Click for next page ( 17

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
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 16
16 A Guidebook for Selecting Airport Capital Project Delivery Methods process. As the owner no longer owns the details of design, the owner's relationship with the design-builder must be based on a strong degree of mutual professional trust (Beard et al. 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 project delivery schedule and is therefore often used for "fast-track" projects. Bearup et al. (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 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, the owner 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, because 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 competed construc- tion documents. There are many variations on the DB method. Design-build-operate-transfer, design-build- operate-own (sometimes called lease-back), and design-build-operate-maintain (DBOM) all require the DB contractor to remain with the project after construction is complete. DBOM is very similar to DB except that the contractor assumes the operation and maintenance risks and is responsible for operating the new facility according to a set of regulations and codes for a deter- mined duration (Wiss et al. 2000, Kessler 2005). Legality of Delivery Methods in Various States DBB has traditionally been used throughout the United States, and all state codes give author- ity to airports to use it in their projects. Alternative delivery methods do not have this clear statu- tory support. Some states do not allow airport entities to use them while other states have permitted one-time use of an alternative delivery method for a special project. Still another group of states have put some limits on the application of alternative delivery systems. For example, according to a current statute for airport projects in Massachusetts, the use of DB is restricted to horizontal projects that are $5 million and larger, and CMR is applicable only to vertical proj- ects that are $10 million and larger [Logan International Airport]. Developing pilot programs is a common approach in some states for implementing previously unauthorized project delivery methods, particularly DB. In order to update information on the legal status of alternative proj- ect delivery methods in various states, a thorough literature search needs to be conducted on the laws of all 50 states, which is beyond the scope of this work. Also, due to frequent changes in the regulations, the authors of this research believe that each airport is in the best position to assess the legality of a certain delivery method locally. According to federal laws, the FAA plays a minimal role in the procurement process used for air- port projects that are supported by the AIP. For instance, under 49 CFR 18.36, states that are spon- sors of airport projects are authorized to conduct procurement in the same way (complying with