Click for next page ( 18

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 17
Literature Review and Definitions 17 the same laws and using the same procurement systems) that they do for projects not funded in part or whole by the federal government. Likewise, non-state airport sponsors (e.g., cities) may use their own procurement systems as long as they comply with state and local laws and regulations and conform to 49 CFR 18.36 and other applicable federal laws. Requirements for third-party contracting, described in FAA Order 5100.38C (The Airport Improvement Program [AIP] Hand- book) (FAA 2005), are sufficiently flexible to allow airport sponsors to select their contractors through competitive bidding and/or competitive proposal/RFP (both price and other parameters considered). For DBB, FAA Order 5100.38C (The Airport Improvement Program [AIP] Handbook) (FAA 2005) allows the procurement of services through sealed bidding or competitive negotiations. For DB, the grantees must procure DB services through QBS or competitive proposal selection pro- cedures. It therefore appears that if a specific state or city allows an alternative project delivery method, federal regulations do not prevent an airport from deciding to use one. 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 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 airport projects. This framework should be simple, comprehensive, rational, and objective. The literature reviewed for this research shows that some experts have concentrated on this issue and have devel- oped a list of criteria and some decision-making frameworks (Airports Council International- North America et al. 2006, Debella and Ries 2006, Garvin 2003, Gordon 1994, Ibbs et al. 2003, Konchar and Sanvido 1998, Mahdi and Alreshaid 2005, Oyetunji and Anderson 2006). Several of these researchers have studied a few 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 the project delivery methods on the basis of the 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 group is an article 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 incor- porate the quality performance of the delivery methods, such as difficulty of facility start-up, num- ber and magnitude of call backs, and operation and maintenance costs. According to Konchar and Sanvido (1998), "when all other variables were held constant, the effects of project delivery method 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." In their study, Konchar and Sanvido (1998) divided the projects into six different groups (such as light industrial, complex office, heavy industrial, and so forth) in order to get clearer trends in each group. Because Konchar and Sanvido's study (1998) did not specifically mention airports, it is important to be careful in using this data to draw conclusions about the performance of differ- ent delivery methods in airport projects. Two studies of DB versus DBB project performance in the federal building sector did make direct comparisons (Allen et al. 2002, Gransberg et al. 2003). One study compared 54 DBB proj- ects with 34 DB projects and discovered that DB projects had 16.4% less cost growth and 19.0%

OCR for page 17
18 A Guidebook for Selecting Airport Capital Project Delivery Methods less time growth than similar DBB projects (Gransberg et al. 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 et al. 2002). Additionally, NCHRP Report 561: Best- Value Procurement Methods for Highway Construction Projects furnished a direct comparison of transportation project performance that took into account delivery methods (Scott et al. 2006). While this study did not include CMR projects, it included DBB projects awarded on a best-value basis, which parallels 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 et al. (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 projects 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 pro- poses 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 process. The frameworks are primarily intended to be simple, rational, and comprehensive. They range from basic flowchart methods (Airports Council International-North America et al. 2006, Gordon 1994) to more sophisticated processes based on methodologies such as multiple linear regression, the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) (Mahdi and Alreshaid 2005), or the Simple Multi-Attribute Rating Technique with Swing Weights (SMARTS) (Oyetunji and Anderson 2006). Airports Council International-North America (ACI-NA) in an effort with the Airport Consul- tants Council (ACC) and the Associated General Contractors of America (AGC) developed a white paper in 2006 that offers basic guidelines for selecting the most appropriate delivery method for airport projects. The guidelines comprise a list of factors that owners should consider in relation to each delivery method (Airports Council International-North America et al. 2006). Gordon (1994) created a procurement method selection model that uses a flowchart for selecting the best contracting method. Within the flowchart are a number of drivers that direct the owner's atten- tion to the most important issues in project delivery method selection. A/E/C Training Technolo- gies (Loulakis 2005) has developed a multimedia education compact disc and delivery selection tool. The tool integrates training on project delivery selection systems with a matrix-style deci- sion framework that owners can complete to make an informed delivery selection. Skitmore and Marsden (1988) presented a multi-attribute analysis technique and a discriminant method for selecting delivery methods. The multi-attribute method uses utility factors to evaluate the suitabil- ity of a delivery method with respect to a client's priority criteria. Kumaraswamy and Dissanayaka (1996) 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 delivery method with the highest rank is the one that should be chosen for the project. Looking at both kinds of literature, one finds that many of the important parameters that affect project delivery decisions early in the process fall into one of four groups: project-related parame- ters, agency-related parameters, legal parameters, and lifecycle issues. Project-related parameters are those parameters that pertain to project duration: estimated cost, quality level, project risks, limits on schedule growth, project complexity, and so forth. Agency-related parameters mainly consist of the legal status of the agency, the role of a project in the objectives and plans of the agency, the availability of funds, the level of experience and competence of the agency's staff, flexibility needs in the construction phase, the level of risk assumption, the importance of preconstruction