Experiences of Federal Agencies with the Design-Build Approach to Construction (1993) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
3 Project Evaluations
3 Project Evaluations
Pages 12-22
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 12... ...
PROJECT EVALUATIONS As noted ~ the introduction, respondents were asked in Part 2 of the questionnaire to evaluate the design-build projects reported on by comparing them to similar projects carried out under the traditional design-bid-build process, ~ terms of the following factors: Functionality User satisfaction Quality of design Quality of materials Quality of workmanship Overall quality Cost of planning and programming Cost of agency contract administration Cost of design Cost of construction Overall costs Number of change orders Extent of other contract problems Time required for planning and programming Time required for design Time required for construction Time required overall Specifically, respondents were asked to indicate for each factor whether the design-build project was "much worse," "somewhat worse," "about the 12
|
From page 13... ...
Like the verbal ratings on which they are based, the numerical ratings are in comparison to traditional construction projects. The numencal ratings cannot be translated precisely back into verbal ratings; however, the approximate translations are as follows: 0 to 2 means much worse; 2 to 4 means somewhat worse; 4 to 6 means about the same; 6 to 8 means somewhat better; and to 10 means much better.
|
From page 14... ...
ce o .
|
From page 15... ...
~ o ~ ~ ~ So ~ - ~ ~ 8 o o oo ~ ~o o o o .
|
From page 16... ...
The generally favorably experiences of the respondents with the designbuild approach is also illustrated by the histogram in Figure 1, which shows the number of design-build projects receiving venous overall ratings in comparison to traditional projects. As indicated, of the 27 projects reported on (see Appendix A)
|
From page 17... ...
In fact, the design-build approach was judged less satisfactory than the traditional approach for only two subfactors: the cost of contract administration and the time required for planning and programming.
|
From page 18... ...
DOES THE LOCATION OF THE PROJECT MAKE A DItLE;RENCE? To determine whether the location of a project affects how well the design-build approach works, the committee calculated the average overall ratings for four location-related groups of facilities In its sample -- a group of six projects located In Florida, a group of three projects located in Washington (state)
|
From page 19... ...
DOES THE AMOUNT OF THE CONTRACT MAKE A DlFreRENCE? To determine whether the dollar amount of a design-build contract affects how well the approach works, the committee calculated the average overall ratings for three sets of projects grouped by contract amount -- one group of 11 projects costing between $1 million and $10 million, a second group of eight projects costing between $10 million and $20 million, and a third group of seven projects costing more than $20 million -- and compared the results with the average rating for the entire sample.
|
From page 20... ...
DOES THE TYPE OF CONIRACI OR MAKE A DlFreRENCE? To determine whether the type of contractor selected for a design-build project affects how well the approach works, the committee calculated the average overall ratings for three sets of projects in its sample grouped by the type of contractor used -- one group of three projects carried out by firms specializing in design-build projects, another group of nine projects carried out by teams consisting of a general contractor and an architect-engineer (A-E)
|
From page 21... ...
Most design-build contractors have indicated a definite preference for the latter approach; i.e., being given well developed designs by the owner.8 However, the committee hoped to determine for itself whether the extent of design work completed prior to the award of a des~gn-bulld contract affects how well the approach works. To do so, the committee calculated the average overall ratings for three sets of projects in its sample grouped by the extent of pre-award design work done -- one group of six projects in which the design was 35 percent or more complete prior to contract award, another group of nine projects In which the design was more than 15 percent but less than 35 percent complete prier to contract award, and a third group of 12 projects in which the design was 15 percent or less complete prior to contract award -- and compared the results with the average rating for the entire sample.
|
From page 22... ...
Intermediate results were achieved when designs were 35 percent or more complete prior to contract award. Obviously, the committee's data do not resolve the basic question.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.