Click for next page ( 5


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 4
4 A Guidebook for Selecting Airport Capital Project Delivery Methods Table 1-1. Airports interviewed. Project Size Airport Project Delivery Case Range (Three-Letter Method # Low/High Code) Experience* (Typical) Hartsfield-Jackson $1.0M/$1.2B 1 Atlanta Int'l DBB, CMR, DB ($10M$20M) (ATL) Logan Int'l $10K/$165M 2 DBB, CMR (BOS) ($2.0M) Port Columbus Int'l DBB, CMR, DB $50K/$165M 3 (CMH) ($1.5M) Colorado Springs $200K/$36M 4 DBB, DB (COS) (<$1M or $5$9M) Dallas/Fort Worth $8.0K/$100M+ 5 DBB, CMR, DB Int'l (DFW) ($2M$5M) Denver Int'l $500K/$150M 6 DBB, CMR, DB (DEN) ($2.5M) Memphis Int'l $100K/$20M 7 DBB, CMR, DB (MEM) ($5.5M) Norman Y. Mineta $2.0K/$185M 8 San Jose Int'l DBB, DB ($4.9M) (SJC) Tampa Int'l $50K/$80M 9 DBB, CMR, DB (TPA) ($2.5M) * Project delivery method acronyms are the following: DBB = design-bid-build, CMR = construction manager at risk, DB = design-build. Selection System Framework Selecting a project delivery method is a decision that is based on a multitude of factors. In this guidebook, these factors are called "pertinent issues" and have been categorized as project-level issues, airport-level issues, public policy/regulatory issues, and other issues. The research team has identified and verified these pertinent issues through a literature search, extensive interviews with various airports across the United States, and discussions between the project team and the proj- ect oversight panel. Based on these pertinent issues, the team has developed a two-tiered project delivery selection system that consists of the following: Tier 1--Analytical Delivery Decision Approach and Tier 2-- Weighted-Matrix Delivery Decision Approach. The Tier 1--Analytical Delivery Decision Approach (Tier 1 approach) provides a framework that can be used to define project goals and examine the advantages and disadvantages of each delivery method within the context of these goals. The motivation for this approach is to help users understand project delivery method attributes and determine whether their specific project goals align with the attributes of a particular delivery method. The Tier 1 approach also provides a "go/no-go" review to determine whether one or more project delivery methods should be excluded from the examination. At the completion of the Tier 1 approach, the user may not have a single, clear, and logical choice for a project delivery method. If this is the case, the user is advised to move to the Tier 2-- Weighted-Matrix Delivery Decision Approach (Tier 2 approach) with the delivery methods that survived the Tier 1 approach and create a more detailed analysis to select the final project delivery method. The Tier 1 approach is designed to be a simple and straightforward selection method. The Tier 2 approach provides a means for the user to further examine and document a proj- ect delivery decision for an individual project. If a project delivery method is not found using the Tier 1 approach, the Tier 2 approach can be used to select a delivery method by prioritizing proj-