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 16
16 A Guidebook for the Evaluation of Project Delivery Methods fully authorized DOTs to use this delivery method. Five states allow the use of CMR with some restrictions or after obtaining extra approvals (Ghavamifar and Touran 2008). It should be noted that the laws governing the legality of alternative project delivery methods are evolving, and therefore the information given herein on the legality of alternative project delivery methods should be understood as subject to change. Also, while some state DOTs are permitted to use alternative delivery methods, it is not clear whether those states' transit agencies are allowed to use alternative delivery methods. The purpose of the literature search was to provide an overall picture of the legal status of using various project delivery methods for transportation projects in the United States at the time this report was prepared. Each public agency considering the use of a specific delivery method should check the legality of the method carefully. FTA's requirements for third-party contracting, described in Circular 4220.1E (FTA 2003), are sufficiently flexible to allow the agencies to select their contractors through competitive bidding and/or competitive proposal/RFP (price and other parameters considered). For DBB, Circular 4220.1E allows the procurement of services through sealed bidding or competitive negotiations. For DB, the grantees must procure DB services through qualifications-based competitive pro- posal procedures. So it seems that if a specific state's laws allow an alternative project delivery method, the federal regulations will not prevent the agency from undertaking such procurement. Existing Selection Approaches for Project Delivery Methods Selection of the appropriate alternative project delivery method is a complex decision- making process. The decision should be made as early in the design phase as possible, preferably in the project scoping process and certainly before the final construction estimates for the project are ready. The decision will be made when the owner still has little information about the exact outcome of the project and the project plans are not detailed enough to be reliable grounds for judgment about the project. In this situation, having a framework for decision-making is vital for transit projects. This framework should be simple, comprehensive, rational, and objective. The literature review of this research report shows that some experts have concentrated on this issue and have developed a list of criteria and some decision-making frameworks (Debella and Ries 2006; Garvin 2003; Gordon 1994; Ibbs, Kwak, and Odabisi 2003; Konchar and Sanvido 1998; Mahdi and Al-Reshaid 2005; Oyetunji and Anderson 2006). Several of these researchers have chosen specific projects and have based their selection methodology on the characteristics of those projects. The relevant literature can be divided into two groups: (1) literature that compares project delivery methods on the basis of observed performance measurements collected from a group of projects and (2) literature that provides a list of criteria and a framework for decision-making. One of the best examples of the first kind of literature is a paper by Konchar and Sanvido (1998) in which a set of criteria is defined for a performance comparison of different delivery methods (i.e., DB, DBB, and CMR) in 351 building projects. These criteria are mostly objective and measurable, such as cost growth, construction speed, and schedule growth. Some criteria are also defined to incorporate the quality performance of the delivery methods, such as diffi- culty of facility start up, number and magnitude of call backs, and operation and maintenance costs. According to Konchar and Sanvido (1998, p. 9), "when all other variables were held con- stant, the effects of project delivery system indicated design-build projects to be at least 5.2% less than design-bid-build projects and 12.6% less than construction management at risk projects on average in terms of cost growth." Konchar and Sanvido (1998) divided the projects into six dif- ferent groups (e.g., light industrial, complex office, and heavy industrial) in order to see clearer trends in each group. Taking this into account, the paper does not have enough data to distin-
OCR for page 16
Background and Definitions 17 guish between the performances of different delivery methods in transit projects. However, two studies comparing DB and DBB project performance in the federal building sector did make direct comparisons (Allen, Gransberg, and Molenaar 2002; Gransberg, Badillo-Kwiatkowski, and Molenaar 2003). One study compared 54 DBB projects with 34 DB projects and discovered that DB projects had 16.4% less cost growth and 19.0% less time growth than similar DBB proj- ects (Gransberg, Badillo-Kwiatkowski, and Molenaar 2003). Another study, which looked at 110 Navy projects, also found that DB projects performed more efficiently, with 18.0% less cost growth and 60.0% less time growth (Allen, Gransberg, and Molenaar 2002). Additionally, a recent NCHRP study of best value contracting also furnished a direct comparison of the per- formance of transportation project delivery methods (Scott et al. 2006). While that study did not include CMR projects, it did include DBB projects awarded on a best value basis, which paral- lels the CMR delivery method. The NCHRP study found that DB projects had 4.7% less cost growth and 9.3% less time growth than DBB. Best value projects had 2.0% less cost growth and 18.5% less time growth than DBB. Other researchers, such as Debella and Ries (2006) and Ibbs, Kwak, and Odabisi (2003), have used a methodology similar to that of Konchar and Sanvido (1998), but they have narrowed down the scope of their research either to special kinds of proj- ects or fewer performance measures. The second kind of literature mentioned above, literature that provides a list of criteria and a framework for decision-making, has focused on the decision-making process. This literature proposes mechanisms for decision-making and defines the necessary criteria and frameworks so that the most important project parameters are identified and used in the decision-making method. The frameworks are primarily intended to be simple, rational, and comprehensive. They range from basic flowchart methods (Gordon 1994) to more sophisticated processes based on methodologies such as multiple linear regression, the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) (Mahdi and Al-Reshaid 2005), or the Simple Multi-Attribute Rating Technique with Swing Weights (SMARTS) (Oyetunji and Anderson 2006). Gordon (1994) created a procurement method selection model that uses a flowchart for select- ing the best contracting method. Within the flowchart are a number of drivers that direct the owner's attention to the most important issues in project delivery method selection. A multi- media education compact disc and delivery selection tool have been developed (Loulakis 2005). The tool integrates training on project delivery selection systems with a matrix-style decision framework that owners can complete to make an informed delivery selection. Skitmore and Mars- den (1988) presented a multi-attribute analysis technique and a discriminant method for select- ing delivery methods. The multi-attribute method uses utility factors to evaluate the suitability of a delivery method with respect to a client's priority criteria. Kumaraswamy and Dissanayka (1998) propose a client advisory system with an expert system front end that will gather project information and model the project profile to generate a list of delivery options. Finally, Oyetunji and Anderson (2006) use a SMARTS approach for delivery selection. The approach utilizes a matrix that has 20 criteria, each with a given weight. The owner rates these criteria and goes through the required calculation, which gives a single rank to each delivery method. The deliv- ery method with the highest rank should be chosen for the project. Looking at both kinds of literature, one finds that many of the important parameters that affect the decisions early in the project fall into one of four groups: project-related parameters, agency- related parameters, legal parameters, and lifecycle issues. Project-related parameters are those parameters that pertain to project duration: estimated cost, quality level, risks, limits on schedule growth, complexity, and so forth. Agency-related parameters mainly consist of the status of the agency; the role of a project in the strategies of the agency; and the organization of the agency, i.e., availability of funds, sophistication of the agency's employees, flexibility needs in the construction phase, level of risk assumption, importance of preconstruction services, and quality level expecta- tion. The legal parameters mainly cover legal and contracting issues, such as statutory authority to