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 35
Advantages/Disadvantages of Each Project Delivery Method 35 Current regulations require that the agencies work closely with FTA, which may cause some delay. The FTA had some problems with the first generation of DB projects. Currently, most of these problems have been resolved, and the agency has matured in dealing with DB projects. The environmental permitting process, however, can be problematic. For example, in a commuter rail project [Greenbush Commuter Rail], a major cause of delay was that the owner had left the obtaining of environmental permits to the constructor, a task for which the DB contractor was ill equipped. This caused a delay of more than a year. DBOM Concerns with DBOM are similar to concerns with DB in relation to FTA/EPA regulations. Issue 18: Stakeholder/Community Input The opportunities afforded by a particular delivery method to an owner for coping with com- munity inputs are discussed below. A delivery method should leverage stakeholder and commu- nity input as much as possible to achieve project goals in a meaningful and transparent fashion. DBB The separation of design and construction phases in DBB gives an owner more time and opportunity to get stakeholders' and communities' inputs to project design and incorporate their expectations into the project scope before the commencement of the construction phase. This characteristic of DBB can lengthen the project preconstruction phase and cause delays in the project. CMR The CM is on board during design in CMR and can help the owner negotiate with stake- holders and understand their expectations while pushing the project forward. Additionally, community outreach and public information can be made part of the CMR's preconstruction service package. Depending on the CMR's experience and qualifications, this may enhance project chances for obtaining community consent and stakeholder agreements. DB The owner of a transit project needs to get all the important input from stakeholders before issuing an RFP because changes in the project after that are difficult and costly. On the other hand, after the contract award, DB contractors have sometimes been able to handle community pressure more effectively than state agencies [T-REX]. Additionally, the agency can require the DB contractor to include a public information and outreach program in the project to facilitate stakeholder input during design and construction. DBOM This delivery method decreases the decision points and covers a longer period of time in the project lifecycle. This characteristic makes preconstruction negotiations between owners and stakeholders more complex. The DBOM contractor may be able to push through the construc- tion phase and handle community pressures more effectively. At this point, there is little evidence to show how this issue will be coped with in DBOM projects. Lifecycle Issues This section looks at the project delivery methods in a long-term, post-construction context. Lifecycle issues are those issues that impact not only the maintainability of a project and the cost
OCR for page 36
36 A Guidebook for the Evaluation of Project Delivery Methods of operation and maintenance, but also the sustainable design and construction goals that are starting to emerge as measures of an agency's commitment to the environment. Issue 19: Lifecycle Costs The opportunities or barriers that each delivery method provides with regard to lifecycle costs are discussed below. DBB The owner is in control of design and quality and can tailor these to a project's long-term life- cycle goals. CMR The owner keeps almost the same level of control over the design of the project as in DBB and also benefits from constructor's advice regarding future costs of the project. DB The owner needs to watch out for increasing project lifecycle costs mainly because the design- builder has a motive to decrease the initial costs of the project to bring it down to the agreed upon amount regardless of possible increases in the future operation and maintenance costs of the facility. DBOM In this delivery method, the constructor is in charge of operating and maintaining the built facility. Transferring the responsibility of long-term operation and maintenance to a private con- structor creates opportunities to leverage private-sector expertise and to realize lifecycle cost reduction by integrating delivery activities and private-sector efficiencies (Garvin 2003, FTA 2006). There are usually provisions in a DBOM contract that motivate the constructor to keep the operation and maintenance cost at the lowest possible amount. The DBOM delivery method is primarily used for financial purposes in countries other than the United States and has been the most suitable delivery method for public owners when the project initial costs are beyond the available funding resources (Harrington-Hughes 2002) Issue 20: Maintainability Maintainability is affected by the choice of delivery method in two different areas: level of quality and ease of maintenance. DBB In DBB, the owner can check the maintainability of the finished design before awarding the project. Having checkpoints in the design phase can help the owner ensure the design quality of the end product. CMR The owner of a CMR project can benefit from all the advantages of DBB and also the con- structor's advice on maintenance of the end product if the constructor has previously operated similar facilities. DB As quality control is transferred to the design-builder in DB and the details of the design are not known at the time that the project is awarded, many owners have some concerns about the
OCR for page 37
Advantages/Disadvantages of Each Project Delivery Method 37 maintainability and quality of the end product. This has led some owners to require multiyear warranties from DB contractors. DBOM This delivery method works much like DB; however, as operation and maintenance are included in the contract and the constructor is in charge of operating the facility after it is built, the owner is less concerned about ensuring the quality and maintainability of the end product. Issue 21: Sustainable Design Goals Sustainable design is becoming ever more important in achieving sustainability goals for projects. The effect of delivery method on the sustainability of project designs is the focus of this discussion. DBB In DBB, the owner has a clear opportunity to define sustainable design intent and shape social and environmental impact. This method provides opportunities to promote and enhance sus- tainable design criteria by allowing for materials research and the development of strategic stake- holder input. One drawback may be that the ultimate operation and maintenance personnel for the project could be unfamiliar with the operational requirements for sustainable systems, but this is an issue that can be resolved with careful planning. CMR In CMR, the owner has a unique opportunity to realize the economic returns of sustainable systems performance as well as using sustainability as an evaluation factor for the selection of a builder. The design schedule could, however, outlive systems performance criteria and impact public participation, limiting social equity issues. DB This project delivery method can result in an inherent coordination of design and performance with potential for accelerated economic returns for sustainable systems performance by shorten- ing the project schedule. The owner has an opportunity to use multiple design-builders to pres- ent innovative designs that are consistent with clearly defined sustainability criteria. The owner can clearly articulate expectations regarding sustainability by assigning weight to sustainability in relation to other factors in the DB evaluation plan. The design schedule could, however, impact public participation, thereby raising social equity issues. Due to the normally time-consuming processes associated with fulfilling municipal and state requirements for announcement and convening of public hearings, certain sustainability measures--such as wetlands mitigation and avoidance of undeveloped areas--raise concerns for eminent domain and brown fields redevel- opment, which can impact time performance. DBOM DBOM can realize accelerated economic returns for sustainable systems performance since the owner/operator has an inherent bias toward minimizing operations and maintenance life- cycle costs. The compressed timeframes could, however, impact public participation, raising social equity issues. Furthermore, operation and maintenance personnel may be unfamiliar with sustainable systems requirements. For example, materials may require alternate maintenance procedures or systems controls may incorporate technologies requiring specialized training that may be beyond the scope of the initial proposal.