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 19
Literature Review and Definitions 19 Table 2-1. The timing of project delivery method selection. At the end of At the end of Project delivery At the end of conceptual preliminary Construction method final design design engineering DBB CMR DB / DBOM Desirable Feasible Not feasible services, and the level of quality expected. The legal parameters mainly cover legal and contracting issues, such as statutory authority to use alternative project delivery methods and the permits needed for the project. Lifecycle issues cover the costs of maintaining and decommissioning the facility as well as the ability to minimize energy usage and any negative environmental effects of the project. One emerging requirement is sustainable design and construction, which is directly tied to project lifecycle issues. In the parameters mentioned above, the ability to transfer the risks of a project to entities other than the owner is a characteristic that is related to both the project and the owner agency. This parameter involves the level of risk and uncertainty of the project and also the ability of the owner to assume the risks or transfer them (risk-prone or risk-averse agency). Different project delivery methods provide different mechanisms for risk distribution among the entities involved. In sum- mary, the existing body of knowledge in this area, along with specific information collected during the interviews for this research, provide a solid foundation for developing a new selection system that is tailored to the needs of airport owners and operators. Timing of Project Delivery Method Selection As a project moves through various stages of development, the window of opportunity to select some project delivery methods will close. Therefore, it is important to try and make this decision as early as possible. For instance, Logan International Airport decided on a delivery method before the design stage of its project. Tampa International Airport hired a DB contrac- tor based on QBS at the beginning of project design and then a design-builder took the design to 60% complete while cooperating with airport staff. In most airports, the default delivery method is DBB; however, based on factors such as schedule compression, cost control, type of funding, control of design, and so forth, some airports may consider an alternative delivery method [Norman Y. Mineta San Jose International Airport, Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta Interna- tional Airport]. Table 2-1 maps project delivery method selection with project development phase. Project development has been broken into four phases: conceptual design (including the scoping), pre- liminary engineering, final design, and construction. Table 2.1 shows that it is desirable to select a project delivery method relatively early in the project development process. Most of the bene- fits can be realized by engaging the constructor as soon as possible. The decision point for proj- ect delivery method selection should not be confused with the time that the constructor is engaged. As an example, an owner may decide to engage a DB contractor at the end of prelimi- nary engineering or even later in the process in order to clarify the project scope and reduce uncertainty. However, the owner should have decided on the project delivery method (e.g., DB) much earlier, so that the design documents could be developed to properly accommodate the type of delivery method.