The National Academies Press

Currently Skimming:

Pages 10-25

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.

From page 10... ... The second category comprises information on the mechanics of implementing CMR as well as lessons learned from completed CMR projects. The first category is valuable in that it helps define the salient differences between CMR and other project delivery methods at the operational level. Read the entire page →
From page 11... ... CMR design input 12 X X X X X X X X X X X X Ability to fast-track 10 X X X X X X X X X X Early knowledge of costs 10 X X X X X X X X X X Ability to bid early work packages 10 X X X X X X X X X X Owner control of design 8 X X X X X X X X GMP creates cost control incentive 6 X X X X X X Reduces design costs 5 X X X X X Select GC on qualifications 4 X X X X Open books contingency accounting 4 X X X X Focus on quality and value 4 X X X X Flexibility during design/construction 4 X X X X Spirit of trust 4 X X X X Competitive bidding possible 4 X X X X CMR is ownerís advocate during design 3 X X X Third-party coord- ination facilitated 3 X X X Less radical change from DBB than DB 2 X X Risk transfer 2 X X GC = general contractor. Read the entire page →
From page 12... ... Looking at the three major project delivery methods allows the comparison of how each of the three legs is fixed in each method to create a fair and stable contract. In DBB, the quality and schedule legs are fixed by the contract completion date and the construction documents on which the contractors bid. Read the entire page →
From page 13... ... . The benefits of design validation reviews are confirmed by another paper that reported that CMR project delivery "provides for flexibility in the implementation of design changes late in the design process without impacting construction schedules and final delivery dates" (Kwak and Bushey 2000) Read the entire page →
From page 14... ... . It stated that this effectively changed the engineers' attitude from seeing the CMR constructability and design validation reviews as unwanted criticism to seeing the reviews as a valuable component of the design quality management program (Touran et al. Read the entire page →
From page 15... ... SYNTHESIS METHODOLOGY The methodology was designed to analyze the output from multiple study instruments to identify intersections between the literature, information found in the case studies, points 16 derived from the structured interviews of agencies, a survey of state DOTs, and the content analysis of CMR solicitation documents. Finally, structured interviews with contractors who have completed the case study CMR projects were conducted to validate the conclusions. Read the entire page →
From page 16... ... The survey response from Rhode Island indicated that the DOT did not have CMR contracting authority, and this is interpreted to mean that it can only use the method via the SEP-14 authorization. Michigan is different in that it does have the ability use the method, but the structured interview with the MDOT project manager indicated that the agency had not yet found a traditional highway project where CMR project delivery made sense. Read the entire page →
From page 17... ... Texas stated that it did not believe that CMR project delivery was appropriate for horizontal projects. Structured Interviews The primary input to the case studies was gathered through structured interviews with the agencies that had implemented CMR project delivery. Read the entire page →
From page 18... ... The output can also be compared with the responses from the survey and structured interviews to map respondents' output against their respective agency policy and solicitation documents. There are three types of solicitation documents: Requests for LOI, RFQ, and RFP. Read the entire page →
From page 19... ... The team proposed to identify and analyze at least four projects from across the spectrum of highway FIGURE 7 Locations of solicitation documents used in the content analysis. Project Type Transportation Non-transportation Type of Organization State DOT 15 N/A Other Public 10 29 Monetary Range Low $2.25 million $1.2 million High $2.16 billion $114 million Type of Procurement LOI 0 0 RFQ 10 9 RFP 15 12 RFQ + RFP 0 8 N/A = not available. Read the entire page →
From page 20... ... RFQ Lump sum GMP 0.33% TABLE 6 SYNTHESIS CASE STUDY PROJECT SUMMARY Read the entire page →
From page 21... ... Third-party interface issues. The driving factors are interesting in that they indicate that agencies are looking for constructor assistance in meeting aggressive schedules for complex projects where third-party stakeholders such as utilities, railroads, and permitting agencies could have an impact on the project's success. Read the entire page →
From page 22... ... Four of the projects included preliminary plans and specifications. Three of the projects made do with only a narrative Highway Projects Non-Highway CMR Reasons ADOT CGA FDOT ODOT PCA UDOT MDOT UTA MEM TTU Accelerate delivery period X X X X X X X X X X Establish budget early X X X X X X X X Constrained budget X X X X X X X X Early contractor involvement X X X X X X X X X X Encourage innovation X X X X X Facilitate value engineering X X X X X X X X Encourage constructability X X X X X X X X X X Encourage price competition X X X Compete different design solutions X Redistribute risk X X X X X X X Complex project requirements X X X X X X X X Flexibility during construction X X X X X X X X Third-party issues X X X X X X X X X Reduce life-cycle costs X X Provide follow-on O&M X X Innovative financing X X X Encourage sustainability X Reduced staffing X X Reduced review/inspect. Read the entire page →
From page 23... ... shows that whereas there are differences in the content of their solicitation documents and proposal submittal requirements, those differences are not skewed to or away from any single category. 24 Once the submittals are received, the CMR selection process begins. Read the entire page →
From page 24... ... plan X Method to Identify the Winner Direct point scoring in unweighted X Direct point scoring in weighted X X X X X X X X Adjectival rating in unweighted X Price as criterion X X X X Price Factor Weight 0%–25% X X 26%–50% X TABLE 11 CASE STUDY SELECTION PROCESS CONTENT Highway Projects Non-Highway Contract Type ADOT CGA FDOT ODOT PCA UDOT MDOT UTA MEM TTU Lump sum GMP X X X X X X X X Unit Price GMP X X Unit Price no GMP X Preconstruction only hard bid X Point where GMP negotiated Before 100% design X X X X X X X X X After 100% design X Early as possible agency call X X X X Early as possible CMR call X X After sub bids X X X X Progressive GMP X X X Transparent contingencies X X X X X X X X X X Single X X X Owner and CMR X X X X X Management reserve + contingency X X TABLE 12 CASE STUDY GMP ASSEMBLY AND TIMING Read the entire page →
From page 25... ... Highway Projects Non-Highway Preconstruction Services Included ADOT CGA FDOT ODOT PCA UDOT MDOT UTA MEM TTU Validate agency estimates X X X X Validate agency schedules X X X Validate agency/consultant design X X X X X X Prepare project estimates X X X X X X X X X Prepare project schedules X X X X X X X X X X Input to agency/consultant design X X X X X X X X Constructability review X X X X X X X X X X Cost engineering reviews X X X X X X X X Value analysis X X X X X X X X X Market surveys X X X Coordinate with third party stakeholders X X X X X X X X X Assist in right-of- way acquisition X X Assist in permitting actions X X X Public information X X X TABLE 13 CASE STUDY PRECONSTRUCTION SERVICES Read the entire page →

From page 10...

... The second category comprises information on the mechanics of implementing CMR as well as lessons learned from completed CMR projects. The first category is valuable in that it helps define the salient differences between CMR and other project delivery methods at the operational level.