Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 15
Background and Definitions 15 design-builder must be based on a strong degree of mutual professional trust (Beard, Loulakis, and Wundram 2001). The design-builder literally controls this project delivery method. As a result, the DB project delivery method has proven to be highly successful in compressing the proj- ect delivery period and is therefore often used for "fast-track" projects (SAIC, AECOM Consult, and University of Colorado at Boulder 2006). Bearup, Kenig, and O'Donnell (2007) state that the defining characteristics of DB are as follows: · A single point of responsibility, · A schedule that allows for overlapping design and construction, · A design-builder that furnishes preconstruction services during the project design, and · An owner that expects the design-builder to provide a firm, fixed price and to commit to a delivery schedule. DB creates the greatest constraint on competition in that all parties to the DB contract are selected using qualifications and past performance as major selection factors. Because the owner transfers responsibility for all design and construction in the DB contract, it also loses the abil- ity to foster competition between design subconsultants and construction trade subcontractors. There is typically no requirement to competitively bid for subcontract work packages, and often the scale, complexity, and speed at which DB projects are executed precludes firms with no DB experience from being able to participate. Additionally, as the contract is awarded before the design is complete, DB can also create an unfavorable risk environment for subcontractors whose cost-estimating systems lack the sophistication to price work without completed con- struction documents. There are many variations on the DB method. Design-build-operate-transfer, design-build- operate-own (sometimes called lease-back), and DBOM, all require the DB contractor to remain with the project after construction is complete. DBOM is very similar to DB except that the DBOM contractor assumes the operation and maintenance risks of the project and is responsi- ble for operating the new facility according to a set of regulations and codes for a determined duration (Wiss, Roberts, and Phraner 2000; Kessler 2005). Statutory Authorization of Delivery Methods in Various States DBB has traditionally been used throughout the United States, and all 50 state codes have given full authority to transit agencies to use this method in their projects. Alternative delivery methods do not have this clear statutory support. Some states do not allow transit entities to use alternative delivery methods, some have given one-time authority to use an alternative method for a special project, a group of states have put some limits on the application of alternative deliv- ery methods, and a few states require transit agencies to obtain extra approval in order to use alternative methods. Developing pilot programs is a common approach in some states for imple- menting previously unauthorized project delivery methods, particularly DB. In order to update information on the legal status of alternative project delivery methods in various states, a thorough literature search was conducted on the laws of all 50 states. Several relevant keywords were searched using the LexisNexis search engine. All the state codes and statutes that deal with project delivery in transportation projects were examined. The results were then compared with the existing surveys of legal codes available in the literature (e.g., see Smith and Davis 2006 and AIA Minnesota 2006). The research herein shows that 37 states per- mit the use of DB in their transportation projects, leaving the agencies of 13 states without the authority to do so. The application of CMR is not authorized in 31 states, and only 14 states have