Experiences of Federal Agencies with the Design-Build Approach to Construction (1993) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Appendix A: Summaries of Questionnaires
Appendix A: Summaries of Questionnaires
Pages 25-53
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 25... ...
The average ratings shown under the heading "Subjective Comparison to Tractional Project" are on a scale of 0 to 10. They were calculated by multiplying the ratings shown in the evaluation tables for each project by the following weighting factors: much worse=0; somewhat worse=2.5; about the same=5; somewhat better=7.5; and much better=10 -- and then finding the average.
|
From page 26... ...
Subjective Comparison to Traditional Project: Average rating = 6.43 Much Some- About Some- Much Worse what the what Better Wome Same Better Functionality .
|
From page 27... ...
~ Number of Change Orders _ ~ Number of Other Contract T I ~ ~ I Time Required to Hi} b Complete the Project ............................ Comments: Many user changes during project life caused by many different opinions on what should be in the project.
|
From page 28... ...
, ........................ Time Required to .
|
From page 29... ...
We an Qu lit ...................... Overall Costs Number of Change Orders Number of Other ntract Problems ==~ Time Required to Complete the Project Comments: None.
|
From page 30... ...
Why Design-Build Approach Was Used: To save time: top GSA management believed that it could be completed faster. Subjective Companson to Traditional Project: Average rating = 5.00 Much Some- About Some- Much Worse what the what Better Worse Same Better Functionality User Satisfaction ~ OveraII Quality ~ ...............................
|
From page 31... ...
Why Des - -Build Approach Was Used: Developer desired due to enormity of project. Subjective Comparison to Traditional Project: Average rating = 4.5 Much Some- About Some- Much Worse what the what Better Worse Same Better Functionary .....
|
From page 32... ...
Time Required to Complete the Project .....
|
From page 33... ...
I ~................... Overall Quality l | | Hi ~ 'A I Overall Costs I I ~I Number of Change Orders Number of Other Contract Problems Time Required to ....
|
From page 34... ...
Number of Change Orders ..~ Number of Other Contract Problems Awe Required to i > I ~ Complete the Project ......................................... Comments: Planning and programm ing time w as Somers hat worse than for ~ traditional project because of time required to select contractor (9 months)
|
From page 35... ...
i_ ........................................ than Comments: Planning and programming time was somewhat worse than for a traditional project because of time required to select contractor (9 months)
|
From page 36... ...
Some what Better Much Better Comments: Pluming and programming tune was somewhat worse than for a traditional project because of time required to select contractor (9 months)
|
From page 37... ...
Comments: Planning and programming time was somewhat worse than for a traditional project because of time required to select contractor (9 months)
|
From page 38... ...
Time Required to Complete the Project Much Better Comments: Planning and programming time was somewhat worse than for a traditional project because of time required to select contractor (9 months?
|
From page 39... ...
~ Complete the Project ......................................... Comments: Planning and programming time was somewhat worse than for a traditional project because of time required to select contractor (9 months)
|
From page 40... ...
................. Number of Other ntract Problems ~ Time Required to ~ i omplete the Pr ject ...........................
|
From page 41... ...
U.S. Postal Service Project Description: Mail delivery distribution center; 137.802 sq.ft.
|
From page 42... ...
Postal Service Project Descnption:,Vehicle maintenance facility (47.945 sq.ft1; and parking structure (392,922 sq.ft.)
|
From page 43... ...
Time Required to 5',.~.~.:.: Complete the Project ................................... Comments: Quality of bc th design and constr action we re poor ur less word was monitored: contractor became uncooperative and ciaims-hanov when he realized his GMP was too low.
|
From page 44... ...
Type of Contract: Cost-plus fixed fee with guaranteed maximum price. Method of Contractor Selection: Evaluated on basis of qualifications of the contractor and his A-E team (no cost discussions?
|
From page 45... ...
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Project Description: Commissary (store & warehouse)
|
From page 46... ...
~ Number of Other Contract Problems Time Required to Complete the Project Comments: None.
|
From page 47... ...
Army Corps of engineers. Project Description: Dining Facility.
|
From page 48... ...
Army Corps of Engineers. Project Description: Special operations headquarters.
|
From page 49... ...
Army Corps of Engineers. Project Description: Comprehensive health care center.
|
From page 50... ...
lump sum. Method of Contractor Selection: Competitive negotiation based on firm's Qualifications and experience with similar facilities.
|
From page 51... ...
(VA had completed essentially design development drawings and performance/prescriptive specification but design level drawings weren't done.) Amount of Contract:,$5.4 million.
|
From page 52... ...
Problems . Time Required to Complete the Project _ Comments: General.
|
From page 53... ...
avoided criticism from the industry that the cost of preparing proposals is prohibitive. We got such complaints on a design-build parking garage project at the VA medical center in Nashville, where we asked proposers to provide a des" with their offer.
|
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.