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 93
CHAPTER 7 Summary This guidebook was prepared with the objective of providing a systematic and logical approach for selecting the most appropriate delivery method for a transit project. Furthermore, this guide- book aims to help the user in documenting the process of decision-making in a Project Delivery Decision Report. It is recommended that transit agencies use industry professionals from out- side the agency to facilitate the implementation of this methodology. These professionals should have a thorough understanding of and experience with the type of project the agency is evaluat- ing, the various project delivery methods the agency is considering, and the potential risks asso- ciated with the type of project and various project delivery methods under consideration. The use of such professionals will ensure that the appropriate expertise and experience is incorpo- rated into the process. Facilitation of the process by outside professionals will also foster an objective selection of the most appropriate project delivery method, and minimize the likelihood of a predetermined outcome. The delivery methods considered in this guidebook are the traditional design-bid-build (DBB), CM-at-risk (CMR) or CM/GC, design-build (DB), and design-build-operate-maintain (DBOM). Until recently, the traditional DBB approach was transit agencies' most common choice of the project delivery method mainly because of legal limitations and because agencies had experience with this delivery method. Legal limitations on using other delivery methods have mostly been removed, and this has provided more flexibility in the choice of project delivery method. Transit agencies have different motivations in selecting a delivery method other than DBB. The research team found that no single project delivery method was superior to all others and that transit agencies need to carefully analyze the characteristics of each project to find the project delivery method most suitable for meeting a project's requirements. The most common reasons for choosing an alternative project delivery method given by project directors interviewed for this research were the following: 1. Reducing/compressing/accelerating the project delivery period, 2. Encouraging innovation, 3. Establishing a budget and involving a contractor early in the process, and 4. Meeting flexibility needs during the construction phase. Transit agencies should carefully study the risks, costs, and benefits associated with each project delivery method in relation to a particular project under consideration and select the project delivery method that best suits the legal, technical, and business environment in which the project must be built. This guidebook strives to facilitate this process by providing a three-tiered delivery selection system that covers all these factors. In this system, the user works through the three tiers sequentially and narrows down the viable delivery methods through a process of elim- inating the inferior choices. 93
OCR for page 93
94 A Guidebook for the Evaluation of Project Delivery Methods In the Tier 1 approach, users evaluate the viability of each delivery method against 24 pertinent issues that can be of vital importance to a project's success in achieving its goals and objectives. Among the 24 pertinent issues that affect the project delivery decision, there are 4 issues that may render one or more delivery methods inappropriate. These four issues are project schedule con- straints; federal, state, and local laws; third-party agreements; and labor union agreements. The transit agency needs to review project delivery methods in relation to these four issues to deter- mine whether any of the delivery methods should be eliminated. In other words, the agency should make a go/no-go decision on each delivery method based on how these four pertinent issues are affected by the delivery method. Following the go/no-go decision, the user examines the remaining project delivery choices against the larger list of pertinent issues and rates each delivery method based on its advantages and disadvantages in relation to each pertinent issue. The summary of these ratings is compiled in a table and analyzed to determine whether a decision on a delivery method can be made based on the ratings. If a clear choice emerges at this point, a Project Delivery Decision Report can be generated that describes the reasons for the choice of delivery method. If more than one delivery method remains viable after completing the Tier 1 approach, the user should move on to the Tier 2 approach. In Tier 2, a select subset of goals and pertinent issues are identified as "selection factors" that are of profound importance to the transit agency. Each selection factor is weighted according to instructions provided in this guide (see Chapter 5), and an overall score is computed for each delivery method. Again, a report documenting the decision- making process can be generated. If more than one delivery method remains viable after completion of the Tier 1 and Tier 2 approaches, the user moves on to the Tier 3 approach. In Tier 3, the user reviews and identifies project risks and prepares a risk-allocation matrix that provides a clear comparison among the remaining delivery methods in terms of risks that are inherent to them. This matrix should help the user select the delivery method that results in a more favorable risk profile. Project risks can also be quantified through well-established risk analysis techniques, and a decision regarding the most appropriate delivery method can be reached based on the costs of the risks associated with each delivery method. However, the quantitative approach requires significant effort and depends on the willingness of the owner agency to embark on this analysis and the availability of a risk assessment report for input into this process. This guidebook was tested by several transit project directors. The users found the process easy to follow and informative, and their overall assessment was very positive. Their comments and feedback were carefully reviewed and incorporated in the current guidebook. The guidebook in its current form is a valuable tool for transit agencies, especially those with limited experience with alternative project delivery methods.