Click for next page ( 43

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 42
42 A Guidebook for Selecting Airport Capital Project Delivery Methods and provide a "snapshot" of the project scope at the time when the project delivery decision was made. Research and practical experience have shown that the definition of project goals is a key suc- cess factor in the project delivery decision. The objective of Step 2 is to provide guidance to airports on how to write and rank their project goals. The guidance provides general categories for goals. The objective of Step 3 is to exclude those project delivery methods from consideration that are not viable options. A legal review of project delivery and procurement laws in the United States revealed that some alternative delivery methods are not allowed in all states. There are additional schedule and third-party issues that could exclude a delivery method from consideration. Step 3 describes a quick go/no-go decision process to determine whether a delivery method should be excluded from consideration. Step 4's primary objective is to present a comprehensive listing of generic potential advantages and disadvantages of each delivery method in relation to 19 pertinent issues. These potential advan- tages and disadvantages must be examined in the context of each individual project. Variations in the project characteristics, the people involved, and the processes used by an airport will determine whether the potential advantages or disadvantages are actual advantages or disadvantages for a par- ticular project. In Step 4, airports are asked to consider actual advantages and disadvantages and rate each project delivery method as one of the following: "most appropriate," "appropriate," "least appropriate," or "not applicable" for each of the 19 issues. A form for this rating and a structure for documenting comments are provided. The objective of Step 5 is to make the final project delivery choice, if a dominant or obvious choice exists. Upon transferring the 19 individual ratings from Step 4 into an overall summary table, airports are asked to determine whether there is a dominant choice. Step 5 asks the airports to consider the significant benefits of what appears to be the most appropriate delivery method as well as any risks or fatal flaws of that delivery method. If a dominant method is not apparent, the user will document the results of the Tier 1 approach and move on to the Tier 2 approach for fur- ther analysis of the most applicable methods emerging from the Tier 1 analysis. The objective of the final step, Step 6, is to clearly document the Tier 1 decision in the form of a Project Delivery Decision Report. The report will provide an archival record for the project delivery decision. It will serve to communicate the decision to interested stakeholders and to jus- tify the decision if issues arise, even years later. The report is organized into sections that follow the five previous steps in the Tier 1 approach--project description, definition of project goals, go/no-go decision points, advantages and disadvantages, delivery method decision, and any rel- evant appendices. Application of the Project Delivery Selection System While the project delivery selection system outlined in this guidebook provides a structured approach, selecting a project delivery system is a complex task. The time it takes to make a sound and justifiable decision should not be underestimated. On simple projects with knowledgeable personnel, the process may take only a few hours. However, on more complex projects, a proj- ect team would be more likely to take multiple days to complete and document the decision. The research team would like to offer a few tips for using the system to help ensure success: Apply the system in a group setting. Conducting a project delivery decision with this guide- book is intended to be an interactive process. Although a single person could answer all of the questions, it is advisable to adopt a team approach due to the wide range of critical issues that need to be analyzed and stakeholders who will be impacted by the decision. The team