welfare systems arising from increases in illnesses caused by pollution.  2.9.1.4 Other benefits i Fulfilling the Government's commitment to place sustainable development at the center of public procurement policy ii Meeting international obligations (e.g. the Kyoto Protocol) iii Stimulating the market for green technologies in providing technical solutions to environmental problems whilst generating new employment opportunities. 2.9.2 Challenges for sustainable procurement Sourani and Sohail (2011) list the following as issues that hinder movement towards sustainable procurement: i Lack of funding, restrictions on expenditure, and unwillingness to incur higher capital cost when needed. ii Lack of awareness, understanding, information, commitment, and demand. iii Insufficient/inconsistent policies, regulations, incentives, and commitment by leadership. iv Insufficient/confusing guidance, tools, demonstrations, and best practice. v Vagueness of definitions and diversity of interpretations.  54  vi Separation between capital budget and operating budget. vii Lack of sufficient time to address sustainability issues. viii Lack of long-term perspective. ix General perception that addressing sustainability always leads to incurring the greater capital cost. x Resistance to change. xi Insufficient integration and linkup in the industry. xii Insufficient research and development. 2.10 Available Sustainable Procurement Guides This section reviews guide documents available for sustainable procurement. 2.10.1 United Nations: Buying for a better world Buying for a better world is the United Nations guide for sustainable procurement. This guidance document is used by various institutions, including the United Nations Vienna International Centre; UNICEF; UN Office at Nairobi; UN Office for Project Services; UN Interim Force in Lebanon; UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization; UN Children?s Fund; and UNHCR/HQ Geneva. The guide allows the United Nations to achieve diversified interests such as value for money; fairness, integrity, and transparency; and effective international competition. 2.10.2 ICLEI : Procura plus Procure plus is developed by ICELI, an international association of local governments and national and regional local government organizations who are committed to sustainable development with nearly 500 member organizations (ICLEI 2007). ICLEI provides local  55  government training, technical consulting, and guidance on enhancing capacity, information sharing, and supporting local governments on establishing sustainable procurement. Procura plus contains the following information for local governments to establish sustainable procurement: i How to integrate sustainability into procurement  ii Information on the cost of sustainable procurement  iii How to manage sustainable procurement: The Milestone process  iv Key purchasing criteria  v Guide to monitoring performance  This document contains specific guidance on sustainable procurement related to procuring buses, food, and catering; cleaning products; IT products; electricity; and building construction/renovation. 2.10.3 Canada Policy on Green Procurement  Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC) has developed a policy on green procurement, which has been in effect since 2006. PWGSC expects to achieve a number of long term goals through green procurement, such as achieving value for money; influencing Canadian industries and citizens to purchase environmentally preferable goods; encouraging innovation and market development of green products and services; and supporting environmental technologies.   This policy applies to public sector entities included in section 2 of the Financial Administration Act of Canada. This policy was put in place with the objective of achieving value for money through advancing environmental protection and supporting sustainable development by integrating environmental performance aspects into the procurement decision-making process. The policy is expected to assist public sector entities in minimizing GHG emissions and  56  air contaminants, improving energy and water efficiency, minimizing ozone depleting emissions, reducing waste generation and supporting reuse and recycling, and minimizing hazardous waste and toxic hazardous substances.  2.10.4 BS 8903: Principles and framework for procuring sustainable The British Standards Institute (BSI) has developed BS 8903, principles and framework for procuring sustainably, which is the world?s first standard for sustainable procurement as a part of BS 8900, guidance for managing sustainable development. BS 8903 assists managers by providing a complete framework to establish sustainable development through procurement. Guidelines of BS 8903 enable users to implement sustainable procurement across all supply chains; test sustainability; make best-practice decisions when buying goods; and perform risk analysis. 2.10.5 Buying green : A handbook on environmental public procurement The European commission has developed Buying green: A handbook on environmental public procurement to support public procurement authorities in procuring goods, services, and works with a reduced environmental effect along the life cycle. This document presents practical and effective ways to approach green procurement. The contents can be a useful guide document to corporate purchasers as well. 2.10.6 Buying Social: A Guide to Taking Account of Social Considerations in Public Procurement This document was published by the European commission to influence socially responsible procurement. This document raises potential benefits of using social considerations  57  in public procurement and it contains useful information for private sector purchasers who wish to make their purchases more socially sustainable. As per above several organizations have come up with sustainable procurement guide documents. However the guides described above are organization specific (e.g. European Union, United Nations). The BS 8903 and Canada`s green procurement policy contains general information for variety of users from various industries.  Overall in all the above guides contain limited guidance for construction industry. Table 2-6 summarizes the contents of the above sustainable procurement guide documents. 58  Table 2-6 : Summery of analysis of sustainable procurement guide documents Document Country Creating a sustainable procurement process Guidance on LCC Guidance on improving environment sustainability Guidance on improving social sustainability Guidance on improving economic sustainability Guidance for construction industry Guidelines for bid evaluation Buying for a better world International (UN) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Procura Plus European Union Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Green Procurement Policy Canada Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes BS 8903 United Kingdom Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes LEAP GPP tool kit European Union Yes No Yes No No No Yes Buying green European Union Yes No Yes No No Yes Yes Buying Social European Union Yes No No Yes No Yes Yes  59  2.11 Environmental and Social Labels Environmental and social labels are useful tools for implementing sustainable procurement. They help procurers to ensure that a product or service is incorporated with specific sustainability considerations, which cannot be measured using objective methods during the procurement process. Environmental and social label certification sets out specific environmental or social requirements that must be met by products or services for them to carry the label. This allows procurers to draft technical specifications, verify compliance through labels or their equivalent, and benchmark offers at the award stage.  Environmental and social labels have grown in popularity. ISO 14024 has categorized environmental labels into three categories:  ? Type-I labels (eco-labels): These labels address third party characteristics such as obtaining distinct leader environmental performance, or production that considers multi-sectors based on life-cycle considerations. These are voluntary and based on sound scientific evidence.   ? Type-II labels (Green claims): These labels are claims from companies themselves and may make claims about ?greenness? without having objective verification. ? Type-III labels (Environmental impact labels): These labels provide independently verified environmental parameters. However they do not convey any judgement on the environmental performance of a product.     60  2.12 Emergy Analysis Odum (1996) defined emergy as the scientific measure of real wealth in terms of energy required to do the work of production. Emergy is a distinctive part of a larger theory about the functioning and existence of ecological and other systems, explaining how sub systems of the above survive in hierarchies (Li et al., 2012). Solar energy is the basis of all energy sources. Odum (1996) defines emergy as the available solar energy used up directly and indirectly to make a service or a product. Therefore emergy is a universal measure of real wealth, which is measured using solar emjoules (Sej).  Emergy flow is calculated using the equation 2-1  (Odum, 1996)    ?(      )  Equation 2-1 : Emergy flow formula    is available type i input [in mass quantities (g) or energy quantities (J)     is the transformity of type i input in units of sej/J or sej/g (for specific emergy) According to Odum (1996) emergy calculation is a top down approach. The sequence of processes for emergy accounting starts from creating system diagrams to organizing evaluations and identifying all inputs to the system. This diagram allows identification of actual flows of energy, resources, and human services from which all emergy flows can be evaluated.  Emergy analysis has primarily been used for ecological analysis. Recently emergy based evaluations have been used for economic and environmental analysis of the built environment (Yang et al., 2010; Zhu et al., 2012; Reza et al., 2013; Li et al., 2012). Furthermore Ingwersen (2011) has suggested emergy as a useful measure for LCA. Amponsah et al. (2012) and Brown and Buranakarn (2003) conducted an emergy analysis on reuse of construction material. Chen et al. (2011) and Reza et al. (2013) evaluated project proposals based on emergy. Pulselli et al.  61  (2007), Huang and Hsu (2003), and Meillaud et al. (2005) conducted emergy based analysis of buildings.  A number of interesting studies were observed in the literature that focused on using energy as a measure for LCA of constructing assets. Fard (2012), in his thesis dissertation, developed the emergy-based ?Em-Green sustainability rating system? as a decision support tool for construction projects. Reza et al. (2013) developed Em-LCA as an evaluation technique that can estimate not only environmental burdens but also economic and social flows. The problem of dealing with non commensurable units for environmental impacts is one of the main issues with construction sustainability assessment tools and traditional LCA (Brown and Buranakarn, 2003). Furthermore, dealing with social criteria is another prevailing issue for the above scenario. Therefore having a harmonized unit will allow a more objective sustainability analysis. The common unit of emergy analysis observed in literature is solar emjoules. Therefore in this study, emergy analysis was conducted in solar emjoules (Sej).    62  Chapter 3 : Methodology In this chapter, the methodology used to develop the sustainable procurement framework is discussed. Figure 3-1 illustrates the outline of the research methodology used for this study.                      Data collection ? Procurement documents  ? Questionnaire responses ? Interview responses  ? Procurement guides Literature review ? Critical review in construction procurement practices ? Critical review of sustainable procurement  Industry review  Emergy and calculations Questionnaire responses Interview responses Document analysis Current status of the Canadian construction industry sustainable procurement, benefits and challenges Identify criteria applicable for sustainability assessment and LCC Emergy analysis Develop LCC and Emergy database Sustainable procurement framework  Emergy based bid evaluation tool Sustainable procurement process framework Tool Validation using interviews with industry experts Figure 3-1: Research methodology outline  63  Having identified the problem and project objectives earlier, the following sections describe the development process of the current study from inception to completion. The methodology used to realize each of the study objectives is discussed in separate sections in terms of data collection, data analyses, and synthesis related to the inquiry. 3.1 Research Deliverables By conducting this study the following deliverables are expected to be achieved: i A comprehensive review of contemporary trends in construction procurement. ii A comprehensive review of sustainable procurement in the construction industry.  iii An industry analysis to review the use of sustainable procurement in the Canadian construction sector. iv A framework to implement sustainable procurement in construction projects. v An evaluation tool to evaluate bids for buildings in design-build projects combining TBL of sustainability. The following sections describe the specific methodology used for achieving each research deliverable. 3.2 Method for Literature Review The objectives 1 and 2 are parts of the literature review.  A comprehensive literature review was conducted on the main research topic, sustainable procurement in the construction industry, and related topics such as construction procurement, sustainable development, sustainable construction, emergy accounting, and bid evaluation tools. The literature review contains four parts. The main parts of the literature review are as follows:    64  i Review of contemporary construction practices. ii Review of sustainable development and effect of construction industry on sustainable development. iii Review of sustainable procurement practices   iv Review of emergy accounting and bid evaluation tools. Document analysis was used as the research method in the literature review. 3.2.1 Document analysis Document analysis is a qualitative research method used to gain understanding and create empirical knowledge (Bowen, 2009). Even though document analysis is usually used in combination with other qualitative research methods, it can be used as a stand alone method as well. In document analysis printed and electronic documents are reviewed and evaluated. According to Bowen (2009) documents used in this method can be in any form such as advertisements, background papers, letters, agendas, books, survey reports, organizational and institutional reports, summaries, new paper articles, press releases, etc. The following sections describe specific methods used for each section of the literature review.  3.2.2 Review of contemporary construction procurement This study presents a systematic review of construction procurement. The aims of this study are to review and investigate the state of the art trends in construction procurement. According to Rwelamila and Edries (2007) a confusion exists among civil engineering consultants because of their lack of knowledge of alternative procurement systems. The findings of this study will assist construction managers and owners to develop a body of knowledge of construction procurement. Document analysis was used as the research tool for this part.   65  Books, journal articles, reports and internet sources were explored to understand construction procurement methods, procedures, and processes, to provide a systematic analysis of contemporary construction procurement practices.  3.2.3 Review of sustainable development and effect of construction industry on it. A comprehensive review of sustainable development was conducted by examining the history of the concept and recent developments. Sustainable development was studied with reference to Canada. In addition, the construction industry?s effect on sustainable development in Canada was reviewed.  3.2.4 Review of sustainable procurement  A detailed study was conducted on sustainable procurement, its development, past research, and resources available. Documents  used to review the above subject areas such as peer reviewed journal articles; reports published by organizations such as the United Nations, European Union, and public sector institutions on sustainable procurement were obtained from the respective websites and studied; sustainable procurement guides published by public sector organizations, the United Nations, European Union and international institutions such as the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) . In addition bid evaluation tools considering sustainability criteria were studied. The above tools were identified from the literature and were downloaded from respective web sites. 3.3 Method to Review Sustainable Procurement in Canadian Construction Industry A comprehensive industry survey was conducted at this stage. A mixed method research design with qualitative and quantitative research methods was used, and triangulation was used to validate the results obtained from multiple research methods. The project was approved by  66  Behavioral Research Ethics Board Okanagan under the minimal risk amendment (UBC BREB NUMBER: H12-02281). The UBC BREB approval is attached in Appendix A . In addition TCPS 2 research ethics course was followed to pursue this study. The certification is attached in Appendix B. 3.3.1 Qualitative research Even though engineering research has mainly focused on quantitative studies, recently there has been an increasing recognition of the value of qualitative research in construction management. Qualitative studies allow deeper investigation of problems to understand basic causes, principles, and behaviors (Liu and Fellows 2003). Four qualitative approaches are introduced by Trochim and Donnelly (2008): i Ethnography: This approach is mainly used in anthropology. The focus of this method is study of an entire culture. ii Phenomenology: This approach focuses on people's subjective experiences and interpretations of the world. In simple terms this approach is looking at the world through another person?s perspectives.  iii Field Research: In this approach the researcher goes into the field and observes the natural state of a phenomenon.  iv Grounded Theory : This approach is seeking to develop a theory from data collected from the study. The field research approach was used in observing sustainable procurement in the construction sector. The following two methods are used in the research: i Case studies: Case studies enable in-depth understanding of a subject (Fellows and Liu, 2003).  67  ii Semi structured interviews: Semi-structured interviews allow exploring a topic broadly (Trochim and Donnelly, 2008). The following sections describe the specific procedure used in each research method. 3.3.2 Case studies Documents associated with a project procurement process includes bid notices, request for proposal (RFP), tender documents, request for qualifications (RFQ), contract documents, etc. (Heldman and Mangano, 2011; Ra and Noc?ra, 2012). A total of 165 of the following procurement documents were reviewed to identify sustainable procurement initiatives:  i Bid notices  A bid notice is an owner?s advertisement calling to submit bids for a project.   ii Request for qualifications (RFQ) The RFQ is issued before the issuing of a request for proposals (RFP). A RFQ ensures that potential bidders for RFP are qualified to submit a detailed technical proposal (Hearn, 2007).  iii Request for proposal (RFP) The RFP is a request made by an owner for proposals to be developed and submitted, specifying alternative means by which objectives of the project will be best achieved through incorporating specified mandatory requirements (PWGSC, 2011). iv Tender documents Tender documents define technical specifications and the manner in which owner and contractor should share responsibility. Tender documents include an invitation to tender, instruction to bidders, conditions of contract, technical specifications, drawings, bill of quantities, and tender form (Mishra and Soota, 2008).  68  v Contract documents Contract documents include an agreement between owner and contractor that sets out basic provisions of the agreement describing the legal terms and conditions (Klinger and Susong, 2006).  3.3.2.1 Obtaining the procurement documents MERX is the leading e-procurement web site, listing bidding opportunities within the Canadian public and private sectors. In addition, ?BC Bid? lists British Columbia bid information and ?Alberta purchasing connection? lists Alberta bid opportunity information. Construction products and services were searched in the above web sites, and bid notices, and RFP and RFQ documents were downloaded. RFQ and RFP documents were also obtained from municipalities around Canada. Ten municipalities from each province were randomly selected and request for proposal documents were downloaded from selected municipality web sites. Tender documents and contract documents were obtained from civil engineering-related consulting engineering companies across Canada. Requests were made from 276 Canadian industry professionals to obtain a geographically dispersed sample of tender documents and contract documents. Only 2 have provided procurement documents. In addition standard construction contract document for defense construction for Canada was also reviewed. All electronic and printed materials reviewed in this study are categorized by province as stated in Table 3-1.      69  Table 3-1 : Procurement documents categorized according to the location (Ruparathna and Hewage, 2013)  Province Bid Notices RFQ documents RFP documents Tender documents Contract documents British Columbia 18 15 11 6 10 Alberta 9 5 6 4 6 Manitoba 4 1 2 3 3 Ontario 12 5 6 4 6 Quebec 3 1 1 1 1 Saskatchewan 6 1 1 2 1 Newfoundland and Labrador 2 2 0 0 0 Nova Scotia 1 0 0 0 1 New Brunswick 3 0 1 1 0 Total 58 30 28 21 28  Table 3-2 categorizes procurement documents according to construction product or service. The categories were new building projects, renovations and additions, infrastructure projects (e.g. road projects and municipal engineering projects), demolition projects, and construction services (e.g. Consultancy).        70  Table 3-2: : Procurement documents categorized according to the project (Ruparathna and Hewage, 2013) Projects Buildings Renovations Infrastructure Demolitions Services Bid notices 16 25 6 5 6 RFQ 5 10 8 1 6 RFP 8 10 3 0 7 Tender document 4 10 6 1 0 Contracts document 5 11 5 3 4 Total 38 66 28 10 23  3.3.3 Semi structured interviews Semi-structured interviews allow exploring a topic broadly (Trochim and Donnelly, 2008). Nine semi-structured and detailed interviews were conducted by construction industry professionals and project owners. The sampling frame for semi-structured interviews was obtained from a list of construction industry professionals and project owners operating in the Okanagan, in British Columbia. Twenty relevant respondents were randomly selected from the sampling frame. Emails were sent to potential respondents above requesting for a meeting. Nine respondents replied, agreeing to respond. The recruitment letter and the consent forms are included in Appendix C, D and E.  A breakdown of the designations of interview respondents is given in Table 3-4. All the interviews were conducted at the respondent`s offices. Respondents were provided with the interview script ahead of time, and scripts included both objective and open ended questions. The questions were designed to obtain information on procurement procedures used by respondent institutions, sustainability initiatives used for procurement,  71  challenges for sustainable procurement, and respondent?s perception of sustainable procurement.The interview script is attached as Appendix E Each interview lasted approximately 30 minutes. Personal opinions on the current state of sustainable construction procurement were obtained from the respondents. The interview script contained 10 questions. Analysis of the interview script used for semi-structured interviews are given in Table 3-3. In addition interview responses are included in Appendix G. Table 3-3: Analysis of interview script Question Purpose of the question with respect to the research 1,2,3,4 Obtain understanding of the organization and its procurement process, in order to make final conclusions. 5 Understand industry perception on sustainable procurement to see whether industry is willing to use this concept. 6 Identify challenges for implementing sustainable procurement, which should be addressed through a framework. 7 Identify whether sustainable procurement is used within the organization in order to assess the current status of sustainable procurement. 8 Understand the bid evaluation methods used to understand whether TBL of sustainability is considered. 9 Understand the perception of construction industry professionals on how sustainable procurement can be implemented. 10 Identify the benefits of using sustainable procurement, which can be used as stimuli for implementation.      72  Table 3-4: Interview respondents Designation of the respondent Number Director engineering services 1 Director facilities management 1 Procurement managers 2 Procurement officer 2 Construction managers 3  3.3.4 Quantitative research According to Kraska (2010), quantitative research studies produce results that can be used to describe variations in measurable characteristics of a target population. In addition, qualitative research enables generalizations of data obtained in similar situations; provides explanations of predictions; and explains causal relationships. According to Trochim and Donnelly (2008), quantitative research design can be categorized in the following three ways: i True experimental design This is the most comprehensive quantitative research method. Experimental designs are useful for establishing cause-and-effect relationships among variables. The important aspects in true experimental designs include randomization, experimental controls, experimental treatments hypothesis testing, experimental and control groups, and standardized research instruments (Kraska, 2010).  ii Quasi experimental design Quasi experimental design is used when random assignment of subjects to groups is not possible. The lack of full control randomization causes threats to internal and external validity in quasi experimental designs (Kraska, 2010).  73  iii Non-experimental research design Non-experimental design is used in instances where the variable has already occurred. Non-experimental methods include the causal comparative method, the survey method, and the correlation method (Kraska, 2010).   A survey, in the form of a questionnaire, was conducted as part of the quantitative research approach. It collected data from individuals expected to be representative of the population. Statistical procedures for reporting survey data include frequencies, percent, cross-tabulations (cross-tabs), chi-square statistic, phi coefficient, Kendall coefficient, and the gamma statistic (Kraska, 2010). 3.3.5 Questionnaire surveys Questionnaires are a relatively inexpensive tool to administer and can reach a wide range of respondents. However, response rates for questionnaires are often very low (Trochim and Donnelly, 2008; Holyk, 2008). The questionnaire in this study included questions related to the current use of sustainable procurement initiatives, drivers for implementation, benefits of using sustainable procurement, and challenges to implementation. According to Welkowitz et al. (2006), sample size and power are the two most important factors in statistical studies.  3.3.5.1 Sample size determination Sample size is an important criterion in statistical studies because it determines the accuracy of the sample statistics. All other characteristics being equal, when sample size increases the error decreases and power increases. Welkowitz et al. (2006) used Equation 3-1 and Equation 3-2 to determine the sample size.   74         ?  (    ) Equation 3-1: Calculating d value    (  )  Equation 3-2: Calculating the sample size d  = Sample size effect  N  = Sample size    = Proportion of the organizations considered in the most possible scenario.    = Proportion of the organizations considered in the considered scenario.     Significance criterion      = function of significance criterion   and power Based on the initial discussion with industry experts, approximately about 25% of the construction clients are using sustainable procurement. Based on that following hypothesis was developed. H0 : Proportion of organizations using sustainable procurement is        of the organizations. H1 :                                                                                  From equation 3-1                                              With a desired         and power of 0.80 from the table ?  as a function of significance criterion   and power?, for one tailed test   = 2.49 From Equation 3-2                   75  3.3.5.2 Determining the power The number of responses received for the survey was 30. Therefore based on the number of responses the power of the test can be determined using Equation 3-3 (Welkowitz et al., 2006).    ?  Equation 3-3: Calculating   From Equation 3-3                                                                            With a desired         and        from the table ?Power as a function of    and, for one tailed test power of the 0.85.  Therefore with 30 respondents the power is 0.85 and the probability of type 2 error is 0.15.  3.3.5.3 Designing the questionnaire Malhotra et al. (2002) indicated three major considerations for an effective questionnaire. The points raised by those authors include providing questions such that the respondent can and will answer, varying the format of questions to motivate respondents, and increasing clarity to minimize response errors. The above considerations were addressed in preparing the questionnaire. Holyk (2008) stated that designing a questionnaire involves 4 steps. The following sequence, as outlined by Holyk, was used to design the questionnaire:  i Defining the goals and objectives of the study: The objective of the questionnaire was to identify the current status of sustainable procurement in the Canadian construction industry. Specific research questions were generated based on the research objectives. A briefing of the purpose of the questionnaire and information about the concepts (i.e. sustainable procurement) was included before the questionnaire.   76  ii Designing the questions and length of the questionnaire: Holyk (2008) stated it is important to reduce the cognitive burden of respondents when reading the questionnaire. Therefore questions were structured in simple English. Longer questionnaires cause higher refusal rates (Holyk, 2008). Therefore the questionnaire was designed with a total of 29 questions and 6 pages.  iii Testing the questions: Unclear concepts, poorly worded questions, and difficult or unclear response choices may make the questionnaire difficult for both respondents and interviewers (Holyk, 2008). Therefore the questionnaire was checked for language and questions. The questionnaire was reviewed with the help of an experienced construction manager to ensure the questions were sensible and in accordance with survey objectives.  iv Obtaining the ethics approval: It is important to ensure that the social research questionnaire has no ethical concerns. Therefore UBCO ethics board approval was sought for the questionnaire (The details are stated in section 2.3).  The questionnaire was designed to obtain holistic knowledge on sustainable procurement in the Canadian construction industry. Since the aim of this research is a background study on sustainable procurement, mainly nominal data were obtained from the questionnaire. In addition the questionnaire included descriptive questions to obtain a more thorough understanding of the above subject. The questionnaire was developed based on the literature review and informal expert interviews. It was then submitted for the approval of the Okanagan research ethics board of the University of British Columbia. ?Vovici EFM Continuum? online survey tool was used to publish the questionnaire on the World Wide Web. The link to the survey was emailed to construction managers and project owners. Since it was difficult to get the written consent from  77  all the respondents a statement was added in the online questionnaire stating ?by clicking submit at the end of the survey the respondent is agreeing to take part in this study?. The screen shots of this survey designed in ?Vovici EFM Continuum? tool is included as Appendix F.    Contact information (i.e. Email and telephone number) of potential respondents was obtained from provincial construction engineering associations and provincial consulting engineering associations from British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario, New Brunswick and Qu?bec. In addition, contact information of municipalities of the above provinces were obtained from the internet. The above information constituted the sampling frame for the questionnaire survey. From each province 40 construction industry organizations and 6 municipalities were randomly selected for the survey.  In total, 276 emails were sent to organizations invited to participate in the survey. Four weeks after the initial invitation, a reminder was sent. A total of 20 responses were received after 9 weeks. The response rate was 7%.  The central limit theorem in statistics indicates that if the sample size is at least 30, the sampling distribution will be approximately normal (Levine et al., 2011). Therefore the target response rate for the questionnaire was 30+ responses. Since responses to the online survey were fewer than 30, an additional 25 organizations that had previously been sent an email were given a follow-up phone call. Existing contact information was used as a sampling frame and a random sample of 25 potential organizations was selected. Ten weeks after the initial invitation a total of 30 organizations had participated in the survey, with an overall response rate of 10.8%. The responses were used as quantitative indicators to assess sustainable procurement practices.    78  3.3.6 Analysis of research tools selected. According to Liu and Fellows (2008) research tools selected for this study (i.e. questionnaire survey, interviews, and case studies) vary significantly with the width and the depth of the study. Figure 3-2 shows the depth and width of each research tool used in this study. This is a fundamental concern for any researcher involved with social research when selecting a research tool. However, selecting all three methods in this study enabled manipulation of the advantages of each research tool, resulting in a holistic study.             3.3.7 Triangulation Triangulation is the use of two or more methods to investigate the same study objective with the logic that using multiple methods brings researchers closer to obtaining a realistic picture (Fellows and Liu, 2003). The concept of triangulation was derived from navigation, Width of the study Depth of the study a b c a : Questionnaires b : interviews c : case studies The area of each figure are the same Figure 3-2: Breadth and depth of social research tools adopted from Liu and Fellows (2008)  79  military strategy, and surveying (Cox and Hassard, 2010). Data triangulation is a frequently used technique in social science research to combine both qualitative and quantitative research methods. Use of multiple methods and measures for an empirical phenomenon reduces bias and improves the convergent validity (Cox and Hassard, 2010). Given (2008) states that triangulation allows researchers to identify, explore, and understand different dimensions of the units of study, thereby strengthening their findings and enriching their interpretations. However the same authors point out that, differences can exist when multiple investigators investigate a single phenomena using multiple methods.  3.4 Identifying Challenges and Benefits of Sustainable Procurement A comprehensive study was conducted to identify challenges and benefits of sustainable procurement. Ten challenges for sustainable procurement and 10 benefits of using sustainable procurement were identified from the published literature. Questionnaire respondents were asked to rank challenges and benefits of sustainable procurement from a scale of 1-10 based on the significance of each statement. The data were analyzed using SPSS 20.  3.4.1 SPSS  SPSS is a software program used for data management and inferential statistical analysis. This software is used in a number of fields such as psychology, sociology, market research, business, and government. SPSS has the capability to accommodate large data sets that have a large number of variables (Bronstad and Hemmesch, 2010).  3.4.2 Non parametric tests Non parametric tests are a hypothesis testing method where it is not necessary to specify the form of the distribution. These tests require a limited number of assumptions compared to  80  parametric tests. Furthermore non parametric tests are preferred over parametric tests when the distribution of the population deviates from normal distribution (Salkind, 2008). Therefore since the number of responses to the questionnaire was 30, non parametric tests were used in the data analysis. Data analysis methodology used in this study is described below: i Challenges and benefits of sustainable procurement were coded and raw data were entered into the SPSS package. The codes used are presented in Appendix M and Appendix I. ii The data were checked for normality using SPSS. Zorn (2004) stated Shapiro-Wilk is a test for the normal distribution of a random variable. The Shapiro-Wilk test was used to check for normality. iii According to Cunningham and Aldrich (2012), the Friedman rank test is a non parametric test that can be used to compare multiple groups where the subjects are the same. The Friedman test was therefore used to determine the most critical challenges for sustainable procurement and benefits of using sustainable procurement. When using the Friedman test, the following hypotheses are used: H0: Distributions of the ranks of each criterion are the same. H1: Distributions of the ranks of each criterion are different. Since the Friedman test is an omnibus test, the test statistics indicate whether there is an overall difference but they do not show differences between criteria. iv The Wilcoxon test should be used instead of the paired t test when the distributions are not normally distributed (Cunningham and Aldrich, 2012). The Wilcoxon test can be used for data measured at ordinal, interval, or ratio level. The Wilcoxon test was  81  conducted in pairs of factors to see whether the ranks of two criteria (i.e challenges or benefits) are the same.  H0: Rank difference of criteria x and criteria y are the same H1: Rank difference of criteria x and criteria y are not the same x and y are criteria 1-10 of challenges for sustainable procurement and  criteria 1-10 of benefits of sustainable procurement. Since multiple comparisons are made here, the Bonferroni adjustment (Equation 3-4) is required for the results obtained from the Wilcoxon tests. Bonferroni-adjusted significance level was computed manually.                                                                   Equation 3-4 : Bonferroni adjustment For all the above instances a 95% significance level is considered.  The results of the statistical analysis were compared with the feedback from the semi structured interviews.  3.5 Establishing Validity and Reliability Establishing validity and reliability are important aspects of social research. The meaning of ?reliability? and ?validity? is explained below: Reliability: Reliability is the consistency or repeatability of the data measures (Trochim and Donnelly, 2008). Types of reliability include Inter-Rater or Inter-Observer Reliability, Test-Retest Reliability, Parallel-Forms Reliability, and Internal Consistency Reliability   82  Validity: Validity of a survey is the ability of the measures used in a survey to lead to valid conclusions (Trochim and Donnelly, 2008). Types of validity include internal validity, conclusion validity, external validity, and construct validity.  The following actions were taken to assure the reliability and validity of objective 3 and objective 4 of this study.   3.5.1 Measures to establish validity and reliability: Objective 3 The following sections describes the measures taken to establish validity and reliability of industry survey on sustainable procurement. 3.5.1.1 Establishing validity The main types of validity are internal validity, external validity, and construct validity. The following sections explain how the above types of validity were established in this study. 1. Internal validity is important for studies with causal relationships (Trochim and Donnelly, 2008). Therefore in this study internal validity is not considered.  2. According to Trochim and Donnelly (2008), external validity is the extent to which the findings of the study can be generalized. In order to establish the external validity of the findings, the following methods were followed: i. The sampling frame for the questionnaire survey consisted of respondents across Canada. A random sample of respondents was used for the study (See section 2.3.5). ii. The procurement documents reviewed in this study contained procurement documents from around Canada and from various projects (See section 2.3.2). iii. For semi-structured interviews, a random sample of respondents was obtained from the sampling frame of construction professionals operating in Canada.   83  3. Construct validity is a major type of validity that should be established. Under construct validity, two main validity sub types were assessed.  i. Face validity is looking at the study instruments to determine whether "on its face" it seems like a good translation of the study construct (Trochim and Donnelly, 2008). In order to confirm the face validity of the intended research tools, discussions were conducted by a sociology professor (who is an expert in research methods) and two construction management doctoral students who agreed with the design. ii. Content validity is checking the operationalization against the relevant content domain for the construct (Trochim and Donnelly, 2008). The researcher formed the survey questions based on the definition of sustainable procurement by the sustainable procurement task force (2006). Therefore the measures in the questionnaire surveyed the construction industry on the main aspects of sustainable procurement. In order to confirm the content validity of the research, tools were checked by two doctoral students with the questionnaire and definition of sustainable procurement. iii. The predictive validity of a survey is a degree of agreement between evaluated survey tool and results obtained from another direct measurement (Trochim and Donnelly, 2008). Predictive validity is established when there is an agreement between the initial interview feedback and results of the questionnaire survey and procurement document case studies. iv. Convergent validity is the degree to which the operationalization of the study is similar to other operationalization that, theoretically, it should be similar to.  84  Likewise, the observations of the three research tools used to measure sustainable procurement results should be similar.  3.5.1.2 Establishing reliability 1. Inter-Rater reliability is used to assess whether different raters provide a consistent measure of a phenomena. A master?s student was asked to identify sustainability from 5 randomly selected procurement documents that were previously assessed for sustainability initiatives. The observations showed that the sustainability initiatives were identified the same by both observers.  2. Test-retest reliability is established if the same results are achieved when the same test is performed for the same sample. For case studies, the same procedure was repeated to ensure the same results were observed each time.   3. For the questionnaire survey and semi structured interviews, test-retest reliability could not be measured due to the availability of the respondents.  3.5.2 Measures to establish validity and reliability: Objective 4. The following section describes measures taken to improve the validity and reliability of industry survey on benefits and challenges of sustainable procurement. 3.5.2.1 Establishing validity Since the same questionnaire was used, the procedure as explained in section 2.5.1 was applicable to establishing validity of the objective 4.  85  3.5.2.2 Establishing reliability According to Trochim and Donnelly (2008), internal consistency reliability is a measure that assesses the consistency of the results across the items within a survey. Internal consistency reliability of measures can be assessed from either Cronbach's alpha or Split half reliability. 1. In this study Split half reliability was used to assess the internal consistency of the measures. The results obtained for each criteria ( i.e challenges and benefits) were assessed for internal consistency. The results of the split half reliability test are presented in Appendix H.  2. Multiple raters ranked challenges and benefits of sustainable procurement, establishing inter rater reliability. 3. For the questionnaire survey and semi structured interview, test-retest reliability could not be measured due to the availability of the respondents. 3.6 Sustainable Procurement Framework Construction procurement differs significantly from other goods and services procurement since each construction project is unique is not in existence at the time of procurement. Many of the resources available for sustainable procurement are general guidelines and less guidance is available specifically for construction. Therefore a conceptual framework is proposed in this section to implement sustainable procurement in construction projects. In addition this section includes guidelines for sustainable procurement in construction projects.  Information obtained from review of the literature on construction procurement and sustainable procurement was mainly used in developing the framework and guidelines. In addition challenges identified from the industry survey were considered in developing the framework. Figure 3-3 illustrates the research methodology outline used for this study.  86      3.7 Developing Emergy Based Bid Evaluation Tool Emergy accounting is a developing concept that is capable of quantifying environmental and social factors using solar joules. Since bid evaluation and lack of objective methods for bid evaluation are areas of concern from the initial study, emergy was used to quantify factors of sustainability on bids. The following steps were carried out in developing Em-procure tool: i Sustainability indicators discussed in the literature were reviewed to identify feasible criteria to be used in bid documents. ii Emergy values for construction material and emergy conversion factors were obtained from the literature. iii Important considerations for construction procurement were obtained from the literature. iv Microsoft Excel was used as the platform to develop this tool. The following energy system diagram is used for evaluation of sustainability factors for a building project (Figure 3-4).    Figure 3-3: Development of sustainable procurement framework  87   Machinary Labour  Renewable energy Solar Energy Recycling Natural Resources Building  Construction Building operation and Maintanace Demolition  Fuel  Water Labour  Socio economic contributions Emissions Emissions to environment Human health effect   Figure 3-4: Energy flow diagram  88   Figure 3-4 illustrates the system diagram for the construction project considered in developing the Em-procure tool. The project system boundary is defined from  material extraction, construction, operation, demolition and  land filling. Solar energy, water natural resources, machinery, fuel, water and renewable energy are considered as the energy sources from the outside to the system. Socio economic contributions, emissions to the environment and human health effect are considered as the out puts from the system.  3.7.1 Validation of framework and the bid evaluation tool Validation of the bid evaluation tool and framework is an important stage in this study. The tool was validated using by survey with construction industry professionals. The following procedure was used to validate the sustainable procurement framework and bid evaluation tool: i Consulting engineers operating in the Okanagan with more than 10 years construction industry experience were requested to participate in the assessment. ii Three potential respondents agreed to participate in the validation assessment. iii Unstructured interviews were conducted with the respondents to identify the industry perception of the developed resources.  iv Based on the feedback of the recommendations, required modifications were done.    89  Chapter 4 : Sustainable Procurement in the Canadian Construction Industry This section provides results of industry analysis conducted on the use of sustainable procurement in the Canadian construction industry. Results and observations made during this study were used to deduce the current status of sustainable procurement in Canada. Empirical evidence from the above research methods are as follows: 4.1 Questionnaire Survey 4.1.1 Respondents In the research questionnaire, questions 1 to 4 were designed to gain information about the respondent organizations. Of the respondents, 60% were construction managers and 40% of the respondents were construction clients.  In regards to the organizational sector of respondents, 57% represented the private sector and 43% of respondents represented the public sector. In regards to respondent organizations, 53% of respondents represented civil and construction engineering related organizations and 47% represented non-civil engineering organizations such as educational institutes, municipalities, and health care institutes. Considering the value of the projects handled, 92% of project owners had procured projects worth $5 million during last 5 years, while 72% of construction managers handled projects worth $5 million or more during last 5 years. Out of the total respondent organizations 50% have been in operation for the last 50 years. Only 13% of the respondent organizations were incorporated during the last 5 years.  4.1.2 Current procurement practices in respondent organizations Questions 6 to13 of the questionnaire were designed to obtain an understanding of procurement practices of each respondent organization. Among the respondents, 73% reported that the organization's mission/vision statement and company values statements recognize  90  environmental, social, and economic sustainability as a consideration. A total of 66% of respondents stated that their respective organizations are using a documented procurement manual. Out of the above documented procurement manuals, 95% of those contain guidelines to incorporate environmental and social factors into the project procurement process. In addition, 97% of respondents stated that the head of the procurement division of their organization is from middle management, upper management, or board level.  4.1.3 Sustainability initiatives used in construction procurement The main considerations of sustainable procurement include social and environmental criteria, achieving the best value, and consideration for life cycle cost (Sustainable Procurement Task Force, 2006). Therefore, questions 14 to 18 of the questionnaire were designed to obtain respondents' feedback on current sustainability initiatives used in construction procurement. Industry feedback on the use of environmental and social criteria for construction procurement is given in Table 4-1. Table 4-1: Interview responses on use of environmental and social criteria for procurement Criteria No Yes, Sometimes Yes, Every time Environmental Criteria 4 16 10 Social Criteria 8 15 7  Descriptive questions were used as follow up to the above questions to understand specific sustainability initiatives that are used in construction procurement. Respondents were asked to state the environmental considerations used in the procurement process. Respondents? feedback was categorized according to specified environmental sustainability initiatives. The frequency of each initiative named by a respondent was assessed to identify commonly used  91  sustainability initiatives. Frequency of environmental sustainability factors stated by questionnaire respondents is provided in Table 4-2. Table 4-2 : Environmental sustainability initiatives observed in the questionnaire Environmental sustainability initiatives Frequency Comply with LEED 13 Comply with federal environmental guidelines 3 Establish initiatives for water efficiency 2 Establish initiatives for reduced power consumption 2 Waste Recycling / management at the site 3 Design considering project life cycle, effects on air, water, and energy use  1 Experience in sustainable building construction 1 Establish an environmental management plan 3 Follow the guidelines of sustainable procurement manual 1 Follow green procurement guidelines 1  A summary of environmental sustainability factors stated by questionnaire respondents follows in Table 4-3.    92   Table 4-3: Social sustainability initiatives observed in the questionnaire Social sustainability initiatives Frequency  Consider public input for archeological works 1 Consider prescribed hiring requirements 1 Consider local labor market forces to reduce separating families for living away for work 1 Ministry of labor guidelines 5 Health and Safety  7 Past performance of the contractor related to social factors 1 Reduce impact on surrounding environment 2 Social welfare 1 Qualifications of the contractor staff 1 Provide training opportunities for employees 2 Use guidelines of sustainable procurement manual 1 Fair wages for employees 1  4.1.4 Construction project proposal/bid evaluation Questions 19 to 21 of the questionnaire were used to understand the bid evaluation process. Based on the questionnaire survey, the basis for evaluating construction project bids is one of the major concerns of sustainable procurement. Only 10% are using value based procurement while 90% of the respondents reported that they are using low bid procurement, which is identified as a main drawback of procurement. For financial evaluation, 83% of the respondents stated that initial cost is used as the procedure in bid selection. Only 17% stated that  93  the whole life cycle cost is used as the basis for financial evaluation. In addition 30% of the respondents stated that their organization uses social and environmental factors as evaluation criteria in bid documents. On top of that, 17% of the total respondents stated a standard method is used by their organizations for evaluating social and environmental factors.  4.1.5 Industry perception on sustainable procurement Questions 22 and 23 were used to understand industry perceptions on using sustainable procurement practices. Out of the total respondents, 87% agreed that environmental and social criteria should be included in the construction procurement process. In addition, 87% of the total respondents agreed that incorporating environmental and social criteria, and project life cycle cost of construction procurement would gain long term benefits.   4.1.6 Drivers for sustainable procurement  In order to identify drivers for sustainable procurement, respondents were asked to rank drivers identified in the literature. Based on the total responses, government regulation was ranked as the most important driver for implementing sustainable procurement. Respondents ranked competitive edge in the market as the second driver, and client requirement as the third driver. The fourth driver is the cost of ownership.  4.2 Case Studies A total of 165 construction procurement documents were studied in this survey. A total of 275 clauses related to sustainable procurement were observed in procurement documents. The average number of sustainability clauses included in procurement documents was 1.67. Sustainability initiatives observed in construction procurement documents were categorized by document (Table 4-4) and project type (Table 4-5).   94  Table 4-4 : Sustainability initiatives categorized according to document type. Initiative Bid notices RFP RFQ Tender documents Contract documents Incorporate LEED 1 5 3 2 4 Ensure work place safety 1 28 0 21 28 Comply with workers compensation act 0 28 0 21 28 Environmental stewardship 0 4 3 3 11 Create employment opportunities 0 1 0 0 0 Reduce toxic substances 0 1 0 1 2 Transparency 0 28 26 15 0 Experience in sustainable construction 0 1 2 0 0 Waste management and recycling 0 1 0 1 1 Worker training 0 0 0 0 1 Fair wages to the workers 0 0 0 1 1 Energy use standards 0 1 0 0 0 Average number of sustainability clauses per document 0.03 3.27 1.21 3.10 2.71      95  Table 4-5 : Sustainability initiatives categorized according to the project type. Initiative Buildings Renovations  Infrastructure Demolition Services Incorporate LEED  8 4 1 1 1 Ensure work place safety 18 31 14 4 11 Comply with workers compensation act 17 31 14 4 11 Environmental stewardship 2 5 10 1 3 Create employment opportunities 0 1 0 0 0 Reduce toxic substances 1 2 0 1 0 Transparency 14 28 16 1 10 Experience in sustainable construction 1 0 1 0 1 Waste management and recycling 1 1 0 1 0 Worker training opportunities 0 1 0 0 0 Fair wages to the workers 0 2 0 0 0 Energy use standards 1 0 0 0 0 Average number of sustainability  clauses per project 1.66 1.61 2.00 1.30 1.61 4.3 Semi Structured Interviews A total of 9 detailed interviews was conducted with project owners and construction managers. Interview respondents included a director of engineering service from a municipality; a director of facilities management from a public sector institution; two procurement managers from a local municipality; the procurement officer of a public sector organization; the project coordinator from a public sector organization; the senior manager of a large scale construction  96  company; the senior manager of a medium scale civil engineering company; and a project manager from a construction management company.  All the respondents agreed with the added benefits of sustainable procurement and considered it a necessity. At present, limited sustainable procurement initiatives are used by construction organizations. LEED certification is one of the main sustainability initiatives practiced by all the contacted organizations. In addition, energy use standards, specifications of less toxic material, complying with local legislation, recycling of material, safety procedures for the workers, and timely delivery of municipal assets for the benefit of the tax payers are the other voluntary sustainability initiatives used by respondent organizations. There is also a growing trend towards using e-procurement in respondent organizations.   Respondents had mixed ideas about drivers for sustainable procurement. Construction managers identified owner?s commitment as the main driver for sustainable procurement. Public sector organizations consider government policy as the driver for sustainable procurement. In addition incentives would support establishing sustainable procurement. Public sector respondents acknowledged that using sustainable procurement would enable them to set an example as a responsible organization within the society and to achieve best value for tax money of the local residents. Private sector respondents identified client requirements, establishing a good social image, and competitive edge in the market as main drivers for sustainable procurement.  4.4 Triangulation Data triangulation was used to validate the results obtained used to identify the current status of sustainable procurement in the Canadian construction industry. Empirical evidence extracted from three research methods complemented the findings of each other. According to  97  the questionnaire survey, 90% of the respondents stated that they are using social criteria, environmental criteria, or life cycle cost in construction project procurement. Seventeen percent (17%) of organizations are considering social and environmental criteria every time. Only 1 out of 30 organizations is using social and environmental criteria, life cycle costing, and value based selection during procurement. Social and environmental criteria stated by each respondent have been limited in number. The mean number of sustainable procurement initiatives observed through the questionnaire was 1.87. The median was 2 and standard deviation was 1.4. The maximum sustainable procurement clauses defined by one respondent was 5.  According to observations from case studies, 12 sustainable procurement initiatives were identified in procurement documents. The median number of sustainable procurement clauses was 2 while the mean was only 1.67 and standard deviation was 1.5. One RFP document and one tender package contained 5 sustainable procurement initiatives, which was the maximum observed. Interview responses confirmed that a limited number of sustainable procurement initiatives are used by construction managers and project owners in the current construction industry. Obtaining LEED certification was the main requirement defined by interview respondents. In addition 6 more sustainable procurement initiatives were stated by respondents.  Respondents of the questionnaire survey identified 22 sustainable procurement initiatives. Through case studies 12 sustainability initiatives were observed and interview respondents identified 6 sustainable procurement initiatives. Based on the questionnaire survey and document analysis, use of many sustainable procurement initiatives has been infrequent except for initiatives such as worker safety and LEED certification. Therefore results of the three methods  98  (i.e. questionnaire survey, document analysis, and interviews) clearly indicate that limited numbers of sustainability initiatives are currently used in the Canadian construction industry.    99  Chapter 5 : Challenges and Benefits of Sustainable Procurement This section presents a statistical analysis to identify the most critical challenges for sustainable procurement, and the benefits of using sustainable procurement in the construction sector. In the questionnaire 30 respondents ranked identified challenges and benefits of sustainable procurement. This raw data was used in IBM SPSS 20 statistical software for analysis. A complete description of the methodology used in this chapter is explained in section 2.4. The results of the data analysis are presented in the below paragraphs. A confidence level of 95% is considered in this analysis. 5.1 Challenges for Sustainable Procurement The descriptive statistics of the challenges of sustainable procurement are presented in Appendix J. The results of the Shapiro-Wilk normality tests are presented in Table 5-1.  Table 5-1: Shapiro-Wilk normality test results (Challenges for sustainable procurement) Criteria Considered   Shapiro-Wilk Statistic df Sig. Lack of funding and unwillingness to incur higher cost Chal_1 0.708 30 0.000 Lack of awareness, understanding, information, commitment and demand Chal_2 0.897 30 0.007 Insufficient  policies, regulations and lack of leadership Chal_3 0.821 30 0.000 Insufficient/confusing guidance, tools, demonstrations and best practice Chal_4 0.917 30 0.022 Vagueness of definitions and diversity of interpretations Chal_5 0.881 30 0.003 Separation between capital budget and operating budget Chal_6 0.890 30 0.005 Lack of sufficient time to address sustainability issues Chal_7 0.953 30 0.198 Resistance to change Chal_8 0.941 30 0.095 Insufficient research and development Chal_9 0.909 30 0.014 Complicated procedures, skilled staff for execution Chal_10 0.859 30 0.001  100   If the Significance value of the Shapiro-Wilk test is greater the 0.05, the data is normal. Based on Table 5?1; the significance of Chal_7 and Chal_8 is greater than 0.05. Therefore distributions of only Chal_7 and Chal_8 are normally distributed.  The Friedman test provides the mean rank value of each criteria. It compares the mean ranks between the related groups and indicates how the groups differed, and it is included for this reason. The results of the Friedman test are presented in Table 5-2. Table 5-2 : Friedman test results (Challenges for sustainable procurement) Factor Mean Rank Percentiles 25th 50th (Median) 75th Chal_1 2.63 1.00 1.00 4.00 Chal_2 4.17 2.00 4.00 6.00 Chal_3 4.03 2.00 3.00 5.25 Chal_4 5.62 3.00 5.00 8.25 Chal_5 5.72 3.00 5.00 9.00 Chal_6 6.40 4.00 5.00 9.00 Chal_7 6.32 5.00 7.00 8.25 Chal_8 6.83 6.00 7.00 8.00 Chal_9 6.57 4.00 7.00 9.25 Chal_10 6.72 5.75 7.50 8.00  The test statistics table provides the actual result of the Friedman Test and whether there was an overall, statistically significant difference between the mean ranks of criteria considered (i.e. challenges for sustainable procurement). Test statistics of Friedman tests are presented in Table 5-3.  101  Table 5-3 : Statistics of Friedman test (Challenges for sustainable procurement) Criteria Value N 30 Chi-Square 59.243 df 9 Asymp. Sig. .000  According to Table 5-3, Asymp., the significance of the Friedman test is less than 0.05. Therefore there is an overall, statistically significant difference between the mean ranks of the related groups. Results from the Wilcoxon signed-rank test were used as a post-hoc test to check which factors are different from one other. The results of Wilcoxon signed-rank test are attached as Appendix K. 5.1.1 Calculation of Bonferroni adjustment The Significance level considered for this study is 0.05. Forty five test combinations were run. Therefore the new significance level is 0.05/45= 0.0011. According to the results of the Wilcoxon signed-rank test presented in Appendix K, two clusters were observed in the criteria used for the analysis. Cluster 1 was criteria with the lowest mean rank values (i.e: Chal_1, Chal_2, Chal_3). From the pairwise comparison between Chal_1, Chal_2, and Chal_3 there were no significant differences between them (i.e: p values were greater than 0.0011).  Cluster 2 was criteria with the highest mean rank values (i.e: Chal_4, Chal_5, Chal_6, Chal_7, Chal_8, Chal_9, Chal_10). However, there was a statistically significant difference in the pairwise comparison between the criteria of cluster 1 and cluster 2. No significant differences were observed between the pairwise comparison of the seven criteria in cluster 2 (i.e: p values  102  were greater than 0.0011). Therefore the main challenges in implementing sustainable procurement in Canadian construction industry are as follows: i Chal_1: Lack of funding and unwillingness to incur higher capital cost ii Chal_2: Lack of awareness, understanding, information, commitment, and demand iii Chal_3: Insufficient policies, regulations, incentives, and lack of leadership 5.2 Benefits for Sustainable Procurement The descriptive statistics of the challenges of sustainable procurement are presented in Appendix M. The summarized results of the Shapiro-Wilk normality tests are presented in Table 5-4.  Table 5-4: Shapiro-Wilk normality test results (Benefits for sustainable procurement) Criteria Considered  Shapiro-Wilk Statistic df Sig. Reducing use of natural resources Benf_1 0.877 30 0.002 Meeting existing and forthcoming legislation around the climate change agenda Benf _2 0.840 30 0.000 Reducing in harmful emissions and waste generation Benf _3 0.871 30 0.002 Improving  in working conditions - labor standards, health and safety Benf _4 0.896 30 0.007 Assisting disadvantaged groups in society Benf _5 0.952 30 0.191 Up skilling your workforce to meet the future needs of your organization Benf _6 0.935 30 0.068 Saving the long term  by considering the whole LCC  Benf _7 0.910 30 0.015 Meet international obligations (e.g. Kyoto protocol) Benf _8 0.892 30 0.005 Improving the efficiency and transparency of procurement procedures Benf _9 0.865 30 0.001 Stimulate the market for green technologies Benf _10 0.920 30 0.026   103  If the Significance value of the Shapiro-Wilk Test is greater the 0.05, the data is normal. Based on Table 5-4,the significance of Chal_5 and Chal_6 are greater than 0.05. Therefore distributions of only Chal_5 and Chal_6 are normally distributed.  The Friedman test provides the mean rank value of each criterion. The Friedman test compares the mean ranks between the related groups and indicates how the groups differed, and it is included for this reason. The results of the Friedman test are presented in Table 5-5. Table 5-5: Friedman test results (Benefits of sustainable procurement) Factor Mean Rank Percentiles 25th 50th (Median) 75th Benf_1 5.00 1.75 4.00 7.50 Benf _2 2.65 1.00 2.00 4.00 Benf _3 5.12 2.00 4.00 9.00 Benf _4 5.47 2.00 6.00 9.00 Benf _5 5.53 4.00 6.00 7.00 Benf _6 5.47 3.00 5.00 7.00 Benf _7 6.72 5.75 6.00 9.25 Benf _8 6.20 4.50 7.00 8.00 Benf _9 6.93 4.50 8.00 10.00 Benf _10 5.92 4.00 5.00 8.00  Friedman test statistics table provides the actual result of the Friedman Test, and whether there was an overall statistically significant difference between the mean ranks of criteria considered (i.e. challenges for sustainable procurement). Statistics of the Friedman tests are presented in Table 5-6.   104  Table 5-6: Statistics of Friedman test (Benefits for sustainable procurement) Criteria Value N 30 Chi-Square 41.658 df 9 Asymp. Sig. .000  According to Table 5-6, Asymp., the significance of the Friedman test is less than 0.05. Therefore there is an overall statistically significant difference between the mean ranks of the related groups. Results from Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used as a post-hoc test to check which factors are different from one other. The results of Wilcoxon signed-rank test is presented in Appendix N. The same method is used in Section 5.1.1 for calculation of the Bonferroni adjustment, which is 0.0011. According to the results of the Wilcoxon signed-rank test presented in Appendix N, from the pairwise comparison between the Benf_2 and other criteria there was a statistically significant difference (i.e: p values were greater than 0.0011).  No significant differences were observed between the pairwise comparison of the other nine criteria, Benf_1, Benf_3, Benf_4, Benf_5, Benf_6, Benf_7, Benf_8, Benf_9, and Benf_10 (i.e: p values were greater than 0.0011). Therefore according to construction professionals in Canada, the main benefit of using sustainable procurement in the Canadian construction industry is reducing harmful emissions and waste generation.   105  5.3 Interview Feedback on Challenges and Benefits of Sustainable Procurement. All the respondents identified long term cost savings as the main benefit of using sustainable procurement. Other benefits of using sustainable procurement included reduction of impact on human health by toxic materials, gaining social benefits, and preserving public rights.  Interviewees pointed out a number of challenges that affect the use of sustainable procurement in the construction industry. The main issue pointed by public sector project owners was lack of funding available for projects, which curtails the ability to include sustainability criteria. Construction managers also pointed out a number of problems that affect sustainable procurement practices. Key challenges for sustainable procurement pointed out by respondents are as follows: i In the project hierarchy, entities other than the project owner have less influence on implementing sustainability initiatives in procurement. ii There is no unified method for evaluating project bids. There is a need for quantitative and measurable methods to evaluate TBL of sustainability in construction bids.  iii Pressure is exerted by project financing entities to achieve best economical value. iv Lack of designer familiarity with local conditions is a major issue for sustainable procurement, especially in a large country such as Canada where conditions differ significantly between geographic locations.  A notable observation from the interview responses is that the procuring organizations which have long term interest in the building (i.e: If the procuring organization is using the building through out its life cycle) they are interested in including the sustainability criteria during the procurement. Furthermore even though the initial cost of is high there are clients who are willing to pay the premium sums for sustainable buildings.    106  Chapter 6 : Sustainable Procurement Framework for Construction Projects In this chapter, the sustainable procurement framework is outlined and illustrated.  6.1 Overview of the Sustainable Procurement Framework A discussion on drawbacks of sustainable procurement guides are outlined in section 3.10. Based on the discussion in section 3-10 a main drawback of sustainable procurement guides is that they do not contain comprehensive guidance for construction. This framework contains guidelines to implement sustainable procurement in construction projects. The main strengths of the sustainable procurement framework are as follows:   ? This framework provides a management framework to help the construction industry in the necessary shift toward sustainable development. ? The sustainability framework proposed in this study considers each and every process of construction project procurement and defines process improvements.  ? Guidelines are provided for the organizational set up of sustainable procurement and operational mechanisms required for execution.  This framework is designed to be an implantation support tool for project owners and project managers who are interested in sustainable procurement. The framework contains guidelines for 4 main areas required for sustainable procurement. The areas are: i Setting up organizational factors: In order to implement sustainable procurement, a proper basis is a necessity. This section provides guidelines for implementing sustainable procurement within an organization. These factors are focused at a strategic perspective of an organization.  107  ii Operational considerations: Several operational considerations need to be included in order to execute sustainable procurement. This section contains guidelines that support activities for sustainable procurement.   iii Procurement process improvements: Based on the discussion in Section 3.5.2, 19 processes were identified in construction project procurement that span different phases of the project. This section proposes improvements for each process of construction procurement.  iv Sustainable procurement initiatives: Sustainable procurement initiatives identified in the literature are categorized into different procurement processes such as technical specifications, design specifications, and contracts.  This framework combines information from a number of sustainable procurement guide documents. Figure 6-1 proposes a conceptual framework which can improve the sustainability of construction project through the procurement process. The specific components of sustainable procurement framework is described in details in following sections.   108   Figure 6-1: Sustainable procurement framework (Ruparathna and Hewage, 2013)  6.2 Organizational Considerations The section below describes the organizational considerations for sustainable procurement.  i Mission statement. The mission statement should acknowledge the importance of sustainable development. This indication would influence organizational processes to look at sustainability aspects more closely.   109   ii Leadership from the management The construction project organization (Figue 3-3) is headed by a project owner or a representative of the owner. In addition, the construction project manager is responsible for proper management and operation of a construction project. Therefore sustainable procurement should be initiated and supported by the project owner and be managed by the project manager. Sustainable procurement policy needs to be set up at project initiation by the project owner.  iii Develop a sustainable procurement policy A regular construction client can maintain a sustainable procurement policy for the organization and it should be reviewed on a regular basis to ensure that it continues to reflect the organization?s values and intentions in relation to sustainable procurement. iv Establish a sustainable procurement task force The project owner or representative of an organization should appoint a committee of internal experts as a sustainable procurement working group. The committee should include representatives from departments such as engineering, finance, procurement, and information technology. Stakeholder meetings are an opportunity to understand sustainability targets for the organization. The screened targets from risk assessments should be stated in the project charter and acceptance by the stakeholders should be obtained in the potential targets.  v Risk and opportunity assessment  A sustainable procurement working group should be formed to identify the opportunities and potential risks that can be addressed through sustainable procurement. This practice should be regularly checked to ensure that mitigation measures are properly being adhered to.  110   6.3 Operational Considerations The sustainable procurement guides show several operational factors that support performance of sustainable procurement. These factors are : i Transparency of the processes Sustainable procurement considers a variety of factors in procurement decision making. This creates a window of opportunity for fraud. Therefore transparency of the processes is important to gain the trust of the stakeholders of the project. ii Employee training   Skills and understanding of sustainability requirements are important for procurement officers and construction workers. Training for procurement officers enables them to use sustainable procurement more efficiently. On top of that, requiring training for contractor employees on sustainability aspects ensures requirements are met more effectively.  iii Support local development A construction project is part of the socioeconomic environment. Supporting the socioeconomic environment is a part of the CSR of the procuring organization. Therefore initiatives to support local development should be looked at during the procurement process. The opportunities can be identified during stakeholder meetings. iv Health and safety of the employees Safety is an aspect of paramount importance in today's context. Project employees are important components of a project?s micro environment. Therefore necessary arrangements should be made as required for the procurement and beyond.   111  6.4 Procurement process improvements  This section presents process improvements for each phase of construction procurement. 6.4.1 Pre contractual phase  6.4.1.1 Requirement definition  Project goals should be integrated with sustainability targets. Sustainability targets can be broadly defined as procuring the constructed asset, which minimizes potential negative impacts on society and the environment. The following are key points to consider: i Gathering information based on the current and future needs of the key stakeholders. ii Integrating sustainability targets with the building design. iii Conducting market analysis to identify availability of goods with sustainability criteria. iv Including performance or functional requirements rather than conformance specifications. v Reference to and use of international standards, eco-labels, and social labels. vi Highlighting Stakeholders with sustainability interests. vii Specifying sustainable production and process methods. 6.4.1.2 Plan the procurement process  The procurement process should be planned in a manner so that it fulfills its objectives in a cost-effective, transparent, responsible, and sustainable manner. The following are key points to consider: i Focusing on  long-term value  rather than short-term payback. ii Aligning the organizational requirements with relevant strategic objectives and typically include regulatory requirements, quality and performance requirements, service, cost, innovation, and supply requirements.  112  iii Reconsidering building need (eg. Buy or lease). iv Using a contract title that conveys the relevance of sustainability in the tender. v Conducting a sustainability risk assessment. vi Using procurement targets and related KPIs should be used to cover the whole spectrum of sustainable impacts from raw materials sourcing, labour standards across the supply chain, local sourcing and training, through to production, use, and end-of-life management. vii Reviewing disposal options with the aim of minimizing environmental impacts, maximizing recycling and reuse, and determining all opportunities to minimize landfill and pollution.  viii Developing and documenting disposal strategies for the future, to be used at the end of the useful life of the constructed asset.  6.4.1.3 Pre-tender survey  Pre-tender survey is required for sustainable procurement since contractors are responsible for social and environmental impacts throughout the supply chains and the quality of the output. Therefore the initial pre-tender survey is important to minimize the sustainability risks and to ensure that potential suppliers that meet the organization?s key sustainability criteria are selected to submit bids under a tender. The following are key points to consider.  i Using a pre-qualification approach (RFP) helps reduce the risk of contract failure in cases of complex or specialized procurement. ii Using of sustainability criteria in pre-qualification. Criteria that should be considered in pre qualification are stated in  section 6.5.1, 6.5.2 and 6.5.3.  113  iii Evaluating all sustainability options prior to the final purchasing solution and resulting specification being agreed upon. 6.4.1.4 Obtaining approvals Sustainable procurement process should acknowledge regulatory requirements, quality and performance requirements, service, cost, innovation, supply requirements, and core business of the organization. The following are key points to consider: i Considering previous authorization on special terms and conditions that mandate to perform the contract in a more socially or environmentally sound way. ii Obtaining key stakeholders' agreement on sustainability targets. Project charter can be used to gain approval for the sustainable procurement targets. 6.4.1.5 Bid solicitation The bid solicitation phase comprises the preparation of the bid documents, solicitation, and obtaining proposals. The following are key points to consider: i Sustainability targets identified in the requirement definition should be included in the bid documents. Sustainability targets that can be used in requirement definition are stated in section 6.5.1, 6.5.2 and 6.5.3.  ii Using specifications, attributes, and performance/functional processes to establish minimum acceptable performance, actively excluding undesirable features and specifying positive aspects and preferred higher sustainability options. In addition bid documents should state that the alternative offers with more sustainable options will be accepted. iii Ensuring a fair competition in bid solicitations and safeguarding the confidentiality of the bids.   114  6.4.2 Contracting phase  6.4.2.1 Pre bid conference   A pre bid conference enables the bidders to meet the procurer and representatives to continue an ongoing communication. For sustainable procurement pre-bid conference is an opportunity to outline the sustainability requirements. The following are key points to consider: i Emphasizing the importance of sustainability initiatives in the pre bid meeting. ii Providing procurers information on sustainability concerns and ways of addressing them. 6.4.2.2 Tender evaluation  The project bid/proposals should be evaluated according to a pre-agreed evaluation methodology. Following are the key points: i Auditing the suppliers by either the owner or a third party.  ii Considering sustainability and cost considerations for the life cycle of the project. iii Adhering to the agreed method for bid/ proposal evaluation. iv Considering the comprehensive auditing and ethical buying codes support this drive for transparency across supply chains. v Specifying and using quantifiable sustainability criteria together with other evaluation criteria. vi Considering life-cycle-costs and recycling costs in the financial evaluation. vii Conducting a background-check of potential suppliers (for qualification purposes) for their record of social and environmental responsibility.   115  6.4.2.3 Bidder selection   Bidder selection is the decision making phase in the project procurement process. The bid/proposal that offers the best value for the procurer and the stakeholders should be selected here. Following are the key points: i Private sector organizations might have the ability to negotiate following evaluation of tenders. Sustainability considerations should not be traded as part of this. ii Opportunity to secure supplier agreement to take action to mitigate any supply chain risks and/or reduce those impacts identified in the risk and impact analysis during the early pre-qualification or tender evaluation stage. iii Clauses may be amended, added or deleted throughout the contract negotiation phase and buyers should review these to ensure any additions. 6.4.2.4 Contracting  The project contract sets out agreements between the project owner and contractor in delivering the construction project. The contract documents are the key stage in setting out the sustainability targets in project delivery. The following are key points to consider: i Including sustainability targets that were not delivered through the tender process into the contract to ensure that the contractor is contractually bound to deliver on them. ii Using an informal and flexible approach to persuade suppliers to embrace sustainability initiatives since some clauses may be met with resistance from the contractors. iii Awarding the contract upon conclusion of the negotiations, a final selected contractor should be formally with the full approval of the necessary stakeholders, and the remaining stakeholder community should be informed of the new arrangements.  116  iv Notifying the unsuccessful suppliers and fully debriefed and, at this point, suppliers should be informed if and how their sustainability credentials fell short of the requirement. v Allowing the customer and the supplier to split any gains from improvements in sustainable supply arrangements. vi Linking sustainable targets and other improvement targets with the contract. 6.4.3 Construction and contract administration  6.4.3.1 Monitor progress, Follow up delivery / issue contract amendments / Administer progress payments Continuous performance monitoring is essential to ensure that the contractor continues to deliver in accordance with the specification and contract clauses, and adheres to performance improvement plans. Following are the key activities: i Agreeing upon a performance improvement plan that integrates sustainable measures and targets, which may be finalized and jointly agreed . ii Using a balanced scorecard methodology to monitor sustainability criteria alongside service, quality delivery, cost, and technical requirements. iii Establishing management and review processes would help continuous improvement and improve sustainability targets firmly on the commercial agenda and momentum for sustainable development.  iv Fostering positive customer?supplier relationships and promoting open and two-way communications enables joint performance improvement.  117  v Agreeing for face-to-face review meetings in regular intervals, which would provide an opportunity for both parties to communicate, share concerns, promote understanding, and foster a good business relationship with respect to sustainability. vi Scheduling periodic audits of suppliers throughout the life of the contract to verify that sustainability claims and work practices meet stated requirements. vii Examining order quantities and delivery frequency to improve logistics, which allows improved delivery scheduling to minimize impacts of transport. 6.4.4 The post contractual phase  6.4.4.1 Complete audits / Check proofs of delivery /  File final action contractor agreement to final claim  Activities in the post contractual phase are used to ensure the project delivery is in accordance with the sustainability targets and to create learning for future projects. The following are key points: i Carrying out periodic audits throughout the life of the contract to verify that sustainability claims and work practices meet stated requirements. ii Taking necessary actions according to the contract in extreme cases where the contractor has made little or no effort to improve sustainability targets. 6.4.4.2 Ensure completeness and accuracy of file documentation  Continuous improvement is a key aspect of a good procurement practice. Project owners and construction managers should ensure that necessary systems are in place to allow review and feedback on use of sustainability criteria in the projects, to ensure learning is captured, shared, and acted upon.  118  6.5 Sustainable Procurement Initiatives and their Applicability The following section suggests sustainable procurement initiatives with possible instances that they can be used. Literature on sustainable procurement was used to identify sustainable procurement initiatives and tables 6-1, 6-2, 6-3 proposes most applicable areas for the use of sustainable procurement initiatives. The instances that sustainable procurement initiatives can be used are stated below:  ? Design criteria: These criteria should be considered in the design of the project. ? Operational criteria: These criteria should be used within operational processes in the organization. ? Bidder qualifications: These criteria should be considered in the pre qualification of the potential bidders. These criteria can be used in the RFP. ? Minimum/mandatory criteria: These criteria should be considered as minimum criteria in the tender documents that should be achieved by the bidders. ? Evaluation criteria: These criteria should be used as the technical specifications for the project in the tender documents. ? Contract clauses: These criteria can be used as contract clauses.  Table 6-1, Table 6-2 and Table 6-3 presents sustainability initiatives for improving construction projects.    119  Table 6-1: Social sustainability initiatives Sustainability initiative Design Development Operational criteria Bidder qualifications Mandatory criteria Technical specs Evaluation criteria Contract clauses Leadership and commitment from management  Yes      Improving health and safety of the employees and occupants    Yes   Yes Participation of the stakeholders (including community involvement) Yes Yes      Creating a positive impact on the local environment  Yes    Yes  Considering the cost of construction to future generations      Yes  Consideration of user needs and satisfaction  Yes       Creating employment opportunities    Yes  Yes Yes Training and development opportunities for the workforce  Yes     Yes Equality and diversity in the workplace  Yes Yes Yes     120     Sustainability initiative Design Development Operational criteria Bidder qualifications Mandatory criteria Technical specs Evaluation criteria Contract clauses Improving workforce satisfaction  Yes      Improving working environment and conditions  Yes  Yes    Promoting ethical practices  Yes  Yes   Yes Preservation of culture and heritage  Yes  Yes   Yes Minimising the disruptive impacts of construction (e. g. noise)    Yes   Yes  121  Table 6-2 : Environmental sustainability initiative Sustainability initiative Design Operational criteria Bidder qualifications Mandatory criteria Technical specs Evaluation criteria Contract clauses Sustainable land use and re-use (including giving priority to re-using previously developed land and undeveloped) Yes       Reducing energy and water consumption Yes   Yes  Yes Yes Selection and use of materials (including specifying low environmental impact materials, re-use and recycling) Yes    Yes Yes  Reusing existing built assets Yes    Yes   Considering the use of renewable resources  and reducing the use of non-renewable resources Yes    Yes Yes Yes Minimising water, land and air pollution (including noise) Yes      Yes Preserving and enhancing biodiversity Yes        122      Sustainability initiative Design Operational criteria Bidder qualifications Mandatory criteria Technical specs Evaluation criteria Contract clauses Waste minimisation and management Yes     Yes  Minimising negative visual impact Yes Yes      Creating a healthy, non-toxic indoor environment  Yes Yes   Yes Yes  Considering transport issues (e.g. reducing the need to travel) Yes       Protecting and enhancing sensitive landscape Yes Yes      Reducing GHG emissions Yes     Yes  Energy targets for service contracts Yes      Yes Use raw materials that are not harmful to health in manufacture Yes    Yes   Consider alternatives to outright disposal  Yes    Yes   123  Table 6-3: Economic sustainability initiative Sustainability initiative Design Operational criteria Bidder qualifications Mandatory criteria Technical specs Evaluation criteria Contract clauses Clear establishment of need and evaluation of alternative options Yes       Whole life value for money Yes     Yes  Supporting the regional/local economy  Yes  Yes   Yes  Fitness for purpose and consideration of long term flexibility. Yes    Yes   Consideration of whole life costing Yes     Yes  Economic Key Performance Indicators   Yes      Waste minimisation and management Yes     Yes  Promoting competition in bidding.   Yes     Consideration of effective logistics strategies Yes Yes      Using extended warranties for repairs to extend the useful life    Yes Yes    124  Chapter 7 : Em-procure Sustainable Procurement Bid Evaluation Tool In this chapter, the proposed Em-procure bid evaluation tool is outlined and the development process is illustrated. 7.1 Overview of the Tool This tool is designed to integrate TBL of sustainability into procurement decision making in the construction industry. This tool is designed for procurement of new buildings using the ?design and build? method. Through a sequential process this tool eventually provides the bid which is most sustainable according to the project owner?s requirements and available information. Figure 7-1 shows the logo of the Em-procure sustainable procurement tool.    Figure 7-1: Logo of Em-procure sustainable procurement tool 7.2 Justification for Developing a Bid Evaluation Tool Buildings are an important sector of the built environment, which has a significant impact on the environment. The sustainability impact of buildings and benefits of sustainable buildings are discussed in Section 3.4.1. Due to the significance of buildings to sustainable development, this tool was developed focusing specifically on procurement of new buildings.  ?Design and build? is a popular procurement method in the North American construction industry. The design build procurement method is described in detail in Section 6.3.2. Unlike the  125  design, bid, build method, in the design build method the procurer has a limited opportunity to implement sustainability criteria in the project procurement process.  Proposal evaluation is a major stage in construction procurement, leading to the ultimate decision. The Canadian construction industry review showed that there is a lack of resources in the Canadian construction industry for sustainable procurement. The survey revealed that objective methods are required for evaluating project proposal/bids with environmental and social criteria.  A question was included to assess the weight allocated for social and environmental factors. Based on responses, weights for social and environmental factors differ significantly. It can be deduced that the level of importance given to factors of sustainability by an organization differs from one to another. There is no standard method to evaluate environmental and social factors.  7.3 Em-procure Sustainable Procurement Bid Evaluation Tool The Em-procure sustainable bid evaluation tool follows a sequential process, which is described in this section. The information for the tool is extracted from the proposals submitted by the pre-qualified bidders. The procurers should prepare the RFP documents for requesting the information required for Em-procure sustainable procurement tool.  The Em-procure sustainable procurement tool can be divided into five main parts as follows: 1. Project background 2. Technical evaluation 3. Sustainability evaluation 4. Financial Evaluation 5. Final report  126  A major portion of the information required for the Em-procure sustainable procurement tool can be obtained from the bill of quantities and construction documents. The additional information required for using the tool should be requested via invitation to tender documents: 1. Annual energy requirement of the building (i.e. electricity, fossil fuel, natural gas) 2. Expected recycled material to be used in the project by material quantities. 3. Amount of funds allocated for social welfare. 4. Local purchases. 5. Employment created from the project. The following sections illustrate each of the above and information required for the Em-procure bid evaluation tool.  The home page of the Em-procure tool is shown in Figure 7-2.   Figure 7-2 : Home page of the Em-procure tool      127  7.3.1 Project background The first 2 steps of this tool are used to obtain background information about the project. The project related background information is as follows: 7.3.1.1 General project information. The first step of Em-procure tool is to obtain project information. The project information includes project name, project type, project location,  project year, design period, number of occupants, and budgeted cost (Figure 7-3).    Figure 7-3: Project information of Em-procure tool        128  7.3.1.2 Bidder information. In the second step of Em-procure tool bidder information (Name and Address) should be entered (Figure 7-4).  Figure 7-4 : Bidder information for Em-procure tool. 7.3.1.3 Defining  weights for bid evaluation. In this section the procuring organization should insert weights for technical, social, environmental, and economic criteria. A baseline weighting is assigned to the social and environmental criteria to ensure TBL of sustainability is considered in each project. The procurer organizations have the option of assigning higher weights for the social and environmental criteria. The base line weights assigned are 7% for socio economic criteria and 12% for environmental criteria. The above weights were obtained from eight RFP documents reviewed as case studies. The weights used in RFP evaluation matrices for environmental and socio economic factors were averaged to arrive the above numbers (Figure 7-5).     129   7.3.2 Technical evaluation This section is used to acquire a technical score for each proposal. A qualified evaluation committee should use an appropriate method to arrive at a technical score for each proposal. Arriving at a technical score is out of the scope of this study. The interface for inserting technical score is shown in Figure 7-6.  Figure 7-5: Assigning weights for bid/proposal evaluation.  130   Figure 7-6: Interface for inserting technical score of proposals. 7.3.3 Financial Evaluation Em-procure sustainable procurement tool is designed to evaluate LCC of a construction project, which is a main consideration in sustainable procurement. In order to perform the financial evaluation the procurer should insert two economic indicators, the applicable interest rate, and cost escalation (inflation rate) from the federal indicators. The data for LCC calculation is embedded in the tool data base. The interface for inserting financial criteria is shown in Figure 7-7.    131   Figure 7-7 : Financial evaluation 7.3.4 Sustainability evaluation The sustainability evaluation of the Em-procure tool focuses on the life cycle of the project (i.e. construction, operation, and disposal). The tool requires information related to the life cycle of the project. The specific information required by the tool is as follows: 1. Material quantities used. 2. Annual operational energy consumption of the building during the building use.  3. End-of-life scenario for the building.  The interfaces for inserting  material quantities, operational energy requirement and end of the life cycle scenario is stated in Figure 7-8, Figure 7-9 and Figure 7-10.     132    Figure 7-8 : Interface for inserting material quantities.     Figure 7-9 : Interface for inserting operational energy requirement.    133     Figure 7-10 : Interface for inserting quantities related to disposal phase.  7.3.5 The final report The final report provides the scores calculated for TBL of sustainability and comes up with an LCC for the project. The final report presents overall scores for each bidder and provides the rank of each bidder based on the combined score.    The user interface of the Em-procure sustainable procurement tool is included as Appendix O. 7.4 Bid Evaluation Mechanism of the Em-procure Bid Evaluation Tool Contrary to the conventional sustainability assessment methods used in the construction industry, Em-procure bid evaluation tool is based on actual building sustainability performance and cost throughout its life cycle. Three separate evaluations are conducted by Em-procure sustainable bid evaluation tool to evaluate project proposals. The three evaluations are as follows:  134  1. Life cycle cost 2. Environmental evaluation 3. Socio Economic evaluation 7.4.1 Financial evaluation  LCC of the building is compared among the technically compliant bids for the project life cycle. The following factors are used in determining the LCC of the building:  1. The initial bid price 2. The operating costs 3. The disposal costs In order to calculate the LCC, the following information is required: 1. Discounting rate  2. Inflation rate (Cost escalation rate) 7.4.1.1 The formula used for LCC calculations  The present value formula defined by Brown (1979) is used in the Em-procure tool. To calculate the present value, Equation 7-1 is used.    (   )  Equation 7-1: Present value of future cash flow ?E? is the value of the expense item occurring in the future; ?P? is the present value of the future expense item; ?n? is the number of years; ?r? is the discounting rate.  For an escalating cost, Equation 7-2 and Equation 7-3 are used.  135       (    )(   )  Equation 7-2: Present value of escalating cost    (   )(   ) Equation 7-3: Present value of escalating costs, calculating ?a?  ?C? is the uniform annual expense item; ?e? is the inflation rate. The above formulas are used for calculating the operating cost and disposal costs related to the project.  7.4.1.2 Calculating the operating and disposal costs For each proposal the annual energy requirement is requested. In addition, the end of life cycle scenario is requested to be specified in the proposal. The electricity costs for major cities and landfill costs and energy prices for Canada are specified in Table 7-1 and Table 7-2. Equation 7-2 and Equation 7-3 were used to calculate the present value of escalating energy costs based on the discounting rate and inflation rate applicable to the period. To calculate the present value of the disposal method, Equation 7-1 is used.          136  Table 7-1 : Electricity prices and landfilling costs in major cities in Canada City Price for Kw/h (c) (National Energy Board, 2013) Land filling cost ($/tonne) Calgary 17 65 (City of Calgary, 2013) Edmonton 16 60 (City of Edmonton, 2013) Charlottetown 14.5 115 (IWMC, 2013) Regina 14 65 (City of Regina, 2013) Halifax 13.5 45.10 (Government of Nova Scotia, 2013) Toronto 13 100 (City of Toronto, 2013) Moncton 12 64 (Westmorland Albert, 2013) St. Johns 11 67.60 (Curb it Waste Management, 2013) Vancouver 7 50 (City of Vancouver, 2013) Winnipeg 6.5 43.50 (City of Winnipeg, 2013) Montreal 6 75 (Ville de Montr?al, 2012)  Table 7-2: Average energy prices in Canada Energy source Unit Price  Fuel (Diesel) Litre $ 1.26 (Natural Resources Canada, 2013a) Natural Gas GJ $ 2.5 (Natural Resources Canada, 2013b) Water 1000 Liters $ 1.52 (Environment Canada, 2012c)  7.4.2 Environmental evaluation For the environmental evaluation, emergy accounting was used to quantify the environmental criteria. The environmental evaluation of each proposal focuses on the entire life cycle of the project. Fard (2012) developed the EM-green emergy-based decision support tool for  137  construction projects, which assists in performing the sustainability evaluation of the building. The concept developed by Fard (2012) was used for environmental evaluation of the bids.  The environmental evaluation is mainly concerned with the following aspects: i GHG emission ii Resource usage iii Recycling of material   This process covers the environmental impact of materials extraction, manufacturing, transportation, and construction phases. Following emergy conversion, values are used for each of the above criteria.  Emergy values for common construction materials in Canada were calculated by Fard (2012). They were used in the em-procure sustainable procurement tool. The emergy consumed for common construction materials in Canada for extraction, manufacturing, transportation, and construction are considered in the environmental evaluation as follows (Fard, 2012):  i Emergy from material extraction, production, and construction of building materials in Canada ii Emergy saving from using recycled material for construction  iii Emergy from using electricity, fossil fuel, water, and natural gas for building operation iv Emergy saving from recycling of building material v Emergy saving from using renewable energy sources vi Emergy of land filling of construction material    138  Table 7-3: Emergy values of common building materials in Canada (Fard, 2012) Material Unit Emergy of material use Emergy of energy use Total Emergy Portland cement concrete   kg  1.17E+12 6.88E+11 1.86E+12 Concrete block kg 1.00E+12 2.38E+11 1.24E+12 Mortar  kg  6.37E+12 5.07E+11 6.88E+12 25% Fly ash concrete kg 1.14E+12 3.26E+11 1.47E+12 High volume fly ash concrete  kg  8.10E+11 5.40E+11 1.35E+12 Cedar wood - cladding kg 1.08E+12 1.56E+12 2.64E+12 Concrete break - cladding  kg  8.55E+12 8.01E+11 9.35E+12 Natural stone - cladding kg 5.54E+12 3.74E+12 9.28E+12 Vinyl siding  kg  1.90E+12 1.19E+12 3.08E+12 Gypsum board kg 3.91E+12 1.20E+12 5.11E+12 Fiberglass batt insulation  kg  1.85E+12 9.88E+11 2.84E+12 Polystyrene insulation kg 9.74E+11 1.04E+12 2.02E+12 Organic felt roofing  kg  3.21E+12 1.62E+12 4.83E+12 Polyethylene roofing kg 3.61E+12 3.83E+12 7.45E+12 EPDM membrane roofing  kg  2.92E+12 2.40E+12 5.32E+12 PVC membrane roofing kg 2.61E+12 1.79E+12 4.40E+12 Asphalt roofing  kg  1.33E+12 1.34E+12 2.67E+12 ceramic tile kg 2.69E+12 9.94E+11 3.68E+12 Aluminum  kg  6.24E+12 4.10E+12 1.03E+13 Solvent based alkyd paint kg 5.53E+12 3.58E+12 9.10E+12 Standard glazing  kg  1.43E+12 9.64E+11 2.39E+12 Reinforcing rebar kg 5.83E+12 2.50E+12 8.33E+12 Steel nails  kg  3.46E+12 1.96E+12 5.42E+12 Wide flange section (I) steel kg 4.79E+12 2.24E+12 7.03E+12 Hollow structural steel section  kg  4.16E+12 1.90E+12 6.05E+12 Galvanized steel sheets kg 4.30E+12 1.23E+12 5.53E+12 Softwood lumber  kg  2.64E+12 1.45E+12 4.10E+12 Plywood lumber kg 2.96E+12 1.49E+12 4.45E+12 Glulam wood beam  kg  2.50E+12 1.60E+12 4.10E+12 Bamboo kg 2.84E+12 1.53E+12 4.37E+12 Linoleum  kg  2.09E+12 6.95E+11 2.78E+12 Concrete footing - 200mm thick 1m2 5.84E+14 3.79E+13 6.22E+14 Concrete block wall  1m2  5.81E+14 7.48E+13 6.56E+14 Concrete tilt-up wall - 200mm thick 1m2 6.04E+14 5.02E+13 6.54E+14 Wood stud wall  1m2  1.17E+13 6.71E+12 1.84E+13    139  For the disposal phase of the building, Fard (2012) calculated the emergy savings by recycling the material. The emergy values for recycled materials are stated in Table 7-4.  Table 7-4 : Emergy values of recycled material (Fard, 2012) Recycled Materials Emergy saved (sej/g) Concrete with recycled aggregates  1.00E+09 Clay brick  1.42E+08 Recycled steel  2.83E+09 Recycled aluminum  1.17E+10 Recycled lumber  8.79E+08 Recycled plastic  8.79E+08 Recycled ceramic tile  1.00E+09  The emergy values for building end of life scenarios were obtained from a study by Brown and Buranakarn (2003). The corresponding emergy values are stated in Table 7-5. Table 7-5 : End of life cycle scenarios Process (sej/g) Demolition  1.50 E+08 Collection  2.20 E+07 Sorting  6.70 E+06 Landfilling  1.00 E+07        140  Emergy values of operational energy and resource requirements were obtained from the literature (Table 7-6).   Table 7-6: Emergy transformity values for operational emergy requirement Energy source Unit Emergy value  (sej) Fuel J 1.13E+05 (Amponsah et al., 2012) Natural Gas J 4.80E+04 (Amponsah et al., 2012) Water J 4.80E+04 (Amponsah et al., 2012) Solar Electricity J 8.92E+04  (Paoli et al., 2008)   Based on Environment Canada (2010) data, main electricity generation methods in Canadian provinces are as follows (Table 7-7). Table 7-7: Main electricity generation methods in Canada. Generation method Emergy transformity (sej/J) Provinces Nuclear 2.00E+05  (Reza et al., 2013) Ontario Hydro 2.16E+05 (Amponsah et al., 2012) British Columbia, Manitoba, Quebec, New Foundland and Labrador Coal 1.60E+05 (Odum, 1996) Alberta, Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia Fuel 1.13E+05 (Amponsah et al., 2012) New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island     141  7.4.3 Socio-economic Evaluation The Em procure tool is developed to consider socioeconomic factors into the evaluation.  The criteria considered in the social evaluation are : 1. Building impact on human health  2. Financial benefits to the society The interface for inserting Socio economic criteria are stated in Figure 7-11.  Figure 7-11 : Socio economic criteria for proposal/bid evaluation.  7.4.3.1 Building impact on human health The building impact on human health is assessed using the indoor air quality. Health Canada (2009) divided indoor air pollutants to two categories: i Biological pollutants (e.g. bacteria and dust mites, mould, etc.) ii Chemical pollutants (e.g. particles from combustion appliances, tobacco smoke, household and personal care products, various building materials, outdoor air, etc.) The indoor air pollutants from building materials include the following (Health Canada, 2009b): i Asbestos  142  ii Formaldehyde iii Lead iv Volatile Organic Compounds Since chemical pollutants have a direct relationship with building materials, this study specifically focuses on human health risk induced from building materials. In order to calculate the emergy loss due to building impact on human health Equation 7-4 was used (Reza et al., 2013).         ?              Equation 7-4: Emergy loss due to building impact on human health mi is the amount of lifecycle emission (kg); DALY is a disability adjusted life years per unit emission (yr/kg); EPP is the total annual emergy per population of the construction location (sej/person/yr). EPP for Canada according to Fard (2012) is 1.73 E+17 sej/person/year.  Disability adjusted life years (DALY) is the total number of human life years lost due to ill-health, disability, or early death. DALY is an indicator of overall disease burden on society in terms of number of human life years lost (Fard, 2012).                  Equation 7-5: Calculating DALY YLL is the Years of Life Lost; YLD is Years Lived with Disability. Particulate matter is the variety of micro particles that are small enough to be carried by the air, which will eventually be breathed by people (USEPA, 2013b). DALY of particulate matters is 3.75e-4 yr/kg (Reza et al., 2012). Human health effects of construction materials according to (Fard, 2012) is calculated in kg of PM 2.5 eq (Table 7-8).   143  Table 7-8: Human health effect from construction material (Fard, 2012) Material Unit HH resp. effect. (kg of PM 2.5 eq)  Portland cement concrete   kg 2.58E-03 Concrete block kg 7.26E-04 Mortar  kg 2.48E-03 25% Fly ash concrete kg 2.59E-03 High volume fly ash concrete  kg 2.57E-03 Cedar wood - cladding kg 1.90E-03 Concrete break - cladding  kg 2.24E-03 Natural stone - cladding kg 4.29E-03 Vinyl siding  kg 3.38E-03 Gypsum board kg 3.91E-03 Fiberglass batt insulation  kg 9.19E-03 Polystyrene insulation kg 1.33E-03 Organic felt roofing  kg 2.87E-03 Polyethylene roofing kg 6.13E-03 EPDM membrane roofing  kg 1.96E-03 PVC membrane roofing kg 2.26E-03 Asphalt roofing  kg 2.51E-03 ceramic tile kg 3.23E-03 Aluminum  kg 1.51E-02 Solvent based alkyd paint kg 5.90E-03 Standard glazing  kg 1.44E-02 Reinforcing rebar kg 1.68E-03 Steel nails  kg 1.65E-03 Wide flange section (I) steel kg 2.08E-03 Hollow structural steel section  kg 2.21E-03 Galvanized steel sheets kg 7.98E-04 Softwood lumber  kg 1.61E-03 Plywood lumber kg 1.92E-03 Glulam wood beam  kg 1.84E-03 Bamboo kg 7.98E-04 Linoleum  kg 1.28E-03 Concrete footing - 200mm thick 1m2 1.30E-01 Concrete block wall  1m2 2.68E-01 Concrete tilt-up wall - 200mm thick 1m2 1.40E-01 Wood stud wall  1m2 5.90E-03     144  In addition, the following values are calculated:  1. The construction GDP of Canada is $57.775 Billion. A total of 1.2 million workers were employed in the construction sector in 2010. Therefore the average economic output of a construction job is $48,146. 2. In order to calculate the effect from local purchases and spending for local community Em$ values for Canadian provinces were used. Fard (2012) calculated emergy transformity values for Canada and Canadian provinces. Table 7-9 lists the applicable emergy transformity values. Table 7-9 : E$ Values for Canadian provinces Province Em $ (sej/$) Canada 4.22E+12 Alberta 4.23E+12 British Columbia 2.67E+12 Manitoba 4.80E+12 New Brunswick 4.27E+12 Newfoundland and Labrador 8.23E+12 Nova Scotia 2.72E+12 Ontario 2.54E+12 Prince Edward Isaland 2.67E+12 Quebec 2.92E+12 Saskatchewan 6.22E+12      145  7.5 Final Evaluation The following formulas were used in EM-Procure tool in evaluating proposals for building projects:                      (              )       (                   )      (            )   Equation 7-6 : Em procure score formula     is the weightage assignor economic criteria;     is the weightage assignor environmental criteria;     is the weightage assigned for social criteria. The above weights are specific to each project and dependent on a number of factors such as organization, location, building purpose act. The weights are determined according to the project by a procurement committee of the owners organization.                                                      Equation 7-7: LCC formula                      ?       (                                                                              ) Equation 7-8: Environmental emergy formula                       ?       (                                                           ) Equation 7-9: Socio economic emery formula    146                                                            Equation 7-10 : Economic score formula                                                                                                 Equation 7-11: Environmental score formula                                                                                                    Equation 7-12: Social emergy score formula  The emergy database and equations are included in the data section of the tool. Only the life cycle costs of the database can be edited in the tool while the emergy values and equations are fixed.  The output screen shots of the Em-procure tool are as follows (Figure 7-12; Figure 7-13):   147   Figure 7-12 : Evaluation results  Figure 7-13 : Evaluation report   148  7.6 Assumptions Used in developing the Em-procure tool Assumptions used in developing em-procure sustainable procurement tool are as follows: Bid price ? All costs related to the building are assumed to be included in the initial bid price.  ? Landfill is used as the disposal method after disposal. Life cycle costs  ? All costs of the project are assumed to occur at the end of each period.  ? Electricity prices of each city are assumed to be applied to each province. ? The landfill and electricity rates of main cities in Canada are assumed for each province. ? Energy prices obtained from Natural Resources Canada was assumed for all provinces.  ? Electricity prices, landfill, and other energy prices for 2011 were used as the baseline. These costs are assumed to be increasing only relative to inflation.  7.7 Em-procure sustainable procurement tool The strengths of Em-procure sustainable procurement tool are as follows: ? The Em-procure tool uses a commensurate unit (sej) in quantifying multiple criteria. This approach is a solution to the long standing problem of quantifying TBL of sustainability. ? Contrary to the subjective and judgement based bid evaluation methods, the Em-procurement framework is an objective method for bid evaluation considering TBL of sustainability. ? The Em-procure bid evaluation tool is designed to consider the environmental, social, and LCC of a construction project in the decision making stage of the construction project.    149  ? The Em-procure is a user-friendly bid evaluation tool that does not require sophisticated analysis from the user-side or expert knowledge on TBL of sustainability. The data can be extracted from the proposal submitted by the bidder, from BOQ, construction drawings, and construction documents.  ? The Em-procure tool is specifically designed for the Canadian context considering the major construction materials used in the Canadian building industry, socioeconomic factors, and life cycle costs. ? The tool has the ability to change the weights allocated for TBL sustainability with a minimum value defined.  ? The Em-procure tool encourages environmental and socio-economic friendly practices in the bid evaluation mechanism. 7.8 Validation of the Sustainable procurement framework and Em-Procure Sustainable Procurement Tool The proposed sustainable procurement framework and Design and Build proposal evaluation tool was validated to assure its applicability. Two contract administrators (experienced construction managers) and a procurement manager volunteered for the validation phase. All the participants were operating in British Columbia, Canada. The construction industry experience of the participants is as follows: Two contract administrators: Both possess 15 + years experience as a contract administrator.  One procurement manager   : Possesses 15 years experience as a procurement manager in the public sector.  The steps to validate the proposal evaluation tool were as follows:   150  i An initial meeting was held to introduce the sustainable procurement framework and Em-procure proposal evaluation tool and the steps required to use the program.  ii The research participant was given a week to review the tool on his own.  iii At the final meeting, an unstructured interview was conducted to identify deficiencies and applicability of the Em-procure tool in the construction industry.  iv Recommended changes were made to the tool. v A pilot test was done with assumed data to identify bugs in the tool, such as errors in the cells. Same data were used in manual calculations to check the formulas.  The unstructured interviews were conducted in four broad areas, which are presented below. i A discussion of the concepts used in the tool and the framework. ii Major deficiencies of the tool and the framework. iii The respondents' perception of the tool and framework and its ability to effect sustainable development. iv How to promote this tool in the construction industry. 7.8.1 A discussion of the concepts used in the tool and the framework. The respondents were satisfied with the sustainable procurement framework. In addition they stated that the framework contains several important information that they have not envisioned. The respondents had a great interest in the concept of sustainable procurement. However a major concern was that the respondents were skeptical of the concept of ?emergy?. The reason was that two respondents were unaware of the emergy concept. One respondent questioned why this tool does not use a measure such as CO2 emissions as the mean of measurement. Therefore the respondents were provided with a detailed illustration of the energy  151  concept in the initial explanation. With an introduction of ?emergy? they were satisfied with its usability for building project proposal evaluation.   7.8.2 The discussion of the deficiencies of the tool and the framework The respondent stated the sustainable procurement framework would be more useful if it was altered to specific project types. The main deficiencies of the Em-procure tool identified from the unstructured interviews indicated a need for the following changes:  i Show the ranks of the contractors based on the Em - procure score with their environmental, social, and economic score. ii Improve the number of construction material data available in the software tool.  iii Add the ability for the tool to produce a detailed report on the analysis conducted.  7.8.3 The respondents' perception of the tool and its ability to effect sustainable development All the interview respondents acknowledged that this is an effective tool for proposal evaluation since there is a lack of proposal evaluation tools that combine TBL. All were interested in the measures used to promote sustainable procurement by encouraging the use of green energy, social benefits, creating jobs, and local purchases. One respondent stated that this tool can be a starting point of a comprehensive tool provided it is continuously developed with more feedback from the construction industry experts. 7.8.4 Feedback on how to promote this tool in the construction industry The respondents highlighted the following aspects as important in promoting this tool in the construction industry.  i As discussed in section 3.8.2 a main barrier to implementing this tool is the construction industry?s lack of knowledge within the construction sector on ?emergy?. Therefore  152  contract administrators and project owners should be more informed on this aspect before being presented with this tool. ii The respondents pointed out the need to provide the analysis mechanism used in this tool to the bidders, which is also a regulatory requirement. Therefore it was recommended to develop a brief introduction to energy and equations used in the tool.  iii This tool requires several data categories which are not requested in regular D and B procurement. This data should be obtained from the bidders with the proposal. Therefore detailed guidelines should be provided to procurers in preparing the RFP documents to obtain the specific information. 7.8.5 Modifications to the tool  Based on the deficiencies identified by the respondents, the following modifications were made:   i Based on the feedback the result page of the tool was revised by adding more description. The final result page includes the ranks of each proposal, and the social, environmental, and LCC scores obtained. ii A report page was added that produces a detailed report with additional information such as energy values and weightings and scores (Screen shots of the report is included in the Appendix O).  iii Since this tool is a starting point, for this study only the material emergy transformation values calculated by Fard (2012) were used. However inclusion of an expanded construction material list was proposed as future research.    153  Chapter 8 : Conclusions, Recommendations, Strengths, and Limitations In this chapter of the thesis conclusions and contributions of this study are presented, strengths and limitations of this study are illustrated, and recommendations are provided for potential future research directions.  8.1 Conclusions The strategic importance of construction procurement has been identified the construction industry during the past two decades. However the long standing issues with procurement hinder the use of procurement as a strategic tool. Research and development is one way to overcome the prevailing shortcomings with construction procurement. This research is focused on the use of construction procurement as a strategic tool to support sustainable development. Under this broad objective this study took efforts in applying sustainable procurement in the Canadian construction industry. The sub-objectives of this study include a review of construction procurement practices and sustainable procurement, industry review of use of sustainability initiatives in Canadian construction procurement practices, and developing a sustainable procurement framework and a bid evaluation tool for the construction industry. The conclusions of this study are as follows:   ? A global review of construction practices shows that current construction procurement practices are starting to acknowledge the importance of implementing environmental and social aspects. It can be observed that the current trend in construction procurement is moving towards partnership based approaches while information technology with construction procurement practices is becoming popular.   154  ? An industry review on the use of sustainable procurement in Canada showed that sustainable procurement initiatives have seldom been implemented in the construction industry. Sustainable procurement is still a voluntary practice. Moreover less guidance is available for the organization that wishes to implement the same.  ? Another major issue observed in current procurement practices is not considering sustainability criteria in the decision making process. Unavailability of objective and standard methods for procurement, and lack of knowledge of local conditions are the other problems identified by respondents. These challenges were confirmed through the semi structured survey.  ? There are very few explicit statutory requirements that cover sustainable procurement. The majority of the survey respondents acknowledged that government regulation is the main driver for sustainable procurement.  ? This study indicated the need for guides and resources for implementing sustainable procurement. Since procurement starts at the pre-construction stage, many parameters are unknown at the time of procurement. This unique situation creates ambiguity in predicting the effect of sustainable procurement initiatives on project performance.  ? Major results from this study included that some attributes are more commonly used than others, indicating that voluntary sustainability initiatives are given different levels of significance in the practice. All construction managers and project owners agreed that sustainable procurement is an important initiative. This attribute is a positive sign to implement sustainable procurement in construction practices.  ? Lack of funding; lack of awareness, understanding, information, commitment, and demand; and insufficient policies, regulations, incentives, and lack of leadership are  155  identified as the main challenges for implementing sustainable procurement in the Canadian construction sector. Therefore project owners have the control. In addition construction managers have a limited scope in sustainable procurement since they are constrained by budgets restrictions imposed by the project owners. Complementing the findings of statistical analysis, the semi-structured interviews identified insufficient funding and lack of resources as challenges for sustainable development.  ? According to construction professionals in Canada, the main benefit of using sustainable procurement in the Canadian construction industry is reducing harmful emissions and waste generation. There is a disagreement between the results from semi-structured interviews and statistical analysis on the benefits of sustainable procurement since interview respondents stated the long term cost benefits as the advantage of sustainable procurement. Furthermore the literature shows many advantages of sustainable procurement (Section 3.8.1). Therefore there is a lack of awareness about the advantages of sustainable procurement among Canadian construction professionals. ? The construction industry has a positive mindset above the bid evaluation tool presented above. The interview feedback showed the construction industry?s need for objective bid evaluation methods such as the em-procure tool.  8.2 Recommendations  The following are recommendations for implementing sustainable procurement.  ? The project owners are the key stakeholders for implementing sustainable procurement. Therefore project owners should take the initiative to implement sustainable procurement in the Canadian construction industry.  156  ? The implementation of sustainable procurement requires actions and participation from all project stakeholders. Therefore a collaborative approach between the procurer team and the contractor team is the best set up for sustainable procurement.  ? Since procurement applies to multiple stages of the project, sustainable procurement would enable better project performance supporting sustainable development. Sustainable procurement is a well suited mechanism to integrate sustainability initiatives into construction projects. Therefore owners and construction managers should consider sustainable procurement to improve sustainability performance of the project. A paradigm shift is required to embrace sustainable procurement into project procurement practices. ? Regulatory organizations and construction industry associations should take authority to establish sustainable procurement. The above institutions can support sustainable procurement through more regulations, training opportunities for staff, codes of practice, and including more sustainability clauses for standard contract documents. ? More resources such as guides, blue prints, and tools should be developed to implement sustainable procurement.  8.3 Limitations of the Study Following are the main limitations of this thesis: ? The sample sizes were calculated based on the initial study of sustainable procurement, which was obtained from expert opinion. Therefore the validity results are dependent on the above factor.  ? The industry analysis was conducted with noteworthy power and significance. However the response rate was poor for the questionnaire survey, which is quite common in the  157  construction industry. Better results would have provided more valid indication of the use of sustainable procurement. ? The rankings provided by respondents for the challenges and benefits of sustainable procurement were low in reliability (Appendix H). This issue may be due to the fact that construction managers and project owners look at sustainable procurement in different ways.  ? Following are some of the limitations of Em-procure bid evaluation tool. o The Em-procure tool is designed for design build procurement of building projects.  o The EM-procure tool requires a technical score for each proposal. The calculation of the technical score is out of the scope of this study.  o The Em-procure sustainability tool is designed considering limited sustainability criteria. More sustainability criteria provide a better assessment of the sustainability of the project proposal. o Limited materials were considered in the Em-procure tool. However a wider range of construction materials should be analyzed and included in the emergy database. o The best way to validate the tools developed is to use them in construction projects. However due to time constraints and reluctance with construction professionals we have contacted, this process could not be performed. Practical application of these resources would provide a better indication of the practical issues and eventual effect of this tool.   158  o The validation of the framework and the Em-procure tool were conducted using 3 expert opinions. More interviews would point out practical issues and areas of improvement.  8.4 Research Contributions Following are the contributions of this study: ? No industry analysis was done on use sustainable procurement in Canada. This study is the first study on sustainable procurement in Canada. Sustainable procurement is an emergent concept where significant developments can be observed internationally. Therefore this study will be one of the starting steps in sustainable procurement in Canada.  ? The tools developed from this study could support FSDS of Canada, since Canada is lacking resources in this regard. ? The analysis of the challenges of sustainable procurement showed the areas to be focused when implementing sustainable procurement in Canada.  ? The sustainable procurement framework is specifically concerned with industry. This is one of the most comprehensive tools that can be used by project owners and construction managers in project procurement.  ? The bid evaluation tool is another important contribution of this study. This tool is the first emergy based comprehensive tool developed for bid evaluation.   159  8.5 Recommendations Future Research ? Sustainable development is achieving the balance between TBL of sustainability. Therefore the next stage of this research should be identifying the balance between the sustainability factors.  ? No studies are available on the effect of sustainable procurement on construction project performance. Therefore future research is required to assess the effect of sustainable procurement on cost, quality, and time of construction project.  ? The Em-procure tool was developed for limited sustainability indicators. However more sustainability criteria should be considered (e.g. The effect of creating jobs from the project). Further research is required to calculate the energy values of the broader sustainability indicators. ? The bid evaluation mechanism in Em-procure tool uses user defined weightages. The weightages for TBL of sustainability changes according to factors such as project neighborhood, building use. Therefore developing weightages based on multiple criteria and using them in the tool would improve the evaluation process. ? The Em-procure was developed for building projects in design and bid procurement. Further research is needed for other project delivery methods and for other project types.    160  References Addis, B., Talbot, R., 2001. Sustainable construction procurement; A guide to delivering environmentally responsible projects. Construction industry research and information association, London, UK. Adetunji, I., Price, A., Fleming, P., Kemp, P., 2003a. Sustainability and the UK construction industry: A review. Proceedings of the ICE - Engineering Sustainability 156, 15. Akadiri, P.O., 2012. Development of sustainable assessment criteria for building materials selection. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management 19, 666?687. Akintoye, A., Hardcastle, C., Beck, M., Chinyio, E., Asenova, D., 2003. Achieving best value in private finance initiative project procurement. Construction Management and Economics 21, 461?470. Amponsah, N.Y., Lacarri?re, B., Jamali-Zghal, N., Le Corre, O., 2012. Impact of building material recycle or reuse on selected emergy ratios. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 67, 9?17. ASOSAI, 2006. Understanding procurement process. In: Audit of Procurement Process. Asian Organization of Supreme Audit Institutions, Jakarta, Indonesia. Baker, S., 2013. Sustainable Development. Taylor and Francis, New York, NY. Behm, M., 2008. Construction Sector. Journal of Safety Research 39, 175?178. Betts, M., Robinson, G., Blake, N., Burton, C., Godden, D., 2011. Global Construction 2020: A Global Forecast for the Construction Industry Over the Next Decade. Global Construction Perspectives and Oxford Economics, London, UK. Boomsma, M.J., 2008. Sustainable procurement from developing countries. Royal Tropical Institute, Amsterdam. Bowen, G. a., 2009. Document Analysis as a Qualitative Research Method. Qualitative Research Journal 9, 27?40. Bower, D., 2003. Management of Procurement. Thomas Telford Publishing, London. British Standards Institute, 2011. Code of practice. BS 8534:2011 Construction procurement policies, strategies and procedures. URL http://shop.bsigroup.com/en/ProductDetail/?pid=000000000030203838 (accessed 4.9.12). Bronstad, P.M., Hemmesch, A.R., 2010. SPSS. Encyclopedia of Research Design Encyclopedia of research design.  161  Brown, D., Ashleigh, M., Riley, M., Shaw, R., 2001. New Project Procurement Process. Journal of Management in Engineering 17, 192?201. Brown, M.T., Buranakarn, V., 2003. Emergy indices and ratios for sustainable material cycles and recycle options. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 38, 1?22. Brown, R.J., 1979. A New Marketing Tool:Life-Cycle Costing. Industrial Maraketing Management 8, 109. I 13. Callender, G., 2009. Efficiency and Management, 1st ed. Roultedge, New York. Carter, K., Fortune, C., 2007. Sustainable development policy perceptions and practice in the UK social housing sector. Construction Management and Economics 25, 399?408. Chan, A.P.C., Scott, D., Lam, E.W.M., 2002. Framework of Success Criteria for Design?Build Projects 120?128. Chan, D.W.M., Chan, A.P.C., Lam, P.T.I., Yeung, J.F.Y., Chan, J.H.L., 2011. Risk ranking and analysis in target cost contracts: Empirical evidence from the construction industry. International Journal of Project Management 29, 751?763. Chen, D., Webber, M., Chen, J., Luo, Z., 2011. Emergy evaluation perspectives of an irrigation improvement project proposal in China. Ecological Economics 70, 2154?2162. Chen, Z., Asce, M., Li, H., Ross, A., Khalfan, M.M.A., Kong, S.C.W., 2008. Knowledge-Driven ANP Approach to Vendors Evaluation for Sustainable Construction. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 134, 928?941. Cheung, E., Chan, A.P.C., Kajewski, S., 2010. Suitability of procuring large public works by PPP in Hong Kong. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management 17, 292?308. Choudhury, I., Sanampudi, V., 2008. Effects of construction cost and change orders in construction for industrial and commercial projects in India. In: Building Abroad. University of Montreal, Montreal, pp. 149?156. City of Calgary, 2013. Landfill rates. Landfill information. URL http://www.calgary.ca/UEP/WRS/Pages/Landfill-information/Landfill-Rates.aspx (accessed 6.11.13). City of Edmonton, 2013. Edmonton Waste Management Centre Disposal Rates. Construction and Demolition Waste. URL http://www.edmonton.ca/for_residents/garbage_recycling/disposal-rates.aspx (accessed 6.18.13). City of Regina, 2013. Go to the Landfill. URL http://www.regina.ca/residents/garbage/fleet-street-landfill/ (accessed 6.11.13).  162  City of Toronto, 2013. Depot Fees. Garbage and Recycling. URL http://www.toronto.ca/garbage/depots_fees.htm (accessed 6.11.13). City of Vancouver, 2013. Fees and charges at the Transfer Station and Landfill. Disposal fees and rates. URL http://vancouver.ca/home-property-development/landfill-fees-and-charges.aspx (accessed 6.18.13). City of Winnipeg, 2013. Brady Road Resource Management Facility. URL http://www.winnipeg.ca/waterandwaste/garbage/bradyroad.stm (accessed 6.11.13). Clough, R.H., Sears, G.A., Sears, S.K., 2000. Construction project management, 5th ed. John Wiley and sons, New York. Construction industry review committee, 2001. Construct for excellence: report of the construction industry review committee. Hong Kong. Cox, A., Ireland, P., Townsend, M., 2006. Managing in construction supply chains and markets? : reactive and proactive options for improving performance and relationship management, 1st ed. Thomas Telford Publishing, London. Cox, A., Townsend, M., 1998. Strategic Procurement in Construction? : Towards Better Practice in the Management of Construction Supply Chains, 1st ed. Thomas Telford Publishing, Lincolnshire. Cox, J.W., Hassard, J., 2010. Triangulation. Encyclopedia of case study research. Cunningham, J.B., Aldrich, J.O., 2012. Using SPSS: An interactive hands-on approach. SAGE Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks,CA. Curb it Waste Management, 2013. Tipping fees and Permits. URL http://www.curbitstjohns.ca/default.aspx?Content=Robin_Hood_Bay_Facility/Tipping_Fees__Permits (accessed 6.11.13). Davis Langdon and Everest, 2004. Getting Value for Money from Construction Projects through Design. London. Demaid, A., Quintas, P., 2006. Knowledge across cultures in the construction industry: sustainability, innovation and design. Technovation 26, 603?610. Department of Business innovation and Skills, 2012. Construction procurement. Construction. URL http://designguidance.skillsfundingagency.bis.gov.uk/process/construction/ (accessed 5.25.12). Design-Build Institute of America, 2012. Design-Build Project Delivery Used for More Than 40 Percent of Non-Residential Construction Projects, Report Shows. Industry research and reports. URL http://www.dbia.org/pubs/research/rsmeans110606.htm (accessed 11.5.12).  163  Donohoe, S., Brooks, L., 2007. Reflections on construction management procurement following Great Eastern Hotel Company v. John Laing. Construction Management and Economics 25, 701?708. Drew, D.S., Tang, S.L.Y., Lui, C.K., 2004. Balancing fee and quality in two envelope fee bidding. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management 11, 159?175. Dzeng, J., Lin, Y.C., 2004. Intelligent agents for supporting construction procurement negotiation. Expert Systems with Applications 27, 107?119. Elvin, G., 2007. Integrated Practice in Architecture: Mastering Design-Build, Fast-Track, and Building Information Modeling, 1st ed. John Wiley and Sons, New Jersey. Elyamany, A., Abdelrahman, M., 2010. Contractor Performance Evaluation for the Best Value of Superpave Projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 136, 606?614. Environment Canada, 2010a. Planning for a Sustainable Future: A Federal Sustainable Development. Minister of the Environment, Ottawa, ON. Environment Canada, 2010b. Total Generation by fuel. URL http://www.ec.gc.ca/energie-energy/C00AD28F-5C87-4C64-97BF-98CBCC8EEFF6/TotalGenerationByFuel.jpg (accessed 6.26.13). Environment Canada, 2012a. Canada?s Emissions Trends 2012. Minister of the Environment, Ottawa, ON. Environment Canada, 2012b. National Inventory Report: 1990-2010. Ottawa ON. Environment Canada, 2012c. 2011 Municipal Water Pricing Report. URL http://www.ec.gc.ca/eau-water/default.asp?lang=Enandn=77C9CE3A-1#X-2012052814361212ub2 (accessed 6.29.13). Eriksson, P., Westerberg, M., 2011. Effects of cooperative procurement procedures on construction project performance: a conceptual framework. International Journal of Project Management 29, 197?208. Eriksson, P.E., 2008. Procurement Effects on Coopetition in Client-Contractor Relationships. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 134, 103?111. Eriksson, P.E., Laan, A., 2007. Procurement effects on trust and control in client-contractor relationships. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management 14, 387?399. Erridge, A., Fee, R., McIlroy, J., 2001. Best Practice Procurement: Public and Private Sector Perspectives. Gower Publishing, Burlington, VT.  164  European Commission, 2011. Public Procurement Better Value for tax payers money. Internal Market and Services. URL http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/publications/docs/public-procurement_en.pdf (accessed 4.4.12). European Union, 2012. Strategy for e procurement. Brussels. Fard, N.H., 2012. Emergy basesd- Sustainability rating system for buildings: Case study for Canada. The University of British Columbia. Federation of Canadian Municipalities, 2012. keep moving forward; pre budget submission. Ottawa, ON. Fellows, R., Liu, A., 2003. Research methods for construction, 2nd ed. Black Well Science Ltd., Ames, Iowa. Financial Post, 2011. Infrastructure spending key to economic rowth. CIBC Economy. URL http://business.financialpost.com/2011/09/28/infrastructure-spending-key-to-economic-growth-cibc/ (accessed 1.16.12). Franklin, D., 2008. Just good business. The Economist 101?104. Given, L.M., 2008. Triangulation. The SAGE Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods. Goff, P. Le, 2006. Procurement, contracting and advertising management in the federal government: Latest developments. Ottawa. Government of Canada, 2013. Building Infrastructure to Create Jobs. URL http://actionplan.gc.ca/en/page/building-infrastructure-create-jobs (accessed 6.29.13). Government of Nova Scotia, 2013. Municipal Solid Waste Disposal Sites. URL http://www.gov.ns.ca/nse/waste/solidwastedisposal.asp (accessed 6.11.13). Gransberg, D.D., Koch, J.A., Molenaar, K.R., 2006. Preparing for Design-Build Projects: A Primer for Owners, Engineers, And contractors. American Society of civil Engineers, Virginia. Gransberg, D.D., Shan, J.S., 2010. Construction Manager-At-Risk Project Delivery for Highway Programs. Transportation research board, Washington, DC. Gruneberg, S., Hughes, W., 2011. A review of performance based contracting. London. Gruneberg, S., Hughes, W., Ancell, D., 2007. Risk under performance-based contracting in the UK construction sector. Construction Management and Economics 25, 691?699. Hampton, D., 1994a Procurement issues. Journal of Management in Engineering, 10, 45?50.  165  Health Canada, 2009a. Indoor Air Pollutants. Environmental and Workplace Health. URL http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/air/in/poll/index-eng.php (accessed 6.10.13). Health Canada, 2009b. Pollutants from Household Products and Building Materials. Environmental and Workplace Health. URL http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/air/in/poll/construction/index-eng.php (accessed 6.10.13). HM Government, Stratergic forum for Construction, 2008. Strategy for sustainable construction. London. HM Treasury, 1997. Value for Money in Construction Procurement. Procurement guidence documents. URL http://archive.treasury.gov.uk/pub/html/docs/cup/procurement/guide2.pdf (accessed 4.4.12). Hollos, D., Blome, C., Foerstl, K., 2011. Does sustainable supplier co-operation affect performance? Examining implications for the triple bottom line. International Journal of Production Research 50, 37?41. Holyk, G.G., 2008. Questionnaire Design. Encyclopedia of Survey Research Methods. Huang, S.-L., Hsu, W.-L., 2003. Materials flow analysis and emergy evaluation of Taipei?s urban construction. Landscape and Urban Planning 63, 61?74. Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, 2013a. Construction and Manufacturing Industries. Industrial Summaries. URL http://www23.hrsdc.gc.ca/l.3bd.2t.1ilshtml@-eng.jsp?lid=8andfid=1andlang=en (accessed 2.15.13). Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, 2013b. Industrial Outlook - 2011-2020. Canadian Occupational Projection System. URL http://www23.hrsdc.gc.ca/l.3bd.2t.1ilshtml@-eng.jsp?lid=14andfid=1andlang=en (accessed 2.15.13). H?kkinen, T., Belloni, K., 2011. Barriers and drivers for sustainable building. Building Research and Information 39, 239?255. ICLEI, 2011. Financing and Contracting Sustainable Construction - Innovative Approaches. Freiburg. Industry Canada, 2011. Buildings. Corporate Social Responsibility. URL http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/csr-rse.nsf/eng/rs00585.html (accessed 2.15.13). Industry Canada, 2012. Gross domestic product construction. Canadian Industry Statistics. URL http://www.ic.gc.ca/cis-sic/cis-sic.nsf/IDE/cis-sic23vlae.html (accessed 2.6.13). Ingwersen, W.W., 2011. Emergy as a Life Cycle Impact Assessment Indicator. Journal of Industrial Ecology 15, 550?567.  166  International Fund for Agricultural Development, 2010. Project Procurement Guidelines. Rome. International Organization for Standardization, 2008. Construction Procurement, Part 1: Processes, methods and procedures. URL http://www.bsigroup.com/upload/Standards and Publications/Building/Draft_BSISO10845-1.pdf (accessed 2.20.12). International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, 1980. World Conservation Strategy: Living Resources Conservation for Sustainable Development. IUCN, Gland. IWMC, 2013. Disposal Rates. WWDC Disposal Rates. URL http://www.iwmc.pe.ca/wwdcdisposalrates.php (accessed 6.11.13). Jackson, B.J., 2004. Construction Management JumpStart. Wiley publishing, Indiana. Jones, P., Comfort, D., Hillier, D., 2006. Corporate social responsibility and the UK construction industry. Journal of Corporate Real Estate 8, 134?150. Jones, T., Shan, Y., Goodrum, P.M., 2010. An investigation of corporate approaches to sustainability in the US engineering and construction industry. Construction Management and Economics 28, 971?983. Karna, S.J., Sorvala, V.J., 2009. Modelling structure of customer satisfaction with construction. Journal of facilities management 7, 111?127. Kashyap, M., Khalfan, M., Zainul-Abidin, N., 2003. A proposal foe achieving sustainability in construction projects through concurrent engineering. The RICS Foundation, London. Kelley, G., 2012. Construction Law: An Introduction for Engineers, Architects, and Contractor, 1st ed. John Wiley and Sons, New Jersey. Kenter, P., 2010. Majority of Canadians support P3 procurement: survey. Journal of Commerce archieves. URL http://www.journalofcommerce.com/article/id41640 (accessed 4.9.12). Kibert, C.J., 2012. Sustainable Construction: Green Building Design and Delivery, 3rd ed. John Wiley and Sons, New Jersey. Kraska, M., 2010. Quantitative Research. Encyclopedia of Research Design. Kumaraswamy, M., Dulaimi, M., 2001. Empowering innovative improvements through creative construction procurement. Engineering Construction and Architectural Management 8, 325?334. Lastewka, W., 2005. Government-Wide Review of Procurement? : Parliamentary Secretary?s Task Force, Government-Wide Review of Procurement. Ottawa ON.  167  Lenard, D., Mohsini, R., 1998. Recommendations from the organisational workshop. In: Procurement?The Way Forward. CIB publication, Montr?al, pp. 79?81. Levine, D.M., Krehbiel, T.C., Brenson, M.L., P.K.Vishwanathan, 2011. Business statistics, 5th ed. Dorling Kindersley (India) Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi. Levy, S.M., 2011. Public-private partnerships: case studies on infrastructure development. ASCE, Reston, VA. Li, D., Chi, E., Hui, M., Xu, X., Li, Q., 2012. Methodology for Assessing the Sustainability of Metro Systems Based on Emergy Analysis. Journal of Management in Engineering 28, 59?69. Liu, a., Fellows, R., 2008. Impact of participants? values on construction sustainability. Proceedings of the ICE - Engineering Sustainability 161, 219?227. Liu, T., Wilkinson, S., 2011a. Adopting innovative procurement techniques: Obstacles and drivers for adopting public private partnerships in New Zealand. Construction Innovation: Information, Process, Management 11, 452?469. Liu, T., Wilkinson, S., 2011b. Adopting innovative procurement techniques: Obstacles and drivers for adopting public private partnerships in New Zealand. Construction Innovation: Information, Process, Management 11, 452 ? 469. Lo, W., Yan, M., 2009. Evaluating Qualification-Based Selection System? : 458?465. London, K., 2008. Construction Supply Chain Economics. Taylor and Francis, New York. Malhotra, N., Hall, J., Shaw, M., Oppenheim, P., 2002. Market research: An applied orientation, 2nd ed. Pearson Education, NSW, Australia. Martins, M., 2009. Procurement. In: Wankel, C. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Business in Today?s World. Thousand Oaks, pp. pp. 1309?1311. McMichael, a J., Butler, C.D., Folke, C., 2003. New visions for addressing sustainability. Science (New York, N.Y.) 302, 1919?20. Mearig, T., 2004. Project Delivery Methods Handbook. Juneau. Meehan, J., Bryde, D., 2011. Sustainable Procurement Practice. Business Stratergy and the Environment 20, 94?106. Meillaud, F., Gay, J.-B., Brown, M.T., 2005. Evaluation of a building using the emergy method. Solar Energy 79, 204?212.  168  Miller, G., Furneaux, C., Davis, P., Love, P., O?Donnell, A., 2009. Built Environment Procurement Practice: Impediments to Innovation and Opportunities for Changes. Canberra. National Energy Board, 2013. Electricity - How Canadian Markets Work. Energy Pricing Information for Canadian Consumers. URL http://www.neb.gc.ca/clf-nsi/rnrgynfmtn/prcng/lctrct/cndnmrkt-eng.html (accessed 6.18.13). Natural Resources Canada, 2013a. Average Retail Prices for Diesel in Canada. URL http://www2.nrcan.gc.ca/eneene/sources/pripri/prices_byyear_e.cfm?ProductID=5 (accessed 6.29.13). Natural Resources Canada, 2013b. North American Natural Gas Market: 2012-2013 Heating Season Outlook. URL http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy/publications/sources/natural-gas/1258 (accessed 6.29.13). Ng, S.T., Skitmore, R.M., 2002. Contractors? risks in Design, Novate and Construct contracts. International Journal of Project Management 20, 119?126. Nijaki, L.K., Worrel, G., 2012. Procurement for sustainable local economic development. International Journal of Public Sector Management 25, 133?153. Nyboer, J., Kamiya, G., 2012. Energy Use and Related Data: Canadian Construction Industry 1990 to 2010. Burnaby, BC. Odum, H.T., 1996. Environmental accounting? : EMERGY and environmental decision making. Wiley publishing, New York, NY. Office of Procurement Ombudsman, 2011. Procurement Practice Reviews. Procurement Practice Reviews. URL http://www.opo-boa.gc.ca/praapp-prorev/index-eng.html (accessed 1.12.12). Office of the Auditor General Canada, 2005. Report of the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development. Ottawa. Ogunlana, S., 1999. Profitable Partnering in Construction Procurement: CIB W92 (Procurement Systems) and CIB TG 23 (Culture in Construction). Routledge, New York. Ortiz, O., Castells, F., Sonnemann, G., 2009. Sustainability in the construction industry: A review of recent developments based on LCA. Construction and Building Materials 23, 28?39. Oyegoke, A.S., Dickinson, M., Khalfan, M.M.A., McDermott, P., Rowlinson, S., 2009. Construction project procurement routes: an in-depth critique. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business 2, 338 ? 354. Paoli, C., Vassallo, P., Fabiano, M., 2008. Solar power: An approach to transformity evaluation. Ecological Engineering 34, 191?206.  169  Perera, O., Chowdhury, N., Goswami, A., 2007. State of Play in Sustainable Public Procurement. Winnipeg. Perng, Y.-H., Chang, C.-L., 2004. Data mining for government construction procurement. Building Research and Information 32, 329?338. Price Water Coopers, 2009. Collection of statistical information on Green Public Procurement in the EU Report on data collection results. Brussels. Pulselli, R.M., Simoncini, E., Pulselli, F.M., Bastianoni, S., 2007. Emergy analysis of building manufacturing, maintenance and use: Em-building indices to evaluate housing sustainability. Energy and Buildings 39, 620?628. Reza, B., Sadiq, R., Hewage, K., 2013. Emergy-based life cycle assessment (Em-LCA) for sustainability appraisal of infrastructure systems: a case study on paved roads. Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy 15. Rezgui, Y., Wilson, I.E., Li, H., 2010. Promoting Sustainability Awareness through Energy Engaged Virtual Communities of Construction Stakeholders 142?148. Rivas, R., Serpell, A., 1999. Evaluation and improvement of the procurement process in construction projects 219?230. Robinson, J., 2004. Squaring the circle? Some thoughts on the idea of sustainable development. Ecological Economics 48, 369?384. Rowlinson, S., McDermott, P., 1999. Procurement Systems: a guide to best practice in construction. Roultedge, New York. Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS), 2008. Contracts in use A Survey of Building Contracts in Use during 2007. London. Ruparathna R. and Hewage K.N. 2013. Sustainability of construction procurement practices in Canada: An industry review, 4th Construction Specialty Conference, Canadian Society for Civil Engineering, Montreal, Quebec, May 29-June 1, 2013. Rwelamila, P.D., Edries, R., 2007. Project Procurement Competence and Knowledge Base of Civil Engineering Consultants: An Empirical Study 182?192. Rwelamila, P.D., Meyer, C., 1999. Appropriate or default project procurement systems? Cost Engineering 41, 40?44. Salkind, N.J., 2008. Nonparametric Test. The Concise Encyclopedia of Statistics. Sev, A., 2009. How Can the Construction Industry Contribute to Sustainable Development? A Conceptual Framework 17, 161?173.  170  Shiers, D., Rapson, D., Roberts, C., Keeping, M., 2006. Sustainable construction: the development and evaluation of an environmental profiling system for construction products. Construction Management and Economics 24, 1177?1184. Sourani, A., 2008. Addressing Sustainable Construction in Procurement Strategies. Loughborough University. Sourani, A., Sohail, M., 2011. Barriers to addressing sustainable construction in public procurement strategies 164, 229?237. Spence, R., Mulligan, H., 1995. Sustainable development and the construction industry. Habitat International 19, 279?292. Statistics Canada, 2009. Construction. Canada year book. URL http://www41.statcan.ca/2008/2162/ceb2162_000-eng.htm (accessed 2.4.12). Statistics Canada, 2010. Waste Management Industry Survey: Business and Government Sectors 2008. Ottawa, ON. Statistics Canada, 2012. Construction. Year book 2012. URL http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-402-x/2011000/chap/construction/construction-eng.htm (accessed 2.12.13). Sustainable Procurement Task Force, 2006. Procuring the Future. London. Sutt, J., 2011. Manual of Construction Project Management: For Owners and Clients, 1st ed. John Wiley and Sons, Chechester. Tam, C.., 1999. Build-operate-transfer model for infrastructure developments in Asia: reasons for successes and failures. International Journal of Project Management 17, 377?382. Tarantini, M., Loprieno, A.D., Porta, P.L., 2011. A life cycle approach to Green Public Procurement of building materials and elements: A case study on windows. Energy 36, 2473?2482. Teo, M., Loosemore, M., 2003. Changing the environmental culture of the construction industry. In: Molenaar, K.R., Chinowsky, P.S. (Eds.), Construction Research Congress March 19-21. American Society of Civil Engineers, Honolulu, Hawaii. The Scottish Government, 2005. Mandatory policy and procedures for construction works projects. Construction Procurement Manual. URL http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2005/11/28100404/04113 (accessed 4.4.12). The World Bank, 2012. Private Participation in Infrastructure Projects Database. URL http://ppi.worldbank.org/ (accessed 5.7.13).  171  Touran, A., Gransberg, D.D., Molenaar, K.R., Ghavamifar, K., Mason, D.J., Fithian, L.A., 2008. Evaluation of Project Delivery Methods. Washington, DC. Trochim, W.M.K., Donnelly, J.P., 2008. The Research Methods Knowledge Base, 3rd ed. Atomic Dog/Cengage Learning, Mason, Ohio. Tysseland, B.E., 2008. Life cycle cost based procurement decisions. International Journal of Project Management 26, 366?375. United Nations, 2002. Report of the World Summit on Sustainable Development. United Nations, New York. United Nations, 2011. Buying for a better world. Nairobi. United Nations Global Market Place, 2010. What is sustainable procurement? . URL https://www.ungm.org/sustainableprocurement/default.aspx (accessed 2.8.13). DOT, 2011. Performance Contracting for Construction - The Michigan Experience \. Construction. URL http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/construction/contracts/pubs/flyers/pcfc_flyer_mi.cfm (accessed 2.4.12). USEPA, 2012. Why Build Green? \. URL http://www.epa.gov/greenbuilding/pubs/whybuild.htm (accessed 6.28.13). USEPA, 2013a. Green Building \. URL http://www.epa.gov/greenbuilding/ (accessed 6.27.13). USEPA, 2013b. Particulate Matter (PM). URL http://www.epa.gov/pm/ (accessed 6.10.13). Varn?s, A., 2008. Enhancing Environmental Performance by Green Procurement, 1st ed. KTH-Environmental Management and Assessment Research Group, Stockholm. Varn?s, A., Balfors, B., Faith-Ell, C., 2009. Environmental consideration in procurement of construction contracts: current practice, problems and opportunities in green procurement in the Swedish construction industry. Journal of Cleaner Production 17, 1214?1222. Ville de Montr?al, 2012. 2012 Rates. URL http://ville.montreal.qc.ca/pls/portal/docs/PAGE/ARR_VER_FR/MEDIA/DOCUMENTS/REGLEMENT_TARIFS_2012.PDF (accessed 6.11.13). Walker, D., Hampson, K., 2008. Procurement Strategies: A Relationship-based Approach. John Wiley and Sons, London. Walker, H., Brammer, S., 2009. Sustainable procurement in the United Kingdom public sector. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 14, 128?137.  172  Walker, H., Brammer, S., 2012. The relationship between sustainable procurement and e-procurement in the public sector. International Journal of Production Economics 140, 256?268. Wardani, M.A. El, Messner, J.I., Horman, M.J., 2006. Comparing Procurement Methods for Design-Build Projects 230?238. Welkowitz, J., Cohen, B.H., Ewen, R.B., 2006. Introductory statistics for the behavioral sciences, 6th ed. John Wiley and Sons, Hoboken, N.J. Wells, J., Hawkins, J., 2011. Briefing: Promoting construction health and safety through procurement. Management, Procurement and Law 164, 165?168. Westmorland Albert, 2013. Hours and Fees. URL http://www.westmorlandalbert.com/ehoursfees.html (accessed 6.11.13). World Bank, 2011a. Other Methods of Procurement . Procurement. URL http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/PROJECTS/PROCUREMENT/0,,contentMDK:20060860~menuPK:93309~pagePK:84269~piPK:84286~theSitePK:84266,00.html (accessed 12.25.12). World Bank, 2011b. Procurement Harmonization \. Procurement. URL http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/PROJECTS/PROCUREMENT/0,,contentMDK:22989220~menuPK:8118597~pagePK:8271521~piPK:8271523~theSitePK:84266,00.html (accessed 2.4.12). World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987. Our Common Future, 1st ed. Oxford University Press, London. Yang, Z.F., Jiang, M.M., Chen, B., Zhou, J.B., Chen, G.Q., Li, S.C., 2010. Solar emergy evaluation for Chinese economy. Energy Policy 38, 875?886. Zhu, L., Li, H., Chen, J., John, R., Liang, T., Yan, M., 2012. Emergy-based sustainability assessment of Inner Mongolia. Journal of Geographical Sciences 22, 843?858. Zorn, C., 2004. Shapiro-wilk test. Encyclopedia of social science research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA.     173  Appendices Appendix A : Okanagan research ethics board approval   Figure A-1 : Research ethics board approval   174  Appendix B : TCPS 2 research ethics certificate  Figure B-2 : TCPS 2 certificate of completion     175  Appendix C : Recruitment letter    176  Appendix D  : Consent form The University of British Columbia Faculty of Applied Science School of Engineering Okanagan Campus 3333 University Way Kelowna, BC Canada V1V 1V7  Phone 250 807 8723 Fax 250 807 9850 www.ubc.ca/okanagan/engineering   Consent Form  Sustainability initiatives within construction procurement in Canada   Principal Investigator:     Name: Dr. Kasun Hewage, P.Eng. Position: Assistant Professor, School of Engineering Phone: 250-807-8176 Fax: 250-807-9850 Email: Kasun.Hewage@ubc.ca  Co-Investigator(s):  Names: Rajeev Ruparathna Phone: 250-575-7711 E-mail: rajeev.ruparathna@ubc.ca  Statistical data gathered in this research may be used for the research thesis of MASc degree. Total confidentiality and privacy of research participants will be protected in any publications and presentations.   Sponsor:  This research is funded by National Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC).  Purpose: The long-term goal of the proposed research program is to develop a sustainability framework for construction procurement in Canada. This would facilitate the construction managers and clients to incorporate social and economical aspects in to the project procurement beyond the financial considerations. The initial research will review sustainable construction procurement in global and local context for its developments and current trends, followed up with development of the framework for sustainability. To achieve the research objective, the students will perform observations in active construction projects, and extensive literature review to develop the framework. Pilot projects would be simulated using computer software to assess its life cycle costs and impact on social and environmental aspects when sustainability framework is used.   177  You are being invited to take part in this research study to share your professional experiences in current status in incorporating sustainability initiatives for construction procurement, and methods used to improve procurement in at construction projects.  The research participants are construction managers and clients.  Study Procedures: The data will be collected through questionnaire surveys, interviews, and observations when ever required. You will be given the opportunity to participate in all phases of the study (i.e. questionnaire, interview(s) and observations). It will be up to you to decide whether to participate in all parts of the study.   Questionnaire Survey: A questionnaire will be sent to construction personnel and design professional of the construction project. Each questionnaire will take about 10 to 15 minutes to complete. Construction managers and construction clients will be requested to answer the questionnaire. Their participation is completely voluntarily. Results of the questionnaire survey will be used to conduct data sensitivity analysis using statistical tools and suggest an innovative framework for achieving sustainability in construction procurement.   Observations: Direct observations will be conducted in active construction projects. The published bid documents and RFP documents would be studied for this purpose. Bid evaluation methods would be reviewed with the consent from the participating companies. All stakeholders of construction procurement process will be observed and analyzed to include them in the development of sustainability framework. No video or audio recordings will be performed.  Interviews: An interview will be held of about 30 minutes in the event of further information required and we may contact the same professional twice for clarification purposes. Interview questions will be based on your field of experience, its level and familiarity with information and communication technologies.   Potential Risks: There are no known risks for the participants by providing their opinions in this research project. You may be asked to provide copies of bid solicitation documents, bid evaluation reports in the print or digital form and you have the right to refuse to provide this information.  Potential Benefits: Benefits of this research to the construction industry as whole are: 1. Construction companies can incorporate aspects of sustainability in to procurement process, which would be a value addition to the project.   2. Applications of sustainability framework for procurement would significantly reduce current drawbacks in construction procurement which will enhance project outcome.  178   Confidentiality: All documents will be identified only by code number and kept in a locked filing cabinet with the principal investigator. Subjects will not be identified by name in any reports of the completed study. All computer files will be password protected and data will be stored and maintained in a UBC facility by the principal investigator for at least 5 years then will be deleted from the database.     Contact for information about the study: If you have any questions or desire further information with respect to this study, you may contact Dr. Kasun Hewage or one of his associates at 1-250-807-8176.  Contact for concerns about the rights of research subjects: If you have any concerns about your treatment or rights as a research subject, you may contact the Research Subject Information Line in the UBC Office of Research Services at 1-604-878-7473 or the UBC Okanagan Research Services Office at 1-250-807-8289   Copy of the finding of this research:  If you like to receive a copy of the finding/results of the research please provide your email address below.  ___________________________________________________________   Consent: Taking part in this study is entirely up to you. You have the right to refuse to participate in this study. If you decide to take part, you may choose to pull out of the study at any time without giving a reason and without any negative without any negative consequences on your employment. Wherever applicable, we have taken permission from the competent authority of your company to conduct this research study.    Your signature below indicates you consent to participate in this study and that you have received a copy of this consent form for your own records.   ____________________________________________________ Participant?s Signature     Date   _____________________________________________________ Printed Name of the Participant     179  Appendix E : Interview script    180  Appendix F : Questionnaire   Current status of sustainable procurement in Canada. Survey on incorporating factors of sustainability for procurement, 2012 Thank you for agreeing to participate in this survey. The purpose of the survey is to assess the current status of incorporating environmental and social factors in construction procurement. The survey should take approximately 10 minutes to complete. There is a section at the end of the questionnaire to leave any additional comments. All information received will be treated in strictest confidence and in accordance with the UBCO code of conduct. Sustainability is defined as balance between social, economical and environmental factors related to the construction project. 1  I represent a, i. Construction client organization   ii. Construction management organization  2  Which sector is your institution representing? i. Private Sector ii. Public sector  3  The primary business sector of the institution? i. Construction & Civil Engineering related ii. Other (Please specify ??????????????????..)  4  If you are a client, Expenditure on construction procurement for last 5 years (New construction, refurbishments, additions, and building purchases) i. Below CAD 50,000 ii. CAD 50, 001- CAD 500, 000 iii. CAD 500, 001- CAD 5, 000, 0000 iv. Above CAD 5,000,000  5  If you are a construction manager, Value of the projects you have handled last 5 years i. Below CAD 50,000 ii. CAD 50, 001- CAD 500, 000 iii. CAD 500, 001- CAD 5, 000, 0000 iv. Above CAD 5,000,000   181  6  Number of years in operations  i 0-5 years ii 6-15 years iii 16-30 years iv 31-50 years v Over 50 years    7  Number of staff involved in procurement function from requirement definition to contract award  i. 0-5 ii. 6-10 iii. 11-15 iv. Over 15 8  Designation of the person who heads the construction project procurement i Board level ii Upper management iii Middle management iv Lower management v Others ??????????????????..  9  Is a documented procurement manual being used in the company? Yes / No  Question 8 is only for construction clients 10  Project management method used in a construction project (change) i In-house                                                                            0, 1-2, 3-5, 6-10, 11-15, 16-25, 26+,all ii External                                                                             0, 1-2, 3-5, 6-10, 11-15, 16-25, 26+,all iii In-house/ External                                                          0, 1-2, 3-5, 6-10, 11-15, 16-25, 26+,all iv Others ??????????????????..                     0, 1-2, 3-5, 6-10, 11-15, 16-25, 26+,all  11  In the last 5 years, how many projects has your organisation been involved in using the following procurement methods? i. Design Bid Build                                                               0, 1-2, 3-5, 6-10, 11-15, 16-25, 26+,all ii. Design and build project                                                0, 1-2, 3-5, 6-10, 11-15, 16-25, 26+,all iii. Partnering contract                                                         0, 1-2, 3-5, 6-10, 11-15, 16-25, 26+,all iv. Management contract/Construction management  0, 1-2, 3-5, 6-10, 11-15, 16-25, 26+,all v. Public Private partnership/Private initiative              0, 1-2, 3-5, 6-10, 11-15, 16-25, 26+,all  Procurement Function  182   12  In the last 5 years, how many projects has your organisation been involved in used the following procurement procedures? i. Negotiation procedure                                                   0, 1-2, 3-5, 6-10, 11-15, 16-25, 26+,all ii. Competitive selection procedure                                 0, 1-2, 3-5, 6-10, 11-15, 16-25, 26+,all iii. Competitive Negotiation procedure                            0, 1-2, 3-5, 6-10, 11-15, 16-25, 26+,all iv. Electronic auction procedure                  0, 1-2, 3-5, 6-10, 11-15, 16-25, 26+,all v. Others (Please specify ?????????????.. )       0, 1-2, 3-5, 6-10, 11-15, 16-25, 26+,all  13  The basis for evaluating construction project bids  i Low bid procurement ii Qualification based procurement iii Value based procurement   14  Does the institution mission / vision statement or company values recognize environmental, social, and economic sustainability as a consideration? Yes /  No  15  Does procurement manual contains guidelines to focus on environmental and social factors related to the project? Yes /  No  16  Are environmental Factors considered in procuring for construction projects? Yes /  No/ Some times  17  What are the environmental factors considered for evaluation? (Please specify)  18  Are social factors considered in procuring for construction projects? Yes /  No/ Some times  19  What are the social factors considered for evaluation? (Please specify)  20  What is the basis for financial evaluation? i. Initial cost ii. Entire  lifecycle cost  21   Are social and environmental factors considered in the evaluation criteria for bid documents? Yes /  No Sustainability initiatives  183   22  What is the weight allocated to social and environmental factors in evaluating project proposals/ bids?  Please specify ??????????????????????????????..  23  Is there a standard procedure in your company for evaluating social and environmental factors in project bids? Yes / No If ?yes? what is the method? Please specify: ?????????????????????. If ?No? how it is being done? Please describe in the below space          24  Do you think environmental and social criteria should be included in construction project bid evaluation? Yes /  No  25  Do you think the companies who incorporate environmental and social criteria and project lifecycle cost would gain long term benefits? Yes /  No   26  What are the main drivers for implementing sustainability in procurement activity? Please indicate from 1-3 for the importance of the below factors (1 being the highest)   27  What are the main benefits in implementing sustainability in procurement activity? Factor Importance Government and regulation,  ______ Competitive edge in the market ______ Client procurement policy ______ Factor Importance Reducing use of natural resources ______ Reducing in harmful emissions and waste generation  ______ Meeting existing and forthcoming legislation around the climate change agenda ______ Improving  in working conditions - labor standards, health and safety ______   184  Please indicate from 1-10 for the importance of the below factors (1 being the highest)  28  What are the problems in incorporating sustainability related factors in the procurement process? Please indicate from 1-10 for the importance of the below factors (1 being the highest)   29  Please provide additional comments on sustainable procurement, if any                 Assisting disadvantaged groups in society ______ Up skilling your workforce to meet the future needs of your organization ______ Saving the long term  by considering the whole life cycle cost ______ Meet international obligations (Kyoto protocol) ______ Improving the efficiency and transparency of procurement procedures ______ Stimulate the market for green technologies in providing technical solutions to environmental problems whilst generating new employment opportunities ______ Factor Importance Lack of funding and unwillingness to incur higher capital cost ______ Lack of awareness, understanding, information, commitment and demand   ______ Insufficient  policies, regulations, incentives and lack of leadership ______ Insufficient/confusing guidance, tools, demonstrations and best practice ______ Vagueness of definitions and diversity of interpretations ______ Separation between capital budget and operational budget ______ Lack of sufficient time to address sustainability issues ______ Resistance to change ______ Insufficient research and development ______ Complicated procedures, skilled staff for execution ______  Thank you  185  Appendix G : Interview Responses G.1 : Interview 1 The interviewee is a senior manager of a medium scale multi disciplinary civil engineering company in British Columbia. This organization acts as the contract administrator for clients. The organization is specialized in municipal infrastructure and branch offices are located in several locations in British Columbia and Calgary. The clients consist of local municipalities and private clients. Procuring and recommending the contractors is one of the major functions of the referred organization. The functions of the organization include preparing drawings, defining specifications and tendering. Generally standard details of MMCD and CCDC documents are used as specifications.  The supplementary details are defined by the organization in tender documents.  The organization recommends suitable contractors for the clients and carries out contract administration. The organization does not influence material selection or logistics methods of the contractor. The organization acts as the contract administrator on behalf of the client. Nominated competitive selection procedure is used by the organization in procuring for the contractors. A prequalified list of contractors is maintained by the organization. Further Negotiation too is used as a procurement procedure for smaller scale projects. According to the respondent,  organizations such as above does have less impact on implementing sustainability initiatives in to construction projects. The main reason for the above is intermediate entities such as the organization in concern is pressured by the client to realize the project within the budget. The client establishes sustainability initiative for the projects which are followed by the organization. Generally the clients are interested in the establishing sustainability initiatives if they are having a long term interest towards a built asset. Less sustainability aspects are observed when the building is developed expecting to be sold.  However as per the respondent the organization is keen to implement sustainability initiatives with costs less during the construction such as designs requiring less material. Further more the organization is perusing many initiative with the office such as use of less paper, electronic procurement, better quality drawings to reduce the design changes ect.   186  The respondent is having a positive attitude about application of sustainability aspects in to procurement process. However he has identified following issues that affects sustainability criteria in procurement processes. ? Client defines the sustainability requirements such as obtaining LEED, LBC etc. The entities below the client have less impact on implementing sustainability initiatives in to procurement process. ? There is no unified method for evaluating project bids. He states the need of quantitative and measurable methods to evaluate social and environmental factors in construction bids.  The organization does not use environmental and social criteria for bid evaluation. The reason is the non existence of a standard method. According to the respondent the market forces are the main driver for implementing sustainability initiatives procurement process. According to him the eventual customers are willing to pay premium sums for built environment incorporated with sustainability criteria. Among the clients economics is the major reason for incorporating sustainability initiatives in project procurement.  The respondent is skeptical of certain initiative actually improve the sustainability. For example he questions how providing local job opportunities improve the social sustainability. According to this interview lower levels of project structure  can have minimal impact in initiating sustainability initiatives.           187  G.2 : Interview 2 The respondent is a project manager of a private company which was formed as a construction arm of a public non engineering organization. The private company operates as a trust on behalf of the parent organization and reports separately to its board of directors.  The company uses construction management as the procurement method to deliver the infrastructure needs of the parent organization. The procurement process starts with requirement definition by the user group within the parent organization followed by architectural design and structural designs. Bids are called from prequalified construction companies to select the general contractor. The construction management company enters into contracts with subcontractors who are recommended by the general contractor. The organization uses competitive bidding and negotiation as the procurement procedure in selecting the general contractor. General contractor recommends the subcontractors for the construction manager.  The manager is favorable towards incorporating sustainability aspects into construction procurement. Organizations have incorporated sustainability initiatives such as LEED, specification of less toxic material. However no sustainability criteria are used for evaluating the projects.  According to the respondent the designer should be familiar with the local conditions. This factor is important in a country like Canada where conditions differ significantly. According to the respondent the organization is affected by central building code used by the organization.  The organization is pursues many initiatives to reduce the operating energy. Majority of them are extra additions to the premises. However they are not used in initial project procurement.     188  G.3 : Interview 3 The respondent is a Director of facilities management at a public sector organization. The organization represents an education sector and has been operating for last 7 years. The institution procures in obtaining built assets, additions and renovation as the project owner. The organization directly involves for contraction valued below $ 2.5 million and transfers to the construction management arm above that limit. The division follows technical guidelines of the mother organization. In addition the division obtains the service of specialist services such as architects and engineers in determining the requirements.  In delivering construction projects construction management and design bid build is used as a procurement method. The organization uses design bid build method in procuring for construction.  The sustainability initiatives considered in procurement process include obtaining LEED certification; reducing power consumption; waste recycling; use of non toxic material. The respondent is in favor of sustainable procurement and stated long term savings is the main benefit of sustainable procurement.     189  G.4 : Interview 4 The interviewee is a senior procurement officer a public sector organization. The organization represents the education sector and has been operating for last 7 years. Projects below $ 2.5 million are handled by the organization.  Procurement division calls for bids when specifications are received from the facilities management division or calls for proposals upon request from the facilities management division.  Since the procurement division is involved in small scale construction they are calling for bids from local contractors.  In defining the project requirements, referred organization uses sustainability guidelines published by the organization. The organization specifies initiatives such as LEED guidelines, reducing energy usage, recycling of waste etc. during construction procurement. This organization considers sustainability criteria in tender evaluation. Project proposals are evaluated by a committee appointed by the director of the division. They allocate a predefined weightage for sustainability initiatives when evaluating bids.   According to the respondent owners? commitment is the key for sustainable procurement. Since the institution uses standard contract documents they call for more sustainability clauses in contract documents. The organization uses competitive bidding as the procurement procedure. A weighted matrix is used in evaluating proposals. The benefits in using sustainable procurement enable low maintenance cost. In addition sustainable procurement reduces the health impact on the tenants and improves social benefits.     190  G.5 : Interview 5 The interviewee is a project coordinator of public sector organization. The organization is involved in the health care sector and operates in around British Columbia. The funding for the operations are obtained from federal ministry and regional hospitals.  A master plan is developed by the organization and construction process is undertaken following the master plan. The construction procurement process starts from calling for qualifications from contractors. From qualified contractors RFP are obtained for designs. Services from a consultant is used for determining and evaluating proposals. The largest number of procurement methods is used in procuring construction such as design bid build, design build, construction management and design build finance and maintain.  Procurement procedures used by the organization included qualification based selection since specialist work is required in delivering required facilities. For smaller scale work low bid tendering is used.  The respondent agrees with incorporating sustainability aspects into project procurement. The organization requires LEED certification in obtaining buildings.  In addition other than buildings which specific requirements for all other buildings the organization opt for wood construction which as been a regulation by the government as well.  In evaluating the proposals a committee is appointed who specialized in various disciplines. The evaluation method used by the committee is scored with respect to the matrix.  According to the respondent budget restrictions are the main problem in implementing sustainable procurement.  In addition evaluating sustainability criteria is another major issue.  The current method is a subjective method. According to the respondent for a public sector organization government policy is the main driver for sustainable procurement.  The respondent states by implementing sustainable procurement rights of the public and social responsibility of the organization are preserved.     191  G.6 : Interview 6 The interviewee is the purchasing manager of the local municipality. The municipality was incorporated in 2007. The total population within the municipality area is approximately 30,000. The institution engages in construction procurement regularly in acquiring buildings for municipal activities; repair and maintenance of municipal built assets and maintenance of municipal infrastructure.  Since the institution is relatively new to the experience they posses on construction procurement is limited. For a construction project, this organization uses design build, design bid build and construction management as the procurement methods. The organization uses services of an architect for small scale projects to determine the specifications. However proposals are called for larger scale projects. The bid opportunities are posted in BC bid. This organization uses competitive bidding as the procurement method. Initial bid price is the evaluation criteria. The respondent thinks it is important to incorporate sustainability aspects into project procurement. He agrees that sustainability factors should be a necessity. According to the respondent obtaining funding for the additional cost is the main problem faced in sustainable procurement. The organization uses sustainability criteria in procurement. The criteria that is used includes incorporating LEED initiatives in building construction; incorporating environmental guidelines and complying with local legislation. In addition the organization uses green power purchasing for the built assets. In evaluating project proposals the organization selects the best value proposal by comparing cost and benefits. According to the respondent the main driver for sustainable is tem being a municipal district. They should show lead by example as a body which represents people. The respondent agrees that long term saving as the benefit of sustainable procurement.    192  G.7 : Interview 7 The respondent is a senior manager of a large scale construction company in Canada. Operations of the company spans all around Canada and total turnover is valued approximately $300 million annually.  In company is involved mainly in heavy construction, civil works and works as a general contractor.  The organization subcontracts 90% of the work. A prequalified list is used for selecting contractors. The online FTP server is used by the organization for which sub contractors are granted access to review and download drawings. The organization has used and uses procurement methods such as design bid build, design build construction management, construction management at risk. Initial bid price is the basis for bid evaluation. Important aspects of procurement discuss in the pre bid meeting.  The respondent agrees with sustainable procurement and he considers it as a necessity. The organization gives little concern to sustainable procurement since the work is mainly cost driven. Lowest price is the basis for selection of proposals. The organization uses initiatives such as the use of online design room reduced paper usage. In addition referred organization requests initiatives such as LEED specification, recycling of material, safety procedures, dust cut off barrios etc. According to the respondents sustainable procurement requires extra cost and affects the project schedules adversely. The main drawbacks faced by a similar organization for sustainable procurement is lack impact that can be created due to budget restrictions. Since the major targets are fixed general contractors has limited scope for sustainability. According the respondent drivers for incorporating sustainable procurement are government initiatives, corporate social image in the society and competitive edge in the market. The benefits of sustainable procurement have reduced maintenance cost for the client, better recognition for the construction organization.    193  G.8 : Interview 8 The respondent is a procurement manager of a municipality in the Okanagan region. Rehabilitation and new capital projects are major responsibilities of the organization.   The institution plans to spend approximately $ 90 million for capital projects in 2013.  According to respondents' feedback the institution uses in house and external combined method for project procurement. The conventional procurement process starts when rehabilitation or new project requirements are identified by the institution. Design works are outsourced to an external party who is being selected through pre qualification. Based on the design RFPs are called and a suitable contractor is selected by an evaluation committee formed by a city staff. In addition the organization has used design and build, design bid build, construction management as procurement methods. Competitive bidding is the frequently used procurement procedure. The respondent agrees to incorporate sustainability initiatives is an important aspect of the procurement process and states it should be a necessity. The respondent sees incorporating sustainability aspects in procurement as a trade off among TBL of sustainability. The institution considers factors of sustainability during the procurement process. According to the respondent sustainability aspects are mainly embedded into the design and specifications.  In evaluating sustainability criteria the organization uses a weighted scoring method. A priority is given to achieving best value for the city. In addition LCA is not being done for capital project procurement. The main driver for sustainable procurement is tax payers. The institution is focused towards the welfare of tax payers and focused on providing what taxpayers want. As benefits of sustainable procurement the respondent states achieving a good environment which eventually satisfies tax payers.     194  G.9 : Interview 9 The respondent is an engineering services director of a municipality in the Okanagan region. Construction related responsibilities of the organization includes rehabilitation of the infrastructure, maintenance and building new infrastructure. The institution plans to spend approximately $ 90 million for capital projects in 2013. For procuring construction this organization uses in house expertise as well as the services of external consultants. For the procurement of new projects, the requirement identification starts from the institution's master plan. Procurement methods used by this organization includes, design and build; design bid build and construction management. The institution procures and uses in house capabilities in maintenance of the infrastructure as well.  The organization uses mainly competitive bidding in bid selection. A qualification based method is used for high valued procurements. In incorporating sustainability criteria for procurement the respondent is most concerned about the value to the residents. According to the respondent still sustainable procurement concepts are not very clear. However it is a growing concept.  The respondent stated that being a public sector entity, the high cost and corresponding public opinion are the main concerns of using TBL of sustainability in construction. However, this organization uses a number of initiatives such as opting for certifications such as LEED, plans to reduce carbon footprint and use of best practices manual in construction procurement.  Currently there are no methods in evaluating sustainability criteria in procurement decision making.  The respondent states that legislation is the main driver for promoting sustainable procurement in a similar organization. Furthermore sustainability should be integrated to the corporate values of the organization and a change in attitudes of the public is required for sustainable procurement to be operational.  The respondent states that obtaining long term cost benefits as the main advantage of sustainable procurement. The respondent further stated that sustainable procurement is important is it is the right thing to do.     195  Appendix H : Split half reliability test for measures. Table H-1 : Split half reliability measures   Criteria Number Benefits Challenge 1 0.136335075 0.250761037 2 -0.171535961 -0.398832865 3 0.114572322 -0.084368093 4 -0.364919489 -0.19451516 5 0.120859508 0.288352447 6 -0.517994067 -0.372749658 7 0.551506164 0.289014444 8 0.374768133 -0.211889383 9 0.010388639 -0.186644916 10 0.312078269 -0.241172829  196  Appendix I : Coding the factors challenges for sustainable procurement Table I-1: Coding the factors challenges for sustainable procurement  Factor Code Lack of funding and unwillingness to incur higher capital cost Chal_1 Lack of awareness, understanding, information, commitment and demand Chal_2 Insufficient  policies, regulations, incentives and lack of leadership Chal_3 Insufficient/confusing guidance, tools, demonstrations and best practice Chal_4 Vagueness of definitions and diversity of interpretations Chal_5 Separation between capital budget and operating budget Chal_6 Lack of sufficient time to address sustainability issues Chal_7 Resistance to change Chal_8 Insufficient research and development Chal_9 Complicated procedures, skilled staff for execution Chal_10         197  Appendix J : Descriptive statistics of challenges of sustainable procurement  Table J-1 : Descriptive statistics of challenges of sustainable procurement   Criteria Statistic Std. Error Lack of funding and unwillingness to incur higher capital cost Mean 2.63 .459 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 1.70   Upper Bound 3.57   5% Trimmed Mean 2.35   Median 1.00   Variance 6.309   Std. Deviation 2.512   Minimum 1   Maximum 10   Range 9   Interquartile Range 3   Skewness 1.622 .427 Kurtosis 1.884 .833 Lack of awareness, understanding, information, commitment and demand Mean 4.13 .474 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 3.16   Upper Bound 5.10   5% Trimmed Mean 4.04   Median 4.00   Variance 6.740   Std. Deviation 2.596   Minimum 1   Maximum 9   Range 8   Interquartile Range 4   Skewness .616 .427 Kurtosis -.529 .833 Insufficient  policies, regulations, incentives and lack of leadership Mean 3.97 .490 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 2.96   Upper Bound 4.97   5% Trimmed Mean 3.80    198   Criteria Statistic Std. Error Median 3.00   Variance 7.206   Std. Deviation 2.684   Minimum 1   Maximum 10   Range 9   Interquartile Range 3   Skewness 1.161 .427 Kurtosis .447 .833 Insufficient/confusing guidance, tools, demonstrations and best practice Mean 5.60 .524 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 4.53   Upper Bound 6.67   5% Trimmed Mean 5.61   Median 5.00   Variance 8.248   Std. Deviation 2.872   Minimum 1   Maximum 10   Range 9   Interquartile Range 5   Skewness .114 .427 Kurtosis -1.341 .833 Vagueness of definitions and diversity of interpretations   Mean 5.70 .555 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 4.56   Upper Bound 6.84   5% Trimmed Mean 5.70   Median 5.00   Variance 9.252   Std. Deviation 3.042   Minimum 1      Maximum 10   Range 9   Interquartile Range 6   Skewness .094 .427 Kurtosis -1.621 .833  199   Criteria Statistic Std. Error Separation between capital budget and operational budget Mean 6.37 .504 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 5.34   Upper Bound 7.40   5% Trimmed Mean 6.43   Median 5.00   Variance 7.620   Std. Deviation 2.760   Minimum 1   Maximum 10   Range 9   Interquartile Range 5   Skewness -.052 .427 Kurtosis -1.413 .833 Lack of sufficient time to address sustainability issues Mean 6.30 .450 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 5.38   Upper Bound 7.22   5% Trimmed Mean 6.37   Median 7.00   Variance 6.079   Std. Deviation 2.466   Minimum 1   Maximum 10   Range 9   Interquartile Range 3   Skewness -.341 .427 Kurtosis -.516 .833 Resistance to change Mean 6.87 .331 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 6.19   Upper Bound 7.54   5% Trimmed Mean 6.93   Median 7.00   Variance 3.292   Std. Deviation 1.814   Minimum 2    200   Criteria Statistic Std. Error Maximum 10   Range 8   Interquartile Range 2   Skewness -.345 .427 Kurtosis .781 .833 Insufficient research and development Mean 6.53 .498 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 5.52   Upper Bound 7.55   5% Trimmed Mean 6.59   Median 7.00   Variance 7.430   Std. Deviation 2.726   Minimum 2   Maximum 10   Range 8   Interquartile Range 5   Skewness -.280 .427 Kurtosis -1.004 .833 Complicated procedures, skilled staff for execution Mean 6.73 .409 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 5.90   Upper Bound 7.57   5% Trimmed Mean 6.83   Median 7.50   Variance 5.030   Std. Deviation 2.243   Minimum 2   Maximum 10   Range 8   Interquartile Range 2   Skewness -.959 .427 Kurtosis -.156 .833     201  Appendix K : Wilcoxon test results of challenges of sustainable procurement  Table K-1 : Wilcoxon test results of challenges of sustainable procurement  Criteria  N Mean Rank Sum of Ranks Lack of awareness, understanding, information, commitment and demand   - Lack of funding and unwillingness to incur higher capital cost Negative Ranks 8a 15.94 127.50 Positive Ranks 22b 15.34 337.50 Ties 0c     Total 30     Insufficient  policies, regulations, incentives and lack of leadership - Lack of funding and unwillingness to incur higher capital cost Negative Ranks 7d 17.50 122.50 Positive Ranks 22e 14.20 312.50 Ties 1f     Total 30     Insufficient/confusing guidance, tools, demonstrations and best practice - Lack of funding and unwillingness to incur higher capital cost Negative Ranks 7g 11.36 79.50 Positive Ranks 23h 16.76 385.50 Ties 0i     Total 30     Vagueness of definitions and diversity of interpretations - Lack of funding and unwillingness to incur higher capital cost Negative Ranks 6j 9.50 57.00 Positive Ranks 24k 17.00 408.00 Ties 0l     Total 30     Separation between capital budget and operational budget - Lack of funding and unwillingness to incur higher capital cost Negative Ranks 5m 11.20 56.00 Positive Ranks 25n 16.36 409.00 Ties 0o     Total 30     Lack of sufficient time to address sustainability issues - Lack of funding and unwillingness to incur higher capital cost Negative Ranks 5p 9.60 48.00 Positive Ranks 25q 16.68 417.00 Ties 0r     Total 30     Resistance to change - Lack of funding and unwillingness to incur higher capital cost Negative Ranks 2s 10.00 20.00 Positive Ranks 27t 15.37 415.00 Ties 1u     Total 30     Insufficient research and development - Lack of funding and unwillingness to incur higher capital cost Negative Ranks 5v 7.00 35.00 Positive Ranks 25w 17.20 430.00 Ties 0x     Total 30     Complicated procedures, skilled staff for execution Negative Ranks 3y 15.83 47.50  202  Criteria  N Mean Rank Sum of Ranks - Lack of funding and unwillingness to incur higher capital cost Positive Ranks 27z 15.46 417.50 Ties 0aa     Total 30     Insufficient  policies, regulations, incentives and lack of leadership - Lack of awareness, understanding, information, commitment and demand Negative Ranks 14ab 17.96 251.50 Positive Ranks 16ac 13.34 213.50 Ties 0ad     Total 30     Insufficient/confusing guidance, tools, demonstrations and best practice - Lack of awareness, understanding, information, commitment and demand Negative Ranks 10ae 15.25 152.50 Positive Ranks 20af 15.63 312.50 Ties 0ag     Total 30     Vagueness of definitions and diversity of interpretations - Lack of awareness, understanding, information, commitment and demand Negative Ranks 11ah 13.32 146.50 Positive Ranks 19ai 16.76 318.50 Ties 0aj     Total 30     Separation between capital budget and operational budget - Lack of awareness, understanding, information, commitment and demand Negative Ranks 8ak 13.50 108.00 Positive Ranks 22al 16.23 357.00 Ties 0am     Total 30     Lack of sufficient time to address sustainability issues - Lack of awareness, understanding, information, commitment and demand Negative Ranks 8an 10.13 81.00 Positive Ranks 22ao 17.45 384.00 Ties 0ap     Total 30     Resistance to change - Lack of awareness, understanding, information, commitment and demand Negative Ranks 7aq 7.43 52.00 Positive Ranks 23ar 17.96 413.00 Ties 0as     Total 30     Insufficient research and development - Lack of awareness, understanding, information, commitment and demand Negative Ranks 7at 12.36 86.50 Positive Ranks 23au 16.46 378.50 Ties 0av     Total 30     Complicated procedures, skilled staff for execution - Lack of awareness, understanding, information, commitment and demand Negative Ranks 8aw 8.13 65.00 Positive Ranks 22ax 18.18 400.00 Ties 0ay     Total 30     Insufficient/confusing guidance, tools, demonstrations and best practice - Insufficient  policies, regulations, incentives and lack of leadership Negative Ranks 11az 12.73 140.00 Positive Ranks 19ba 17.11 325.00 Ties 0bb     Total 30      203  Criteria  N Mean Rank Sum of Ranks Vagueness of definitions and diversity of interpretations - Insufficient  policies, regulations, incentives and lack of leadership Negative Ranks 9bc 15.56 140.00 Positive Ranks 21bd 15.48 325.00 Ties 0be     Total 30     Separation between capital budget and operational budget - Insufficient  policies, regulations, incentives and lack of leadership Negative Ranks 7bf 13.07 91.50 Positive Ranks 23bg 16.24 373.50 Ties 0bh     Total 30     Lack of sufficient time to address sustainability issues - Insufficient  policies, regulations, incentives and lack of leadership Negative Ranks 6bi 16.33 98.00 Positive Ranks 24bj 15.29 367.00 Ties 0bk     Total 30     Resistance to change - Insufficient  policies, regulations, incentives and lack of leadership Negative Ranks 5bl 10.50 52.50 Positive Ranks 24bm 15.94 382.50 Ties 1bn     Total 30     Insufficient research and development - Insufficient  policies, regulations, incentives and lack of leadership Negative Ranks 8bo 10.56 84.50 Positive Ranks 22bp 17.30 380.50 Ties 0bq     Total 30     Complicated procedures, skilled staff for execution - Insufficient  policies, regulations, incentives and lack of leadership Negative Ranks 6br 11.92 71.50 Positive Ranks 24bs 16.40 393.50 Ties 0bt     Total 30     Vagueness of definitions and diversity of interpretations - Insufficient/confusing guidance, tools, demonstrations and best practice Negative Ranks 14bu 15.79 221.00 Positive Ranks 16bv 15.25 244.00 Ties 0bw     Total 30     Separation between capital budget and operational budget - Insufficient/confusing guidance, tools, demonstrations and best practice Negative Ranks 14bx 12.82 179.50 Positive Ranks 15by 17.03 255.50 Ties 1bz     Total 30     Lack of sufficient time to address sustainability issues - Insufficient/confusing guidance, tools, demonstrations and best practice Negative Ranks 13ca 15.23 198.00 Positive Ranks 17cb 15.71 267.00 Ties 0cc     Total 30     Resistance to change - Insufficient/confusing guidance, tools, demonstrations and best practice Negative Ranks 10cd 14.55 145.50 Positive Ranks 20ce 15.98 319.50 Ties 0cf      204  Criteria  N Mean Rank Sum of Ranks Total 30     Insufficient research and development - Insufficient/confusing guidance, tools, demonstrations and best practice Negative Ranks 12cg 14.75 177.00 Positive Ranks 18ch 16.00 288.00 Ties 0ci     Total 30     Complicated procedures, skilled staff for execution - Insufficient/confusing guidance, tools, demonstrations and best practice Negative Ranks 13cj 12.19 158.50 Positive Ranks 17ck 18.03 306.50 Ties 0cl     Total 30     Separation between capital budget and operational budget - Vagueness of definitions and diversity of interpretations Negative Ranks 13cm 14.46 188.00 Positive Ranks 17cn 16.29 277.00 Ties 0co     Total 30     Lack of sufficient time to address sustainability issues - Vagueness of definitions and diversity of interpretations Negative Ranks 11cp 18.18 200.00 Positive Ranks 19cq 13.95 265.00 Ties 0cr     Total 30     Resistance to change - Vagueness of definitions and diversity of interpretations Negative Ranks 12cs 12.67 152.00 Positive Ranks 18ct 17.39 313.00 Ties 0cu     Total 30     Insufficient research and development - Vagueness of definitions and diversity of interpretations Negative Ranks 13cv 14.73 191.50 Positive Ranks 17cw 16.09 273.50 Ties 0cx     Total 30     Complicated procedures, skilled staff for execution - Vagueness of definitions and diversity of interpretations Negative Ranks 12cy 12.79 153.50 Positive Ranks 17cz 16.56 281.50 Ties 1da     Total 30     Lack of sufficient time to address sustainability issues - Separation between capital budget and operational budget Negative Ranks 16db 14.03 224.50 Positive Ranks 13dc 16.19 210.50 Ties 1dd     Total 30     Resistance to change - Separation between capital budget and operational budget Negative Ranks 14de 14.25 199.50 Positive Ranks 16df 16.59 265.50 Ties 0dg     Total 30     Insufficient research and development - Separation between capital budget and operational budget Negative Ranks 14dh 15.36 215.00 Positive Ranks 16di 15.63 250.00  205  Criteria  N Mean Rank Sum of Ranks Ties 0dj     Total 30     Complicated procedures, skilled staff for execution - Separation between capital budget and operational budget Negative Ranks 15dk 13.27 199.00 Positive Ranks 15dl 17.73 266.00 Ties 0dm     Total 30     Resistance to change - Lack of sufficient time to address sustainability issues Negative Ranks 14dn 13.71 192.00 Positive Ranks 16do 17.06 273.00 Ties 0dp     Total 30     Insufficient research and development - Lack of sufficient time to address sustainability issues Negative Ranks 12dq 17.92 215.00 Positive Ranks 18dr 13.89 250.00 Ties 0ds     Total 30     Complicated procedures, skilled staff for execution - Lack of sufficient time to address sustainability issues Negative Ranks 13dt 15.12 196.50 Positive Ranks 17du 15.79 268.50 Ties 0dv     Total 30     Insufficient research and development - Resistance to change Negative Ranks 17dw 14.44 245.50 Positive Ranks 13dx 16.88 219.50 Ties 0dy     Total 30     Complicated procedures, skilled staff for execution - Resistance to change Negative Ranks 13dz 18.42 239.50 Positive Ranks 17ea 13.26 225.50 Ties 0eb     Total 30     Complicated procedures, skilled staff for execution - Insufficient research and development Negative Ranks 15ec 14.03 210.50 Positive Ranks 15ed 16.97 254.50 Ties 0ee     Total 30       206   Table K 2 : Comparison of challenges for sustainable procurement Criteria   Chal_1 Chal_2 Chal_3 Chal_4 Chal_5 Chal_6 Chal_7 Chal_8 Chal_9 Chal_1 Z                   Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)                   Chal_2 Z -2.174                 Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) 0.030                 Chal_3 Z -2.068 -0.394               Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) 0.039 0.693               Chal_4 Z -3.155 -1.652 -1.909             Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) 0.001 0.001 0.000             Chal_5 Z -3.619 -1.773 -1.913 -0.238           Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.812           Chal_6 Z -3.642 -2.568 -2.909 -0.825 -0.92         Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.409 0.358         Chal_7 Z -3.804 -3.13 -2.778 -0.714 -0.67 -0.152       Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.475 0.503 0.879       Chal_8 Z -4.285 -3.734 -3.581 -1.798 -1.661 -0.682 -0.845     Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.072 0.097 0.495 0.398     Chal_9 Z -4.075 -3.014 -3.503 -1.152 -0.846 -0.361 -0.361 -0.269   Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.249 0.397 0.718 0.718 0.788   Chal_10 Z -3.816 -3.459 -3.323 -1.528 -1.389 -0.692 -0.746 -0.146 -0.455 Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.126 0.165 0.489 0.455 0.884 0.649  207  Appendix L : Coding the factors : benefits of using sustainable procurement Table L-1 : Coding the factors : benefits of using sustainable procurement   Factor Code Reducing use of natural resources Benf_1 Meeting existing and forthcoming legislation around the climate change agenda Benf _2 Reducing in harmful emissions and waste generation Benf _3 Improving  in working conditions - labor standards, health and safety Benf _4 Assisting disadvantaged groups in society Benf _5 Up skilling your workforce to meet the future needs of your organization Benf _6 Saving the long term  by considering the whole life cycle cost Benf _7 Meet international obligations (e.g. Kyoto protocol) Benf _8 Improving the efficiency and transparency of procurement procedures Benf _9 Stimulate the market for green technologies Benf _10    208  Appendix M : Descriptive statistics of the benefits of using sustainable procurement Table M-1 : Descriptive statistics of the benefits of using sustainable procurement   Criteria Statistic Std. Error Reducing use of natural resources Mean 5.00 .610 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 3.75   Upper Bound 6.25   5% Trimmed Mean 4.94   Median 4.00   Variance 11.172   Std. Deviation 3.343   Minimum 1   Maximum 10   Range 9   Interquartile Range 6   Skewness .190 .427 Kurtosis -1.490 .833 Meeting existing and forthcoming legislation around the climate change agenda Mean 5.13 .591 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 3.93   Upper Bound 6.34   5% Trimmed Mean 5.11   Median 4.00   Variance 10.464   Std. Deviation 3.235   Minimum 1   Maximum 10   Range 9   Interquartile Range 7   Skewness .140 .427 Kurtosis -1.748 .833 Reducing in harmful emissions and waste generation Mean 2.63 .286 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 2.05   Upper Bound 3.22   5% Trimmed Mean 2.50   Median 2.00   Variance 2.447   Std. Deviation 1.564   Minimum 1    209   Criteria Statistic Std. Error Maximum 7   Range 6   Interquartile Range 3   Skewness 1.067 .427 Kurtosis .908 .833 Improving  in working conditions - labor standards, health and safety Mean 5.47 .596 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 4.25   Upper Bound 6.69   5% Trimmed Mean 5.46   Median 6.00   Variance 10.671   Std. Deviation 3.267   Minimum 1   Maximum 10   Range 9   Interquartile Range 7   Skewness -.041 .427 Kurtosis -1.502 .833 Assisting disadvantaged groups in society Mean 5.50 .383 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 4.72   Upper Bound 6.28   5% Trimmed Mean 5.56   Median 6.00   Variance 4.397   Std. Deviation 2.097   Minimum 1   Maximum 9   Range 8   Interquartile Range 3   Skewness -.337 .427 Kurtosis -.305 .833 Up skilling your workforce to meet the future needs of your organization Mean 5.43 .500 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 4.41   Upper Bound 6.46   5% Trimmed Mean 5.43   Median 5.00   Variance 7.495   Std. Deviation 2.738    210   Criteria Statistic Std. Error Minimum 1   Maximum 10   Range 9   Interquartile Range 4   Skewness .256 .427 Kurtosis -.777 .833 Saving the long term  by considering the whole life cycle cost Mean 6.67 .456 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 5.73   Upper Bound 7.60   5% Trimmed Mean 6.78   Median 6.00   Variance 6.230   Std. Deviation 2.496   Minimum 1   Maximum 10   Range 9   Interquartile Range 4   Skewness -.248 .427 Kurtosis -.377 .833 Meet international obligations (e.g. Kyoto protocol) Mean 6.17 .442 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 5.26   Upper Bound 7.07   5% Trimmed Mean 6.28   Median 7.00   Variance 5.868   Std. Deviation 2.422   Minimum 1   Maximum 9   Range 8   Interquartile Range 4   Skewness -.552 .427 Kurtosis -.947 .833 Improving the efficiency and transparency of procurement procedures Mean 6.93 .516 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 5.88   Upper Bound 7.99   5% Trimmed Mean 7.04   Median 8.00   Variance 7.995    211   Criteria Statistic Std. Error Std. Deviation 2.828   Minimum 2   Maximum 10   Range 8   Interquartile Range 6   Skewness -.486 .427 Kurtosis -1.226 .833 Stimulate the market for green technologies Mean 5.90 .424 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 5.03   Upper Bound 6.77   5% Trimmed Mean 5.91   Median 5.00   Variance 5.403   Std. Deviation 2.325   Minimum 1   Maximum 10   Range 9   Interquartile Range 4   Skewness .059 .427 Kurtosis -.880 .833     212  Appendix N : Wilcoxon test results Table N-1 : Wilcoxon test results for benefits of sustainable procurement   Criteria N Mean Rank Sum of Ranks Reducing in harmful emissions and waste generation  - Reducing use of natural resources Negative Ranks 20a 18.85 377.00 Positive Ranks 10b 8.80 88.00 Ties 0c     Total 30     Meeting existing and forthcoming legislation around the climate change agenda - Reducing use of natural resources Negative Ranks 15d 13.80 207.00 Positive Ranks 14e 16.29 228.00 Ties 1f     Total 30     Improving  in working conditions - labor standards, health and safety - Reducing use of natural resources Negative Ranks 10g 20.30 203.00 Positive Ranks 20h 13.10 262.00 Ties 0i     Total 30     Assisting disadvantaged groups in society - Reducing use of natural resources Negative Ranks 13j 13.65 177.50 Positive Ranks 17k 16.91 287.50 Ties 0l     Total 30     Up skilling your workforce to meet the future needs of your organization - Reducing use of natural resources Negative Ranks 16m 14.25 228.00 Positive Ranks 14n 16.93 237.00 Ties 0o     Total 30     Saving the long term  by considering the whole life cycle cost - Reducing use of natural resources Negative Ranks 12p 12.83 154.00 Positive Ranks 18q 17.28 311.00 Ties 0r     Total 30     Meet international obligations (e.g. Kyoto protocol) - Reducing use of natural resources Negative Ranks 13s 12.38 161.00 Positive Ranks 17t 17.88 304.00 Ties 0u     Total 30     Improving the efficiency and transparency of procurement procedures - Reducing use of natural resources Negative Ranks 10v 13.55 135.50 Positive Ranks 20w 16.48 329.50 Ties 0x     Total 30     Stimulate the market for green technologies  - Reducing use of natural resources Negative Ranks 10y 16.30 163.00 Positive Ranks 19z 14.32 272.00 Ties 1aa      213   Criteria N Mean Rank Sum of Ranks Total 30     Meeting existing and forthcoming legislation around the climate change agenda - Reducing in harmful emissions and waste generation Negative Ranks 8ab 10.00 80.00 Positive Ranks 22ac 17.50 385.00 Ties 0ad     Total 30     Improving  in working conditions - labor standards, health and safety - Reducing in harmful emissions and waste generation Negative Ranks 8ae 8.94 71.50 Positive Ranks 22af 17.89 393.50 Ties 0ag     Total 30     Assisting disadvantaged groups in society - Reducing in harmful emissions and waste generation Negative Ranks 5ah 7.00 35.00 Positive Ranks 25ai 17.20 430.00 Ties 0aj     Total 30     Up skilling your workforce to meet the future needs of your organization - Reducing in harmful emissions and waste generation Negative Ranks 6ak 10.00 60.00 Positive Ranks 24al 16.88 405.00 Ties 0am     Total 30     Saving the long term  by considering the whole life cycle cost - Reducing in harmful emissions and waste generation Negative Ranks 2an 4.25 8.50 Positive Ranks 27ao 15.80 426.50 Ties 1ap     Total 30     Meet international obligations (e.g. Kyoto protocol) - Reducing in harmful emissions and waste generation Negative Ranks 2aq 14.00 28.00 Positive Ranks 28ar 15.61 437.00 Ties 0as     Total 30     Improving the efficiency and transparency of procurement procedures - Reducing in harmful emissions and waste generation Negative Ranks 4at 4.75 19.00 Positive Ranks 26au 17.15 446.00 Ties 0av     Total 30     Stimulate the market for green technologies  - Reducing in harmful emissions and waste generation Negative Ranks 4aw 8.50 34.00 Positive Ranks 26ax 16.58 431.00 Ties 0ay     Total 30     Improving  in working conditions - labor standards, health and safety - Meeting existing and forthcoming legislation around the climate change agenda Negative Ranks 17az 13.71 233.00 Positive Ranks 13ba 17.85 232.00 Ties 0bb     Total 30     Assisting disadvantaged groups in society - Meeting existing and forthcoming Negative Ranks 13bc 15.96 207.50 Positive Ranks 17bd 15.15 257.50  214   Criteria N Mean Rank Sum of Ranks legislation around the climate change agenda Ties 0be     Total 30     Up skilling your workforce to meet the future needs of your organization - Meeting existing and forthcoming legislation around the climate change agenda Negative Ranks 11bf 18.95 208.50 Positive Ranks 19bg 13.50 256.50 Ties 0bh     Total 30     Saving the long term  by considering the whole life cycle cost - Meeting existing and forthcoming legislation around the climate change agenda Negative Ranks 8bi 16.88 135.00 Positive Ranks 22bj 15.00 330.00 Ties 0bk     Total 30     Meet international obligations (e.g. Kyoto protocol) - Meeting existing and forthcoming legislation around the climate change agenda Negative Ranks 14bl 12.32 172.50 Positive Ranks 16bm 18.28 292.50 Ties 0bn     Total 30     Improving the efficiency and transparency of procurement procedures - Meeting existing and forthcoming legislation around the climate change agenda Negative Ranks 10bo 13.55 135.50 Positive Ranks 20bp 16.48 329.50 Ties 0bq     Total 30     Stimulate the market for green technologies  - Meeting existing and forthcoming legislation around the climate change agenda Negative Ranks 14br 13.32 186.50 Positive Ranks 16bs 17.41 278.50 Ties 0bt     Total 30     Assisting disadvantaged groups in society - Improving  in working conditions - labor standards, health and safety Negative Ranks 16bu 14.50 232.00 Positive Ranks 14bv 16.64 233.00 Ties 0bw     Total 30     Up skilling your workforce to meet the future needs of your organization - Improving  in working conditions - labor standards, health and safety Negative Ranks 13bx 18.65 242.50 Positive Ranks 17by 13.09 222.50 Ties 0bz     Total 30     Saving the long term  by considering the whole life cycle cost - Improving  in working conditions - labor standards, health and safety Negative Ranks 10ca 16.35 163.50 Positive Ranks 20cb 15.08 301.50 Ties 0cc     Total 30     Meet international obligations (e.g. Kyoto protocol) - Improving  in working conditions - labor standards, health and safety Negative Ranks 15cd 12.77 191.50 Positive Ranks 15ce 18.23 273.50 Ties 0cf     Total 30     Improving the efficiency and transparency Negative Ranks 11cg 12.86 141.50  215   Criteria N Mean Rank Sum of Ranks of procurement procedures - Improving  in working conditions - labor standards, health and safety Positive Ranks 19ch 17.03 323.50 Ties 0ci     Total 30     Stimulate the market for green technologies  - Improving  in working conditions - labor standards, health and safety Negative Ranks 14cj 14.64 205.00 Positive Ranks 16ck 16.25 260.00 Ties 0cl     Total 30     Up skilling your workforce to meet the future needs of your organization - Assisting disadvantaged groups in society Negative Ranks 16cm 14.56 233.00 Positive Ranks 14cn 16.57 232.00 Ties 0co     Total 30     Saving the long term  by considering the whole life cycle cost - Assisting disadvantaged groups in society Negative Ranks 12cp 11.96 143.50 Positive Ranks 18cq 17.86 321.50 Ties 0cr     Total 30     Meet international obligations (e.g. Kyoto protocol) - Assisting disadvantaged groups in society Negative Ranks 14cs 13.00 182.00 Positive Ranks 16ct 17.69 283.00 Ties 0cu     Total 30     Improving the efficiency and transparency of procurement procedures - Assisting disadvantaged groups in society Negative Ranks 10cv 13.10 131.00 Positive Ranks 20cw 16.70 334.00 Ties 0cx     Total 30     Stimulate the market for green technologies  - Assisting disadvantaged groups in society Negative Ranks 11cy 18.68 205.50 Positive Ranks 19cz 13.66 259.50 Ties 0da     Total 30     Saving the long term  by considering the whole life cycle cost - Up skilling your workforce to meet the future needs of your organization Negative Ranks 9db 15.39 138.50 Positive Ranks 21dc 15.55 326.50 Ties 0dd     Total 30     Meet international obligations (e.g. Kyoto protocol) - Up skilling your workforce to meet the future needs of your organization Negative Ranks 9de 20.33 183.00 Positive Ranks 21df 13.43 282.00 Ties 0dg     Total 30     Improving the efficiency and transparency of procurement procedures - Up skilling your workforce to meet the future needs of your organization Negative Ranks 12dh 12.42 149.00 Positive Ranks 18di 17.56 316.00 Ties 0dj     Total 30      216   Criteria N Mean Rank Sum of Ranks Stimulate the market for green technologies  - Up skilling your workforce to meet the future needs of your organization Negative Ranks 16dk 12.47 199.50 Positive Ranks 14dl 18.96 265.50 Ties 0dm     Total 30     Meet international obligations (e.g. Kyoto protocol) - Saving the long term  by considering the whole life cycle cost Negative Ranks 14dn 18.21 255.00 Positive Ranks 16do 13.13 210.00 Ties 0dp     Total 30     Improving the efficiency and transparency of procurement procedures - Saving the long term  by considering the whole life cycle cost Negative Ranks 14dq 15.50 217.00 Positive Ranks 16dr 15.50 248.00 Ties 0ds     Total 30     Stimulate the market for green technologies  - Saving the long term  by considering the whole life cycle cost Negative Ranks 17dt 16.76 285.00 Positive Ranks 13du 13.85 180.00 Ties 0dv     Total 30     Improving the efficiency and transparency of procurement procedures - Meet international obligations (e.g. Kyoto protocol) Negative Ranks 11dw 16.86 185.50 Positive Ranks 19dx 14.71 279.50 Ties 0dy     Total 30     Stimulate the market for green technologies  - Meet international obligations (e.g. Kyoto protocol) Negative Ranks 16dz 16.28 260.50 Positive Ranks 14ea 14.61 204.50 Ties 0eb     Total 30     Stimulate the market for green technologies  - Improving the efficiency and transparency of procurement procedures Negative Ranks 20ec 14.78 295.50 Positive Ranks 10ed 16.95 169.50 Ties 0ee     Total 30        217  Table N-2 : Comparison of significance : Benefits of sustainable procurement  Criteria   Benf _1 Benf _2 Benf _3 Benf _4 Benf _5 Benf _6 Benf _7 Benf _8 Benf _9 Benf _1 Z                   Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)                   Benf _2 Z -2.993                 Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) 0.003                 Benf _3 Z -0.228 -3.152               Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) 0.820 0.001               Benf _4 Z 0.608 -3.334 -0.010             Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) 0.543 0.001 0.992             Benf _5 Z -1.140 -4.080 -0.516 -0.010           Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) 0.254 0.000 0.606 0.992           Benf _6 Z -0.093 -3.564 -0.495 -0.207 -0.010         Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) 0.926 0.000 0.620 0.836 0.992         Benf _7 Z -1.620 -4.530 -2.014c -1.425 -1.841 -1.959       Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) 0.105 0.000 0.044 0.154 0.066 .050       Benf _8 Z -1.484 -4.224 -1.237 -0.846 -1.048 -1.021 -0.465     Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) 0.138 0.000 0.216 0.398 0.295 0.307 0.642     Benf _9 Z -2.001 -4.403 -2.001 -1.877 -2.095 -1.722 -0.320 -0.972   Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) 0.045 0.000 0.045 0.060 0.036 0.085 0.749 0.331   Benf_10 Z -1.184 -4.104 -0.951 -0.568 -0.559 -0.682 -1.086 -.0580 -1.304 Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) 0.236 0.000 0.342 0.570 0.576 0.495 0.277 0.562 0.192 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.24.1-0074139/manifest

Comment

Related Items