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 84
CHAPTER 6 Conclusion This guidebook was prepared with the objective of providing a systematic and logical approach for selecting the most appropriate delivery method for an airport project. Furthermore, this guide- book aims to help the user in documenting the process of decision-making in a Project Delivery Decision Report. It is recommended that airports with limited resources or those with no experi- ence with alternative delivery methods use industry professionals from outside the airport to facilitate the implementation of this methodology. These professionals should have a thorough understanding of and experience with the type of project the airport is evaluating, the various proj- ect delivery methods the agency is considering, and the potential risks associated with the type of project and various project delivery methods under consideration. The use of such professionals will ensure that the appropriate expertise and experience are incorporated into the process. The delivery methods considered in this guidebook are the traditional design-bid-build (DBB), construction manager at risk (CMR) or construction manager/general contractor (CM/GC), and design-build (DB). Until recently, the traditional DBB approach was the project delivery method most commonly chosen by airports, mainly due to legal limitations and airport experience with this delivery method. Legal limitations have been removed to a large degree, and this has provided more flexibility in the choice of project delivery and contracting methods. The interviews con- ducted in this research with nine airports of diverse sizes and geographical locations showed that the use of alternative project delivery methods is still an evolving practice in the airport industry; thus, the subject of this research project--furnishing guidance on selection of a project delivery method--is not only important but also very timely. Airports have different motivations in selecting an alternative project delivery method. The research team found that no single project delivery method was superior to all others and that air- ports need to carefully analyze the characteristics of each project to find the project delivery method most suitable to meeting that project's requirements. The most common reasons given by airport executives interviewed for this research for choosing a specific alternative project delivery method were as follows: 1. Project schedule issues, 2. Project monetary size, 3. Project technical complexity, 4. Whether or not the project will generate revenue, 5. Project budget control issues, and 6. Incentive for obtaining federal or state funding. Airport agencies should carefully study the risks, costs, and benefits associated with each proj- ect delivery method in the context of the project under consideration and select the project deliv- ery method that best suits the legal, technical, and business environment in which the project must be built. This guidebook strives to facilitate this process by providing a two-tiered delivery 84
OCR for page 84
Conclusion 85 selection system that covers all these factors. In this system, the user works through the two tiers sequentially and narrows down the viable delivery methods through a process of eliminating the inferior choices. In the Tier 1 approach, users evaluate the viability of each delivery method against a number of pertinent issues that can be of vital importance to the project's success in achieving its goals and objectives. Among the pertinent issues that affect the project delivery decision, there are certain issues that may render one or more delivery methods inappropriate. These issues involve project schedule constraints; federal, state, and local laws; and third-party agreements. The airport needs to review these issues to determine whether they eliminate any of the delivery methods. In other words, the agency should make a go/no-go decision based on these issues. Following the go/no-go decision, the user examines the remaining project delivery choices against the larger list of pertinent issues and rates each delivery method based on its advantages and disadvantages in relation to each pertinent issue. The summary of these ratings is compiled in a table and analyzed to determine whether a decision on a delivery method can be made based on the overall capabilities of competing delivery methods in dealing with these pertinent issues. If a clear winner emerges at this point, a Project Delivery Decision Report can be generated that describes the reasons for the choice of delivery method. If more than one delivery method remains viable after completing the Tier 1 approach, the user should move on to the Tier 2 approach. In Tier 2, a select subset of goals and pertinent issues are identified as "selection factors" that are of profound importance to the airport. Each selection fac- tor is weighted according to instructions provided in this guidebook, and an overall score is com- puted for each delivery method. Again, a report documenting the decision-making process can be generated. This guidebook was reviewed by several airports. The users found the process easy to follow and informative, and the overall assessment was very positive. Their comments and feedback were carefully reviewed and incorporated into the current guidebook. The guidebook in its current form is a valuable tool for airports, especially those with limited experience with alternative proj- ect delivery methods.