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 79
Tier 2--Weighted-Matrix Delivery Decision Approach 79
Table 5-1. Weighted ranking of selection factors for the
example project.
Weight Selection Factor
50 Project complete by November 1, 20XX.
25 Cost not to exceed $200 million.
15 Minimize impact on operations and passengers.
10 Minimize staffing requirements during design and construction.
100 Total
The result of Step 2 will be a weighted ranking of up to seven selection factors. A maximum of
seven is selected because research has found that when there are more than seven variables it
becomes difficult for people to make distinctions among them (Miller 1956). The weightings
should total 100 points. Equal factor weightings are not recommended because distinguishing the
level of importance of each factor (goals and critical issues) is necessary for the decision process.
Additionally, no single factor should have a point value of less than five because a point value that
low will not have a sufficiently significant influence on the final decision and may in fact make the
selection more difficult.
The next steps (Steps 3, 4, and 5) involve combining the weighted rankings with a scoring of
the project delivery methods to arrive at a final selection of the most appropriate delivery
method.
Delivery Selection for the Example Project--Step 2. Table 5-1 shows how weighted rank-
ing worked in the example project. In Table 5-1, selection factors for the example project have
been weighted to reflect their influence on the success of the example project's delivery. These
weightings are project dependent and should be agreed upon by key airport team members.
Step 3. Score Project Delivery Methods
The third step involves a scoring of the alternative delivery methods that survived the screen-
ing process of Tier 1 analysis. Each of these delivery methods will have a bearing or influence on
the selection factors, which stem from the project goals and pertinent issues. The key decision-
makers must translate this influence into a score to arrive at a decision. To achieve the total scores
for each delivery method, airports should do the following:
· Using the scale provided in Table 5-2, assign a score to each delivery method that represents
its influence or bearing on each selection factor. Score all delivery methods for each factor
before moving to the next factor.
· Repeat the previous step for each selection factor.
· When all of the delivery methods have been scored, multiply each delivery method's factor
weight by its score to achieve a weighted score for each delivery method.
· Sum all of the weighted scores to arrive at a total score for each delivery method.
Table 5-2 provides a scale for scoring each delivery method's bearing on each selection factor.
The scores range from 1 to 10 so that when they are multiplied by the factor weight, the total score
will range from 0 to 1,000. The scores are subjective, so a detailed definition for each numerical
score is provided adjacent to the score in Table 5-2. When scoring the delivery methods, airports
should discuss the advantages and disadvantages of each delivery method (see Chapter 3 and
Step 4 of the Tier 1 approach). The alignment of these advantages and disadvantages with the selec-
tion factors forms the basis for the scoring. In assigning the scores, the airport should work in a
OCR for page 80
80 A Guidebook for Selecting Airport Capital Project Delivery Methods
Table 5-2. Project delivery scoring scale.
Score Definition
10 The evidence that the delivery method positively aligns with the project objective or
issue is of the highest possible order of affirmation.
8 The delivery method strongly aligns with the objective or issue and is demonstrated
in practice. There is a slight risk that the objective or issue may not be beneficial.
6 Experience and judgment point to the delivery method strongly aligning with the
objective or issue. There is a mild risk that the objective may not be beneficial.
4 Experience and judgment slightly point to the delivery method aligning with the
objective or issue. There is a strong risk that the objective will be negatively
affected.
2 There is little benefit to applying the delivery method for this goal or objective.
There is a strong likelihood that the object will not be achieved.
9,7,5,3,1 Intermediate values between two adjacent judgments.
(Adapted from Saaty 1990.)
team to come to a decision by consensus. The rationale for each individual score should also be
carefully documented. Consideration should also be given to the relative scores for each delivery
method to ensure consistency.
Similar to the development of factor weights, the scoring can be done simply through a group
discussion among key airport team decision makers.
Table 5-3 provides a weighted-matrix template. The matrix shown contains three delivery meth-
ods. However, a larger or smaller number of delivery methods can be analyzed, depending upon
the results of Tier 1. For example, two types of DB delivery methods with various procurement
Table 5-3. Weighted-matrix template.
Project Delivery Method
DB
Specify
DBB CMR
Procurement
(______________)*
Selection Factor Weighted Weighted Weighted
Score Score Score
Factor Weight Score Score Score
Factor 1
(e.g., Project
Goals)
Factor 2
(e.g., Airport
experience)
Factor 3
(e.g., Market
issues)
Factors 4 to 7
...
Total Score
*Refer to the section titled "Definition of Delivery Methods" in Chapter 2 for procurement options.
The DB procurement options considered in Tier 2 are primarily Best-Value Procurement with Fixed
Price and DB Qualifications-Based Procurement with Negotiated Price. DB Low Bid is an option, but
it is not recommended in this guidebook for the majority of DB projects.
OCR for page 81
Tier 2--Weighted-Matrix Delivery Decision Approach 81
methods could be competing in this matrix. The matrix can also contain up to seven selection fac-
tors for each project.
The result of Step 3 will be a scored ranking of the delivery methods in question. The delivery
method with the highest total score will be the most appropriate method for the given project.
The next steps involve documenting the individual scores, making a decision, and creating a
Project Delivery Selection Report.
Delivery Selection for the Example Project--Step 3. Table 5-4 shows how an airport might
score the project delivery methods for the example project. Note that only the CMR and DB
project delivery methods made it through the Tier 1 filter for further consideration in Tier 2.
Also note that the scores in the example below are project dependent and will certainly change
from project to project.
Explanations of the scores for the project delivery methods for the example project are the
following:
· Project completion factor. The project completion factor relates to a project goal. In this case,
the project has a fixed end date of November 1, 20XX. The airport believes that the completion
date can be achieved with CMR delivery. The airport also believes that CMR will require the use
of multiple bid packages to achieve the schedule, which adds a risk for meeting the schedule date,
so CMR = 6 (in this case). DB delivery provides for a single entity to coordinate design and con-
struction. DB also allows for an airport to specify a fixed end date in the procurement documents
and the contract. According to what has been demonstrated in practice, the airport is confident
that the end date can be achieved through a DB delivery, so DB = 8 (in this case).
· Cost containment factor. The cost containment factor relates to a project goal. The project has
a maximum budget of $200 million. DB delivery has demonstrated in practice that a fixed price
can be negotiated early in the project development process. It has also been demonstrated that
DB provides the lowest average cost growth of the two methods in question, so DB = 8 (in this
case). CMR also provides the ability to meet a fixed price, but the airport is not as confident that
it will be able to negotiate a fixed price as early in the process as it can with DB, so CMR = 6
(in this case).
· Impact on passengers and operations factor. This factor stems from a pertinent issues analy-
sis in Tier 1. The project involves work on an operating airport. The airport desires to keep
operations and passengers flowing smoothly throughout the construction of the project. In
this case, the airport has met with designers who can help define operational goals that can be
Table 5-4. Weighted matrix for the example project.
Project Delivery Method
CMR DB
(QBS)
Factor Weighted Weighted
Selection Factors Score Score
Weight Score Score
Project complete by November 1,
50 6 300 8 400
20XX
Cost not to exceed $200 million 25 6 150 8 200
Minimize impact on operations and
15 10 150 6 90
passengers during construction
Minimize staffing requirements
10 8 80 6 60
during design and construction
Total Score 100 680 750
