Click for next page ( 46


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 45
Tier 1--Analytical Delivery Decision Approach 45 Table 4-1. Examples of generic project goals. Schedule Quality Minimize project delivery time Meet or exceed project requirements Complete the project on schedule Select the best team Accelerate start of project revenue Cost Sustainability Minimize project cost Minimize impact on the environment Maximize project budget Achieve LEED Certification Complete the project on budget with a clear direction: an increase in budget may be acceptable if it can accelerate the start of proj- ect revenue. As previously stated, understanding and communicating a concise set of project goals is per- haps the most important element in selecting an appropriate project delivery method. Airports should take the time to identify project goals and achieve consensus on their relative impor- tance. This time will be well spent as it will make the project delivery decision clearer. Defining and ranking project goals will also help to define and communicate the criteria for determin- ing overall project success, thereby informing designers and constructors of the airport's proj- ect performance measures. Please see Appendix C for a typical template for project description and goals. Step 3. Review Go/No-Go Decision Points Among the pertinent issues that affect the project delivery decision, there are certain issues that render one or more delivery methods inappropriate. These issues involve project sched- ule constraints; federal, state, and local laws; and third-party agreements. These issues and their relation to the three primary delivery methods are shown in Table 4-2. The airport needs to review these issues to determine whether they eliminate any of the delivery methods. In other words, the airport should make a go/no-go decision based on these pertinent issues. The result of this go/no-go study is a listing of delivery methods available to the airport and a documentation of those that are not available for further consideration. The flowchart in Figure 4-2 depicts a step-by-step approach to the decision; a description of the approach follows. As depicted in the flowchart in Figure 4-2, the airport should first conduct research into the pertinent issues of project schedule constraints; federal, state, and local laws; and third-party agreements. The airport should review any major milestones that could create schedule con- straints that would prohibit a traditional DBB delivery (e.g., an aggressive fixed end date, fund- ing availability windows, and so forth). Next, federal, state, and local laws can be researched by the airport's general counsel to identify any constraints that must be met during the project Table 4-2. Go/no-go issue summary. Issues DBB CMR DB Project Schedule Constraints /X Federal/State/Local Laws /X /X Third-Party Agreements /X Others /X /X /X / X = Go/no-go decision point. Shaded areas do not need to be considered by the user.

OCR for page 45
46 A Guidebook for Selecting Airport Capital Project Delivery Methods 1) Collect pertinent information: - Schedule constraints, - Relevant fed/state/local laws, and - Potential third-party issues. 2) Review project delivery methods (PDMs) regarding law, schedule constraints, and third-party issues. Yes 3) Are any PDMs 4) Document the reasons eliminated? for excluding the PDM(s). No 5) Continue with Step 4. Review PDM Adv/Disadv. Figure 4-2. Go/no-go decision points. delivery method selection process. For example, a jurisdiction with a law that requires award of construction contracts to the low bidder may have to adopt the low-bid DB award method in order to use DB project delivery (this constraint may rule out the use of DB in such circum- stances). The airport then needs to determine the third-party agreements that will be required (e.g., local municipalities, utilities, permitting, and so forth). The airport's next step is to analyze the documents and information in relation to the con- straints of each delivery method. As depicted in Table 4-2, each of the issues may exclude one or two of the delivery methods from further consideration. For example, if an airport project is located in a state where the law does not authorize CMR and the project is using state funding, this airport can eliminate CMR from the list of available options. Details follow for each of the go/no-go issues. Project Schedule Constraints The traditional DBB delivery method is a linear process that requires the longest delivery period of all three methods. If a DBB project delivery will not yield a finish date within the project's constraints, DBB need not be considered further. As mentioned in the previous sec- tion on project goals, project schedule can be a preeminent factor in project success. Airports frequently give schedule first priority among competing project goals. Airports most fre-

OCR for page 45
Tier 1--Analytical Delivery Decision Approach 47 quently cite shortening of project duration as the reason for using alternative project deliv- ery methods. An example of another kind of schedule constraint would be an airport that would like to award construction before the design is complete. The DBB method will not accommodate this con- straint. This kind of schedule constraint may occur when an airport has a fiscal year budget for con- struction and needs to award the project before the design is finished or when the airport has an opportunity to complete a portion of the project during an early work window before the design is complete (e.g., beginning construction before the end of the construction season). Federal/State/Local Laws When a project is funded with federal, state, or local money, it will need to follow the applicable procurement and construction laws. While some states have fully authorized airports to use CMR and DB, there are still some states that prohibit the use of one or all alternative methods. In the spectrum between states that allow full use of alternative methods and those that prohibit them entirely, there are some states that allow alternative project delivery methods with certain condi- tions (e.g., requiring extra approvals, putting dollar value limits on the volume of DB or CMR con- tracts, or putting limits on the number of projects using an alternative delivery method each year). It should also be noted that these laws change frequently, and each airport is responsible for check- ing the relevant state and local laws. Third-Party Agreements All major airport projects affect third parties and require agreements to manage the impacts. Some third parties require a completed set of construction documents to execute an agreement. In this case, the requirement for a complete design renders DB inappropriate. For example, if the proj- ect's physical boundaries are adjacent to a local municipality, a full set of drawings may be required by the municipality prior to signing an agreement or a memorandum of understanding (MOU). In such a project, depending on the circumstances and the rigidity of the third party, DB might be eliminated from the list of available options. Upon reviewing these three go/no-go issues, airports will have a list of viable delivery methods to further consider. Additionally, they should document the reasons for excluding any methods from further consideration. Table 4-3 provides a form for summarizing this go/no-go analysis. Table 4-3. Go/no-go summary form. Issues DBB CMR DB Project Schedule Constraints Federal/State/Local Laws Third-Party Agreements Other = Applicable for further study. X = Not applicable (discontinue evaluation of this method). Shaded areas do not need to be considered by the user. Comments __________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________