Click for next page ( 86


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



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 85
Tier 2--Weighted-Matrix Delivery Decision Approach 85 Environmental enhancement factor. This factor relates to a project goal. The owner wants the project to enhance the environment through less traffic congestion and pollution. In this case, the owner has met with designers who can help define sustainability goals that can be achieved through their independent designs if they are hired directly by the owner. The CMR delivery method will provide for a direct contract between the owner and the designer to ensure that the goals are achieved, so CMR = 10 (in this case). While the owner can develop DB performance criteria related to sustainability, the owner is not as confident that it can accurately articulate its goals in the performance criteria, and it believes that there is a risk that the goals will not be fully achieved, so DB = 6 (in this case). Staffing requirements factor. The staffing requirements factor relates to a pertinent issue exam- ined in Tier 1. The owner does not have a large staff and wants to minimize staffing requirements during design and construction. The CMR option will allow the owner to supplement its staff during both design and construction, either with the designer or with the CMR. The owner is confident that qualified professionals exist to meet its staffing needs, but is slightly concerned about exactly how the working relationship between the CMR and the owner will be executed, so CMR = 8 (in this case). The DB option will require the owner to mass its resources (or build up for a short time) during the procurement and design review process. The owner believes that it can supplement its staff with a general engineering consultant, but the owner is not con- fident that the DB option will be as effective as the CMR option, so DB = 6 (in this case). Step 4. Choose the Most Appropriate Project Delivery Method At this point, choosing the appropriate delivery method is simply a matter of reviewing the total scores and making the project delivery decision. Since the factor weighting and the scores are subjective, the owner should review the totals and confirm that they are logical and defensi- ble. If, upon further discussion, a factor weight or project delivery score appears to be incorrect or to overly influence the selection, it is acceptable to make changes and create a new total proj- ect score. The key is to document the reasons for each change. If the owner is not confident about a particular weight or score, the owner can conduct more research about a particular delivery method and revisit the scoring after gathering more information. If the owner is not confi- dent about the scoring method, the owner may choose to use one of the more rigorous scor- ing methods presented in Appendix F, available on the TRB website at http://trb.org/news/ blurb_detail.asp?id=10054. If, at this point, a "most appropriate" delivery method has not emerged, the owner should document the results of the Tier 2 analysis (see Step 5) and move to the Tier 3 approach (see Chapter 6). Step 5. Document Results As in Tier 1, documentation of the delivery decision is a key part of the process. Whether one delivery method clearly achieves the highest score or no dominant choice appears, documen- tation is a vital step. Documentation will assist in developing procurement and contracting strategies for the ultimate project delivery method. Documentation will also serve to commu- nicate the project delivery choice to interested stakeholders. Documentation of Tier 2 involves supplementing the Project Delivery Decision Report devel- oped in Tier 1. The Project Delivery Decision Report should contain the weighted matrix and a detailed documentation of the reasoning on which criterion weights and project delivery scores are based.