Click for next page ( 29


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 28
28 A Guidebook for Selecting Airport Capital Project Delivery Methods Issue 8: Maintainability Maintainability is affected by the choice of delivery method in two different areas: level of quality and ease of maintenance. The positive and/or negative effects of each project delivery method on these two areas are described below. DBB In DBB, the owner can check the maintainability of the finished design before awarding the proj- ect. Having checkpoints in the design phase can help the airport ensure the quality of the design of the end product. However, there is little constructor input into maintainability issues. CMR The owner of a CMR project can benefit from all the advantages of DBB and also the con- structor's involvement in and advice on maintenance of the end product. This is particularly effective if the constructor has previously operated similar facilities [Logan International Airport]. DB As the quality control is transferred to the design-builder in DB and details of the design are not known at the time that the project is awarded, many owners have some concerns about the main- tainability and quality of the end product. This has led some owners to require multiyear warranties from DB contractors. For projects in which maintainability was a key factor to airport operations, such as a people-mover project, the interviewed airports used DBOM [Dallas/Fort Worth Interna- tional Airport, Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta Airport]. The airport can emphasize maintainability issues through performance criteria and best-value award factors. However, if maintainability issues are not well understood at the procurement stage, they will not be incorporated into the DB contract. Project-Level Issue Summary The results of the interviews with airports and the literature review show the important role of project-related issues in selecting a delivery method. Some factors--project schedule, project size and technical complexity, and cost control--were chosen by almost all the interviewees as factors that directly influenced their selection of a project delivery method. This section has explained the "pros" and "cons" of each project delivery method with regard to those issues. It has also expanded the discussion to issues like risk management and precise cost estimation, which are also important to consider when evaluating project delivery methods. Airport-Level Issues Airport-level issues include issues related to the airport's staff, the airport's control over the project, security, and third-party agreements. Issue 9: Airport Experience/Staff Capability This issue mainly concerns the experience of an airport's staff and their ability to properly administer various project delivery methods. This issue is also focused on the quality and com- petence of an airport's employees and the need for employees with the particular capabilities nec- essary for successful administration of a selected project delivery method. Owners who have used a project delivery method in the past have a higher level of experience with that method. Also,

OCR for page 28
Advantages and Disadvantages of Each Project Delivery Method 29 availability of experienced staff until project completion should be considered when evaluating staff capability. DBB All the interviews show that airports have historically employed the DBB project delivery method and still use this method more than other methods. This experience with DBB can, in some ways, make it a good candidate as a project delivery method (Harrington-Hughes 2002). This depth of staff expe- rience can motivate an airport to use an alternative delivery method or deter an airport from doing so. Some owners who have used DBB in the past may be looking for ways to improve on it by involving the constructor earlier in project development and will therefore try alternative methods. Other own- ers are comfortable with DBB delivery and therefore hesitant to try new delivery methods [Logan Inter- national Airport]. An important issue is the requirement for specific technical expertise in properly administering a design contract and a construction contract. This creates a larger number of required competencies (Touran et al. 2009). The owner in a DBB project must administer two separate con- tracts for design and construction, which requires a relatively large number of owner employees (AGC 2004, Gordon 1994). The owner's responsibilities in DBB are spread throughout the project lifecycle (interacting mainly with the designer at the beginning of the project and shifting to interact mostly with the contractor after project award); fluctuation in the number of employees required during the proj- ect is minimal. CMR While most of the interviewed airports have used CMR in their projects, it is a relatively new method for airport projects [Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport]. Many airports have some experience hiring a CM as a consultant (or Agency CM). (Please refer to Chapter 2 for a detailed discussion of the CM definition.) Nonetheless, airport staff with DBB experience have most of the skills necessary to manage CMR because of the similarities between CMR and DBB (Touran et al. 2009). This project delivery method can arguably require the least number of owner employees because the CMR can expand to meet the owner's staffing needs (Gordon 1994). While the work can be delegated in CMR, airport staff must have the capability to over- see CMR preconstruction services work (Touran et al. 2009). One missing skill may be negoti- ating the construction manager's preconstruction services fees and the GMP in CMR. The owner must also be able to manage the relationship between the CMR and the designer. The owner may need to add specific talent to its staff (either as an employee or consultant) if special exper- tise in managing a CMR contract is desired (e.g., in negotiating the GMP or a construction man- ager's fee). DB There are several airport projects that have been executed using the DB delivery method. Many airports, as well as other public entities, have the managerial experience required for a DB project. Recent research shows that the traditional design and construction engineering tasks performed by public agency professional engineers (e.g., design deliverable approvals and construction inspec- tion) were performed by public agency professional engineers in DB projects, and the owner agen- cies did not change the size of their staff after implementing DB (Gransberg and Molenaar 2007). The primary difference is in managing a contract that contains the designer and constructor as one entity. This difference affects the manner in which the design-builder is procured (i.e., using the best-value method or QBS instead of bidding based solely on cost), the manner in which the design is reviewed, and some aspects of how construction is overseen by the owner. Additionally, in order to use the DB method, airport staff will need to learn how to conduct project oversight without the presence of a completed design for early features of the work. This may require training and a change of skills for owner employees, which may make DB more difficult to administer (Touran et al. 2009).

OCR for page 28
30 A Guidebook for Selecting Airport Capital Project Delivery Methods A recent study shows that owners tend to put their most experienced staff on DB projects because staff on these projects need to be well prepared to understand conceptual designs, con- ceptual estimates, and performance criteria. Typically, only the most experienced staff or hired experts (consultants) have these skills (Gransberg and Molenaar 2007). If QBS is used, the owner will need experience in GMP negotiation and payment procedures just as it would if it were using CMR. Issue 10: Airport Control of Project Airport control over the details of design, the quality of construction, the complexity of a proj- ect, and overall coordination are considered in this section while cost control and time control are discussed elsewhere. DBB Interviews done for this research show that DBB gives the owner the most control over the proj- ect. The owner in this delivery method may benefit from checks and balances by having the designer and constructor under two separate contracts. Having periodic decision points in DBB, mainly dur- ing the design phase, helps the owner control the project's design (Garvin 2003, Harrington-Hughes 2002, Irwin 2003). Having a specific contract based on completed construction documents helps the owner control construction and material quality. Also, if flexibility is required during construction, DBB allows changes to be made during the design phase at little or no cost. However, changes made during construction are usually accompanied by cost increases. CMR The owner agency benefits from the involvement of the CM in most of the decisions during the design phase. This will mainly help owners of complex projects (Barnstable Municipal Airport 2007). Although the relationship between the owner and construction manager plays an important role in CMR, the owner still has a high level of control in this method. This delivery method gives as much control and flexibility to the owner in implementing changes in the details of design dur- ing the design phase as in DBB. Furthermore, having the construction manager on the team dur- ing design makes implementing changes during construction more effective compared with DBB because the CMR will provide a much needed continuity of construction expertise during the design and construction phases. (Walewski et al. 2001, Minchin et al. 2007). DB Although DB arguably provides the owner with the same quality of design and construction as DBB (FHWA 2006, Konchar and Sanvido 1998), most professionals and interviewed airports agree that the owner loses control over the details of the design that are not clearly defined in the RFP specifications [Memphis International Airport]. Loss of control over the design and lack of checkpoints have the potential to expose the owner to shortcomings in the quality of design and construction (Gordon & Rees LLP 2005, Irwin 2003, Gransberg and Molenaar 2004). The use of QBS and a GMP pricing structure can give the airport more control if it is willing to fix the GMP in the later stages of design development. The option of negotiating the GMP at a later stage should be weighed against the longer period of cost uncertainty for the owner, which can be a con- cern for some agencies. Issue 11: Security Security imposes another level of technical complexity and a potentially high level of liability on all airport projects. Airport security affects both the design phase and the construction phase of projects. Any change in Transportation Security Administration (TSA) codes and standards

OCR for page 28
Advantages and Disadvantages of Each Project Delivery Method 31 may result in changes to a project design while the project is being constructed. A delivery method with a high level of flexibility would perform best under such circumstances. Interviews with air- ports did not show any project delivery methods with a clear advantage or disadvantage with regard to security. But it is expected that liability requirements and the need for employee back- ground checks may reduce bid competition, and daily security checks at the entrance gates for laborers and construction deliveries would increase the schedule and increase project costs. The multiple effects of security requirements on airport projects are considered in this section as well as the pros and cons of each delivery method in relation to security. DBB This delivery method gives the highest level of flexibility to the owner during the design phase and facilitates any changes in the design before awarding the construction. Unlike alternative delivery methods, the owner can make changes to design requirements at any point during design without having to amend its contracts with the constructor. CMR In many CMR arrangements, the design of a project is not complete by the time a not-to-exceed budget has been submitted by the CMR; because of this, additional contingencies and allowances may be built into the costs to reduce the risk of changes in security regulations. Nonetheless, it has been noted that "it is important to make sure that the design of the facility allows for flexibility and potential changes without substantial impact by taking into account future changes in the industry and regulatory requirements" (Bechara 2002). The analysis of the interviews with air- ports shows that CMR has the best performance with regard to this issue and compliance with tight security controls. This is mainly due to the close collaboration that results among team mem- bers in CMR. Additionally, in CMR, time is provided during design for the constructors to per- form the required employee background checks. In some airports, the GMP is finalized after the design is complete. DB Coping with changing security codes such as the unexpected enactment of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA) in November 2001 is more difficult if a project is based on a fast-track, design-build method of construction with a fixed-price contract after completion of the schematic design phase. On a positive note, DB also provides time during design for constructors to complete employee background checks. The use of QBS with a GMP can provide more flexibil- ity in dealing with unexpected security events and will be similar to CMR. Issue 12: Control of Impact on Passengers and Operations Ideally, airport operations on both the airside and the landside would not be affected by con- struction activities. However, direct or indirect short-term interruptions of operations caused by new projects are inevitable. Owners prefer a project delivery method that helps to minimize these impacts on operations and the flow of passengers. This section discusses each delivery method in terms of its ability to allow the coordination of construction activities with airport operations man- agement in order to minimize construction impacts. DBB The owner can include the requirements for operations management in the design and prepare bid documents and project schedules based on prevailing operating constraints. The airport's control over the design provides the airport with an option to phase the construction and divide the project into several packages in a way that minimizes impact on operations and passenger flow (Florkowski 2007a).

OCR for page 28
32 A Guidebook for Selecting Airport Capital Project Delivery Methods CMR Having the CM's expertise in coordinating subcontractors and negotiating with other involved parties helps the airport decrease the negative impact of construction activities. Allocating impact control responsibilities among the increased number of parties involved in a CMR project is a drawback of this delivery method. The opportunity for the constructor to work with operations earlier in the process is a distinct advantage. Additionally, the enhanced ability to phase the proj- ect because there is a guaranteed single construction contractor across all phases allows the airport to optimize the impact of construction with operations and passenger flow. DB The interviews conducted for this study show that DB has the ability to minimize a project's inter- ruptions of routine airport operations [Tampa International Airport]. The design-builder fully con- trols the impact of the project on airport operations and must directly implement measures in a project's design and construction schedule to conform to airport operational constraints. The air- port can articulate these requirements as project performance criteria or specifications. As in CMR, the opportunity for the constructor to work with operations early in the process in DB is a distinct advantage. Additionally, if minimizing operational impact is critical to project success, the airport can require inclusion of a plan to minimize operational impact in the DB proposals and use it as a key factor in the evaluation and award process (Beard et al. 2001). Issue 13: Third-Party Stakeholder Input to Design and Construction This issue concerns the effect of each delivery method on promoting coordination and project- specific agreements with third parties--such as political entities, utilities, adjacent communi- ties, and so forth--involved in the project or affected by it. This issue also encompasses the opportunities afforded by a delivery method to an owner for coping with community input. A delivery method should strive to leverage stakeholder and community input to achieve project goals in a meaningful and transparent fashion. DBB Most permitting agencies' procedures have been established on the assumption that a 100% complete design will be available for review prior to permit issuance. Thus, DBB's linear delivery process allows the most time for potentially lengthy negotiations with some project stakeholders. It gives some flexibility and time during the design process for the owner to obtain needed permits/agreements before construction begins. Third parties, on the other hand, have the ability to examine 100% complete designs before a contractor is hired. The disadvantages of completing designs before hiring a contractor may include a lengthy design schedule (including numerous instances of stakeholder inputs that can disrupt the most generous schedules) and also a lack of construction contractor input into the third-party agreements. This delivery method also puts the burden of securing all the permits on the owner. CMR The main advantage of having a CM is the constructability advice (for example, construction knowledge and an understanding of construction methods) during the development of third-party agreements. In comparison to DBB, CMR may have a significant effect on getting third-party agreements if the owner makes the responsibility of obtaining these agreements a part of the CMR contract (Touran et al. 2009). In general, the CMR's knowledge of construction processes and sequencing can help clarify various aspects of project impact on communities and institutions; this can increase community confidence and thereby help in obtaining community consent and stake- holder agreements.