1. Commodity vs Value-Added Services: Lost in Translation Commodity vs Value-Added Contractor Services Research Team CII Annual Conference 2005: Research Presentation presented by

2. Commodity vs Value-Added Contractor Services Research Team (RT 205) Jose A. BuitragoCSA Group Jim EarlyBE&K, Co-Chair Tom GarrettHoneywell International Barry HallLockwood Greene Jim HershauerArizona State University Mark LoperAZCO Dan MartinWorleyParsons Group Robert McManusSouthern Company Robert NartonisM.A. Mortensen Kevin O’LearyHATCH Stan SchafferAnheuser-Busch, Co-Chair Don SutphinBaker Concrete Graeme TelfordGlaxoSmithKline Travis TwardowskiRohm and Haas Jack WackerArizona State University Robert WasmundDuPont Ken WalshSan Diego State University

3. Research Team Project Objectives Develop precise definitions of terms. Develop understanding of owner and contractor marketing and procurement strategies in capital project delivery process. Develop and test conceptual models for use by owners and contractors. Develop implementation materials to support deployment of the models.

4. Findings Common definitions are critical in order to overcome communications barriers. Owners looking for net value-added services. More investment in front-end loading increases net value-added to owners. Perceptions drive responses and net value-added.

5. Recommendations Owners and Contractors Ensure you understand each other (definitions). Owners Use bid selection tool understood by both parties. net Identify commodity vs net value-added services. Contractors net Provide net value-added proposals. net Understand when providing commodity vs net value- add. Use available tools to differentiate services.