Evaluation of Project Delivery Methods (2009)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

TCRP G-08 – Project Delivery Methods Appendix B - Annotated Bibliography APPENDIX B – ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY Northeastern University The Research Report 181

TCRP G-08 – Project Delivery Methods Appendix B - Annotated Bibliography ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 3D/International, Inc. (2005). “CM at Risk” [WWW document]. URL http://www.3di.com/toolbox/cmatrisk.pdf (visited 2005, April 1) ______ (2000). “CM/GC Whitepaper, Public Contracting Coalition”, Oregon. This white paper is about Construction Management at Risk (or so-called CM/GC). The authors give definitions for the terms commonly used in this delivery method and highlight its advantages and disadvantages. They try to address some concerns about CMR, like lack of competition. The projects best suited for this method are introduced by their characteristics and setting a GMP in those projects is discussed in the paper. ______ (2002). “Design-Build Whitepaper, Public Contracting Coalition”, Oregon. This whitepaper focuses on Design Build delivery system and explains all the relevant issues, like the best time to use DB, the best project for DB contracting, the best way to qualify design-builder, advantages and disadvantages of DB, different ways of payment, etc. ______ (2004). Early Contractor Involvement: Contract Guidance Manual. ______ (2004). “Report to Congress on Public-Private-Partnerships”, United States Department of Transportation. Allen, L.N., D.D. Gransberg, and K.R. Molenaar, (2002). “Partnering Successful Design-Build Contracts in the Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest Division,” The Military Engineer, SAME, Vol., 94 (616), pp.47-48. AASHTO (2005). “Accelerating Project Delivery: It is about Time”, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). Associated General Contractors (2004). Project Delivery Systems for Construction, Associated General Contractors of America. This practical guide to delivery systems describes Agency CM, Program Management (both, project management approaches), DBB, DB, CM-at-risk, DBOM, PPP (project delivery systems). The book is very useful especially for clear definitions that are provided for various terms of art. ACI-NA, ACC, and AGC (2006). “Airport Owners’ Guide to project Delivery Systems,” a white paper by Airport Council International – NA, Airport Consultants Council, and the AGC of America. This white paper describes various delivery systems (DBB, DB, and CM-at-risk) in the context of airport projects. Has a useful section on definitions of terms-of-art. In addition to project delivery Northeastern University The Research Report 182

TCRP G-08 – Project Delivery Methods Appendix B - Annotated Bibliography systems, they cover project oversight, funding mechanisms for airport capital projects, and provide guidelines for the selection of the appropriate project delivery system. American Institute of Architects (AIA) (2005) “Construction Manager at-Risk State Statute Compendium,” AIA Government Affairs, American Institute of Architects, Washington, DC, pp. 125-129. AIA Minnesota (2006). “Understanding Project Delivery for the Design and Construction of Public Buildings”, AIA Minnesota. A/E/C Training Technologies (2005). Construction Project Delivery Systems: Evaluating the Owner’s Alternatives, Reston, VA. [WWW document] URL http://www.aectraining.com (Viewed March 1, 2006). AECOM Consulting Co. SAIC Inc., University of Colorado (2006). “Design-Build Effectiveness Study”, Federal Highway Administration. Akintoye, A. (1994). “Design and Build: A Survey of Construction Contractors’ Views.” Construction Management and Economics, E.F. Spon, Ltd., 12(2). Allen, L.N., D.D. Gransberg, and K.R. Molenaar, (2002). “Partnering Successful Design-Build Contracts in the Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest Division,” The Military Engineer, SAME, Vol., 94 (616), pp.47-48. American Institute of Architects, California Council (1996). Handbook on Project Delivery. Sacramento. AIA, California Council, Sacramento, CA. American Consulting Engineers/council. (1997). “Proposal for ISTEA II: Improving the Delivery of Transportation Project Through Partnerships.” ACEC. American Society of Civil Engineers. (1992). “Design-Build in the Federal Sector, a Report of the Task Committee on Design Build.” ASCE. Anderson, S. Russell ,J. (2001). “Guidelines for Warranty, Multi Parameter, and Best Value Contracting,” National Cooperative Highway Research Programs (NCHRP), Report 451. Beard, J., Loulakis, M. and Wundram, E. (2001). Design-Build: Planning Through Development. RR Donnelley & Sons Company. Bearup, W, Kenig, M. and O’Donnell, J. (2007), “Alternative Delivery Methods, A Primer” Proceedings, Airport Board Members and Commissioners Annual Conference, Airports Council International - North America, Chicago, Illinois. Northeastern University The Research Report 183

TCRP G-08 – Project Delivery Methods Appendix B - Annotated Bibliography Booth, W.D. (1995). Marketing Strategies for Design-Build Contracting, Chapman and Hall, New York, N.Y. Born, M. and Burner, C. (2003). "Design-build contracts: Lessons learned on the Gold Line rail project for APTA," Transportation Research Circular No.E-C058, TRB, Washington, D.C., 575-581. Booz Allen Hamilton Inc. (2005). “Managing Capital Costs of Major Federally Funded Public Transportation Projects,” Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP), Washington, D.C. This document is based on the results of a research funded by the TCRP on the issue of cost overrun and cost management on 28 transit projects in the United States. This research studies the methods useful to manage cost and prevent cost overruns. The cost and duration data in these projects is collected and analyzed. Branca, A.J. (1988). Cost Effective Design/Build Construction, McGraw Hill, New York, N.Y., 1988. C & S Companies (2005). “Construction Management At Risk” [WWW document]. URL http://www.cscos.com/services/CMatRisk/index.cfm (visited 2005, January 31) Construction Industry Institute (2003). Owner's Tool for Project Delivery and Contract Strategy Selection, Research Summary 165, Construction Industry Institute, Austin, TX. Clarke, R. (2003). “Early Planning and Decisions on the Southeast Corridor Project,” Leadership and Management in Engineering, July. This paper is about southeast corridor, a multimodal transportation project in Denver, Colorado. The paper concentrates on early decisions made in this DB project. The paper explains the activities done by the joint owners of this project to decrease the uncertainty in this project. Chan, A., Yung, K., Lam, P., Tam, C., Cheung, S. (2001). “Application of Delphi Method in Selection of Procurement Systems for Construction Projects”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 19, pp. 699-718. Chang, K. (2004). “Multiattribute Weighting Models for Best-Value Selection in Public Sector Design-Build Projects”, PhD thesis, University of Colorado. Chowdhury, M., Kaysi, I. ,Shalaby, A. (2006). “Optimal Bid Packaging Algorithm for Competitive Contracting in Public Transit,” TRB Annual Meeting. Colorado State University (2006). “Conducting Case Studies” [WWW document]. URL http://writing.colostate.edu/guides/research/casestudy/pop2c.cfm (visited March 13, 2006). Northeastern University The Research Report 184

TCRP G-08 – Project Delivery Methods Appendix B - Annotated Bibliography Construction Industry Institute (2003). “Owner’s Tool for Project Delivery and Contract Strategy Selection,” Research Summary 165, Construction Industry Institute, Austin, TX. Construction Industry Institute (1997). “Project Delivery Systems: CM at Risk, Design-Build, Design-Bid-Build,” Research Summary RS 133-1, CII, Austin, Texas. Cushman, R.F. and Taub, K.S. (1992). Design-Build Contracting Handbook, Wiley, New York, N.Y. C & S Companies (2005). “Construction Management At Risk” [WWW document]. URL http://www.cscos.com/services/CMatRisk/index.cfm (visited 2005, January 31) Dantata, N. (2003). “Cost overruns in federally funded transit projects,” M.S. Thesis, Northeastern University, Boston. This thesis documents transit project cost overruns and quantifies cost growth during each phase of project life-cycle, i.e., during A/A, PE, final design, and construction. There is in-depth analysis of seven major transit projects with their history of cost overruns. Debella, D.C. Ries ,R. (2006). “Construction Delivery Systems: A Comparative Analysis of Their Performance within School Districts”. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 132(11). This paper focuses on school projects delivered using a multi-prime DBB approach. Projects under consideration are 94 school projects in the Northeast. The comparison is done based on qualitative and quantitative parameters. Quantitative parameters are construction speed, unit cost, cost growth, schedule growth, percentage change order, number of litigation cases. Qualitative ones are length of punch list, difficulty of facility startup, level of call-backs after owner occupancy, level of administrative burden, project team communication, project team chemistry and litigation. The study shows that there are more change orders in the case of multi-prime with CM which increases as the size of the project increases. Dorsey, R. (1997). Project Delivery Systems for Building Construction, Associated General Contractors of America, USA. This book covers four delivery systems i.e. lump sum general contracting, cost-plus a fee/GMP contracting, Design-Build, and Construction Management for building projects. The book suggests using a weighting matrix for project delivery system selection. The set of criteria in this matrix includes: size/dollar, complexity, uniqueness, proximity, external approvals, goals, experience, decisions, construction liability, business risks, quality, change, schedule, cost, early cost guarantee, value, and cultural factors. The book has many figures for illustrating the contractual relations between parties involved in a project in different delivery systems. It also gives the advantages and disadvantages of each delivery system in detail. Dunscombe, T., Cartwright, E. (2005). Oakland Airport Connector: Pushing the Design-Build Envelope,[WWW document]. Northeastern University The Research Report 185

TCRP G-08 – Project Delivery Methods Appendix B - Annotated Bibliography http://www.leaelliott.com/Information/PDF/APM%2005%20Papers/40766-7723.pdf (Visited March 20, 2007) Ellis, R.D. et al (1992). “Final Evaluation of the Florida Department of Transportation’s Pilot Design-Build Program,” Transportation Research Record 1351. Washington D.C. El Wardani, M., Messner, J., Horman, M. (2006). Comparing Procurement Methods for Design- Build Projects, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 132(3). This paper focuses on procurements used in DB projects, i.e. sole source, qualifications based, best value and low bid selection. The paper is based on 76 projects consisting of low complex and high complex projects. Cost, time and quality of the projects are studied and procurements are compared. Faulkner, B., El-Shrafi, M. (2002). “From Rehab to First Class: Analyzing the Increase in Costs of the Old Colony Commuter Railroad Project,” Jacobs Civil Inc., Boston, USA. Fernandez, N.I. (2000). “Design-build and design-build-operate maintain,” Dear Colleague Letter, No.C-00-15, 09-20-00, FTA. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) (2006), Design-Build Effectiveness Study – As Required by TEA-21 Section 1307(f): Final Report, USDOT Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C., January 2006, 215pp. [Online]. Available: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/reports/designbuild/designbuild0.htm (visited August 30, 2006). FHWA (2006). “Guide to Risk Assessment and Allocation for Highway Construction Management,” US Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C. This guidebook helps DOTs to have a uniform and robust approach toward risk management in highway projects. It defines risk, gives examples and shows how to go through different steps of the proposed approach including identification, analysis, mitigation, allocation and monitoring of risks. Federal Transit Administration (1997). “Lessons Learned: Turnkey Applications in the Transit Industry,” FTA, U. S. D. o. T., Washington, D.C., October. Federal Transit Administration (2003). “Project and Construction Management Guidelines,” Federal Transit Administration, Washington, D.C. Federal Transit Administration (2006). “Annual Report on New Starts: Proposed Allocation of Funds for Fiscal Year 2007”, FTA, U. S. D. o. T., Washington, D.C. Flyvbjerg, B., Bruzelius, N., Rothengatter, W. (2003). Megaprojects and Risk, Cambridge University Press. Northeastern University The Research Report 186

TCRP G-08 – Project Delivery Methods Appendix B - Annotated Bibliography This book is mainly based on three major infrastructure projects in Europe (Channel Tunnel, Oresund Bridge, and Great Belt), and a number of transportation projects in the US and Europe. Based on the data gathered by the authors, underestimating the costs and overestimating incomes in transportation projects is a trend all over the world and most of the infrastructure projects face schedule delays. The book explains the reasons for cost overruns, revenue shortcomings, environmental issues, and delays, and suggests new approaches to be applied in decision making about projects and their economic and environmental impact estimates. Garvin, M (2003). “Role of Project Delivery Systems in Infrastructure Improvement,” Proc., Construction Research Congress, ASCE. The paper mainly concentrates on the importance of understanding the differences between the delivery systems. The author believes that many alternative delivery systems have flaws and this underscores the importance of thorough studies before decision making. The paper talks about O&M part of the project life cycle and studies BOT contracts as well as DB and DBB. Ghavamifar, K. and A. Touran (2008), “Alternative Project Delivery Systems: Applications and Legal Limits in Transportation Projects,” Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, ASCE, 134 (1), January, 106-111. Part of this paper is presented in this report under Appendix C. Gordon, C. M. (1994). “Choosing Appropriate Construction Contracting Method,” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, 120(1), 196-210. The author divides the contracting process into four parts: scope, organization, contract and award. He defines the traditional and alternative delivery methods and their advantages and disadvantages. Then the author covers owner’s drivers and market drivers and gives a list of parameters for decision making in delivery system selection. The paper also provides a flowchart for method selection. Gordon & REES LLP. (2005). “The Basics of Design Build,” Construction Group Newsletter, Gordon & REES LLP. Gannett Fleming, Inc. (2006). “Construction Project Management Handbook”, Federal Transit Administration. Gransberg, D.D., J.E. Koch and K.R. Molenaar (2006). Preparing for Design-Build Projects: A Primer for Owners, Engineers, and Contractors, ASCE Press, Reston Virginia. Gransberg, D.D. and Molenaar, K.R., (2001). “Project Delivery Methods Professional Practice Guide,” Proc., AACE-International. Gransberg, D.D. and Molenaar, K.R. (2004). Analysis of Owner’s Design and Construction Quality Management Approaches in Design/Build Projects, Journal of Management in Engineering, 20(4). Northeastern University The Research Report 187

TCRP G-08 – Project Delivery Methods Appendix B - Annotated Bibliography This paper studies the quality management approaches in 78 Design-Build projects based on their RFPs. These projects are divided in two groups and different mechanisms found in RFPs are categorized and the trends are studied. The authors found six different approaches: quality by qualification, quality by evaluated program, quality by specified program, quality by performance criteria, quality by specification, and quality by warranty. The authors believe that many DB project owners still have DBB mentality while developing their approach for quality management. Based on this study the highways have the most comprehensive approach to QM where owners ask for design QM and also qualification of the design team as well as QM for construction. Gransberg, D.D. and Molenaar, K.R. (2004). Life Cycle Award Algorithms for Design-Build Highway Pavement Projects, Journal of Infrastructure Systems, ASCE, 10(4). Gransberg, D.D. and Barton, R.F. (2007). "Analysis of Federal Design-Build Request for Proposal Evaluation Criteria," Journal of Management in Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 23 (2), April 2007, pp. 105-111. This paper is based on the analysis of 110 request for proposals and intends to identify the benefits federal owners are seeking through design-build process. The analysis compares the benefits cited for DB implementation and weights given to evaluation criteria. The study shows a very heavy weight given to price while schedule is given a very low average weight in government selection process. Gransberg, D. and Molenaar, K.R. (2007). “The Impacts of Design-Build on the Public Workforce”, Research Paper 07-01, USC Keston Institute for Public Finance and Infrastructure Policy, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, April 2007. This research focuses on the effects of design-build application on the transportation agencies’ staff. It shows that DB does not shift public professional engineering jobs from state agencies to private sector. It also shows that implementing DB requires a more competent and experienced workforce. Graham, P. (2001). “Evaluation of Design-Build Practice in Colorado IR(CX) 70-4(143),” Colorado Department of Transportation, Denver, Colorado. Gurry, W.W. Smith, R. (1995). “Allocation of Risk in Design-Build Projects. The EJCDC Approach,” Proc. Construction Congress, San Diego, California. Halpin, D.W. (2006). Construction Management, 3rd Ed., John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, New York. Harbuck, R. (2002). “Using Models in Parametric Estimating for Transportation Projects,” Transactions, AACE International. Ibbs, C., Wong, C., Kwak, Y. (1994). “Project change management,” Publ. 43-1, Construction Industry Institute, Austin, Texas. Northeastern University The Research Report 188

TCRP G-08 – Project Delivery Methods Appendix B - Annotated Bibliography Ibbs, C., and Kwak, Y. (1997). “Quantitative benchmarking of project management (PM) processes,” Proc., 1997 Constr. Cong. Cons, ASCE, New York, 980-987. Ibbs, C., and Kwak, Y. (1998). “Benchmarking project management organizations,” PMNetwork, February, 49-53. Ibbs, C.W., Kwak, Y., Odabasi, A. (2003). “Project Delivery System and Project Change: A Quantitative Analysis,” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE 129(4). 382-387. The paper is based on a data base of 67 projects from 5 million to 1 billion USD (mostly between 25 and 75 million). The main goal is comparing DB and DBB. Some parameters were defined for this comparison like cost change, schedule change and productivity. Taking absolute value of cost changes, there is a small difference between DB and DBB: 13% vs. 15.6%. For changes in schedule the same difference was observed. DB had 7.7% changes while DBB had 8.4% changes. The changes in productivity based on the changes in schedule or cost is compared. Irwin, D. (2003). "Developing the design and construction contracting plan for a major light rail extension project," Transportation Research Circular No. E-C058, TRB, Washington, D.C., 557-575. This paper shows the complexities of transit projects due to several approvals needed, interaction with communities, coordination, property takes, etc. The author then highlights the advantages and disadvantages of several delivery methods and also gives data about a few Oregon transit projects and legal limitations of transit agency (TriMet) in that state. The paper provides useful information on the selection of a CM-at-risk approach for transit project delivery. Katz, G., and Smith, S. (2003). Build-Operate-Transfer: The Future of Public Construction?, Journal of Construction Accounting and Taxation,March/April, 36-48. This paper defines and explains the advantages and disadvantages of BOT and similar systems like BOO, BTO, etc. It concentrates on the fact that this delivery system, which is mainly developed to attract private funds to build infrastructures, has an inherent problem about risk allocation. This problem is because of the difficulties guaranteeing the revenue of the facility by the public entity. The private sector is reluctant to participate in a project in which the minimum stream of revenue is not guaranteed. These guarantees sometimes conflict with constitutional law against monopoly. The authors believe that BOT contract have some mechanisms to cover the risks of the private entity but do not have mechanisms to give enough control to the public entity on the project. Kessler, F., Nossaman, Guthner, Knox & Elliot LLP (2005). “Managing Your Money: Project Delivery Methods,” [WWW document] URL http://www.nossaman.com/db30/cgi- bin/news/FWK_MassTransit_04.05.pdf (visited March 20, 2007) This report compares DB and DBOM in transit projects. The authors have collected information about several DB and DBOM projects and have interviewed the owners and contractors of those Northeastern University The Research Report 189

TCRP G-08 – Project Delivery Methods Appendix B - Annotated Bibliography projects to find out the benefits of DBOM and the reasons why some agencies use this system and why others do not. Kluenker, C. (2001). “Risk vs. Conflict of Interest-What Every Owner Should Consider When Using Construction Management,” CMeJournal, Construction Management Association of America. This paper is about different ways of contracting with a construction manager in a project. It explains the level of risk and responsibility of the Agency CM in each case and shows how transfer of risks to the CM may cause conflict of interest in the project. The paper discusses the evolution of construction management. Kopic, P.(1997). “Contract Management Techniques for Improving Construction Quality,” Pulication No. FHWA-RD-97-067 http://www.tfhrc.gov/pavement/rd97_079.htm. Konchar, M. and V. Sanvido (1998). “Comparison of U.S. Project Delivery Systems,” Journal of Construction Engineering. and Management, ASCE, 124(6), 435-444. This paper compares DBB, DB and CMR in building projects based on three criteria: time, cost and quality. The paper is based on a research which consisted of four phases: develop an instrument for data collection and pilot test it, collect data from US projects, check the validity of data collected, testing different hypotheses. The projects are divided into six groups in order to have a better judgment about each group. In general, the paper concludes that DB is superior to DBB and CMR in terms of speed of delivery and control of cost growth. Kumaraswamy, M. M. & Dissanayaka, S. M. (1996). “Procurement by Objectives,” Journal of Construction Procurement, 2(2), 38-51. Kumaraswamy, M. M. & Dissanayaka, S. M. (1998). “Linking Procurement Systems to Project Priorities,” Building Research and Information, 26(4), 223-238. Loulakis, M. (2000). Project Delivery Systems: Evaluating Owner's Alternatives. A/E/C Training Technologies. Loulakis, M. (2003). Design-Build for the Public Sector, Aspen Business and Law, Aspen Publishers, New York, N.Y. Mahdi, I.M., Alreshaid, K. (2005). “Decision Support System for Selecting the Proper Project Delivery Method Using Analytical Hierarchy Process,” International Journal of Project Management, 23, 564-572. This paper compares three delivery systems: DBB, DB and CMR. The factors affecting this comparison are categorized in groups: owner characteristics, project characteristics, design characteristics, regulatory, risk, contractor characteristics, and claims and disputes. The authors have Northeastern University The Research Report 190

TCRP G-08 – Project Delivery Methods Appendix B - Annotated Bibliography used AHP to compare the delivery systems; a sensitivity analysis is performed to evaluate the effect of various parameters on the choice of delivery system. Mahoney, S. E. (1998). “Project delivery and planning strategies for public owners,” MS thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Mass. Miller, J.B. (2000). Principles of Public and Private Infrastructure Delivery. Springer. USA. Miller, J. B., Garvin, M. J., Ibbs, C. W., Mahoney, S.E. (2000). “Toward a new paradigm: simultaneous use of multiple project delivery methods.” J. of Eng. Mgmt., 16(3), 58-67. Minchin, E., Thakkar, K., Ellis, R. (2007). “Miami Intermodal Center-Introducing CM-At-Risk to Transportation Construction”, in Innovative Project Delivery Systems, Molenaar, K.R. and Yakowenko, G. (Eds), ASCE Press, pp 46-59. The paper discusses CM-at-risk delivery system as used for the Miami Airport. It gives the details of the project, distribution of risks, and method of payment to the contractor. Mitchell, B.P. (1999). “The Applicability of the Spearin Doctrine: Do Owners Warrant Plans and Specifications?” Find Law for Legal Professionals, http://library.findlaw.com/1999/Aug/1/128038.html (March 24, 2007). Molenaar, K.R. (2005). “Programmatic Cost Risk Analysis for Highway Megaprojects,” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE Vol. 131(3), pp. 343-353. Molenaar, K. R., A.D. Songer, and M. Barash (1999), “Public-sector Design/Build Evolution and Performance,” Journal of Management in Engineering, ASCE, 15(2), March/April, 54-62. Molenaar, K.R., et al. (2002). 2001 European Contract Administration Scan – Final Report, Report #FHWA-PL-03-002, International Technology Program, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC, October, 111 pp. Molenaar, K.R. and Yakowenko, G. (2006). Innovative Project Delivery, Procurement, and Contracting Methods for Highways, Molenaar, K.R. and Yakowenko, G. (Eds.), ASCE Press. It contains eight papers on various aspects of project delivery methods including issues of warranty, incentive/disincentives, best-value procurement methods, and quality-based contractor selection. The main emphasis is highway construction projects. Molenaar, K.R., et al. (2005). “Recommended AASHTO Design-Build Procurement Guide”, NCHRP 20-7(172), National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, DC, June 2005, 182 pp. Northeastern University The Research Report 191

TCRP G-08 – Project Delivery Methods Appendix B - Annotated Bibliography This guide is intended to assist state highway agencies in the design-build procurement process including the preparation of request for qualification and requests for proposals and the selection of the successful proposer. It describes the capabilities of design-build and gives a matrix for risk allocation in this delivery method. Molenaar, K.R., and Scott, S. (2003). Book chapter "Examining the Performance of Design-Build in the Public Sector," Design-Build for the Public Sector, Edited by Michael Loulakis, ISBN 0-7355- 3011-4, Aspen Business and Law, Aspen Publishers, 71-112. This chapter examines the efforts made to measure success or benchmark design-build against more traditional project delivery methods in public sector construction. It also recommends strategies that public owners should consider when implementing design-build to measure performance and improve their chances of realizing a successful outcome. It also discusses the effects that different design-build procurement and contracting strategies have on performance outcomes. Mouritsen, J.W. (1993). “An Empirical Analysis of the Effectiveness of Design-Build Construction Contracts.” Master’s Thesis. Purdue University. North Carolina State Construction Office (2005). “Construction Management-At-Risk Selection Procedures” [WWW document]. URL http://interscope2.doa.state.nc.us/Guidelines/CM@RISK%20SELECTION%20PROCEDURES. pdf (visited 2005, January 31) Nossaman, Guthner, Knox & Elliott. (2006). “50 state survey of transportation agency design-build authority.” {http://www.nossaman.com} (visited Dec. 12, 2006). Oyetunji, A.A, Anderson, S.D., (2006). “Relative Effectiveness of Project Delivery and Contract Strategies,” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, 132(1), 3-13. The paper explains the importance of finding the most appropriate delivery method and highlights some of its difficulties. It studies some methods of decision making and suggests SMART system with pre-calculated and fixed weights. The authors give a list of 20 factors with their correspondent weights for 13 different combinations of payment and contracting in construction projects. Oppenheim, A. N. (1992). Questionnaire Design, Interviewing and Attitude Measurement, Continuum, London. Paek, J. H., Lee, Y. W. & Napier, T. R. (1992). “Selection of Design/Build Proposal using Fuzzy- Logic System”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, 118 (2), 303-317. Pakkala, P., Jong, W., Aijo, J. (2007). “International Overview of Innovative Contracting Practices for Roads,” Finnish Road Administration, Helsinki, Finland. Northeastern University The Research Report 192

TCRP G-08 – Project Delivery Methods Appendix B - Annotated Bibliography Pakkala, P. (2002). Innovative Project Delivery Methods for Infrastructure—an International Perspective. Finnish Road Enterprise, Helsinki, Finland, p. 32. Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas Inc. ,(2002). “Design-Build Practice Report,” New York State Department of Transportation. Parsons, Touran, A., and Golder Assoc. (2004). “Risk Analysis Methodologies and Procedures,” Federal Transit Administration. This report discusses the process of risk management in transit projects. The risk management process is divided into six distinct steps: scope review, risk identification, risk quantification, review, risk mitigation, and risk implementation. The emphasis is on probabilistic risk analysis. Several examples are provided. Potter, K., Sanvido, V. (1994). “Design-Build Prequalification System,” Management in Engineering, ASCE, 10(2). Potter, K., Sanvido, V. (1995). “Implementing a Design-Build Prequalification System,” Management in Engineering, ASCE, 11(3). Quatman, W. (2000). Design-Build for the Design Professional, Aspen Publishing, Inc., New York, N.Y. Riley, D., Diller, B., Ken, D. (2005). “Effects of Delivery Systems on Change Order Size and Frequency in Mechanical Construction,” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, 131(9). This paper compares the effects of DB and DBB on the number and size of change orders in mechanical construction projects. 598 change orders in 120 construction projects were studied and the results show that the total number of change orders in DB and DBB are almost equal but the size of change orders is significantly smaller in DB. SAIC Inc. (2003). “Outsourcing of State DOT Capital Program Delivery Functions”, NCHRP Web Document 59, TRB, Washington, D.C. This report explains how the DOTs have outsourced their duties to the private sector. The report mainly concentrates on DB and also O&M part of DOT duties. The authors focus on “capital program delivery functions” like major facility design, major project construction supervision, etc. and study the ways of outsourcing these activities to qualified private entities. Saaty, T.L. (1990), Multicriteria Decision Making: the Analytical Hierarchy Process, RWS Publications, Pittsburgh, PA. Schaufelberger, J. (2005). “Use of Design-Build on Mass Transit Rail Projects”, Proceedings, Construction Research Congress, San Diego, USA. Northeastern University The Research Report 193

TCRP G-08 – Project Delivery Methods Appendix B - Annotated Bibliography This paper is based on eight DB transit projects in the US and has useful information about them. The author has collected information about the projects and also has sent questionnaires to all the parties involved in these projects and has obtained information about cost overruns, delays, management skills, challenges in the projects, lessons learned by the owner and necessity of early contractor’s involvement in the project. The author concludes that the contractor in DB projects should come onboard when the design is 10 to 15% complete and also the federal funds should be available when they are needed. Scott, S. Molenaar, K., Gransberg, D, Smith, N. (2006). “Best Value Procurement Methods for Highway Construction Projects”, National Cooperative Highway Research Programs (NCHRP), Report 561, Washington, D.C. Skitmore, R. M. & Marsden, D. E. (1988). “Which Procurement System? Towards a Universal Procurement Selection Technique”, Construction Management and Economics, E.F. Spon, Ltd., 6, 71-89. Stenbeck, T. (2006). “Effects of Outsourcing and Performance-Based Contracting on Innovations”, TRB 2006 Annual Meeting, Washington, D.C. This paper studies the difference between outsourcing the projects and doing them in-house in terms of innovations raised during the design and construction phase. The paper focuses on transportation projects in France and Sweden and also compares them with some projects in the USA. Strang, W. (2002). “The Risk in CM at Risk,” CMeJournal, Construction Management Association of America. Temesi, J. (2006). “Consistency of decision maker in pairwise comparisons”, Int. J. of Management and Decision Making, Vol. 7, No. 2/3, pp. 267-274. Thomas, S.R., C.L. Macken, T.H. Chung, and I. Kim (2002). “Measuring the Impacts of the Delivery System on Project Performance – DB and DBB,” NIST, GCR 02-840, November. Tom Warne and associates, LLC (2005). “Design Build Contracting for Highway Projects: A Performance Assessment”, Report prepared for California DB Coalition, Tom Warne and Associates, LLC. This report studies 21 highway projects that have used DB as the delivery system to find out the effects of this delivery system on the success of highway projects. They have collected the data from the published reports and also some interviews with the key people in those projects. Their conclusion shows 100% owners satisfaction with using DB in their projects. Two factors have mainly driven the owners in choosing DB as a delivery method: schedule and finance. Tomeh, O., Schneck ,D., Stross, R. (1999). “Innovative Procurement Methods in Rail Transit Projects,” Paper No. 99-1551, Transportation Research Record 1677, pp. 79-86. Northeastern University The Research Report 194

TCRP G-08 – Project Delivery Methods Appendix B - Annotated Bibliography This paper is based on the evaluation of two phases of Baltimore light rail. The first phase is done with a DBB method and the second phase with a DB arrangement. The authors compare these two projects and explain some clauses in DB contract and also bonding issues and at last compare the level of control of the owner in these two delivery methods. Toussant, J. (2003). “Environmental Impacts to Design/Build Projects-A Case Study of the St. George Island Bridge Replacement”, Leadership and Management in Engineering, 128-132. This paper is about replacement of a bridge in Apalachicola Bay. It is done using a DB approach. Because of the sensitivity of the environmental issues, the owner had developed a best value selection system in which environmental plan of the proposals had a high weight. This case study shows some flexibilities of DB when the environmental issues are of paramount importance. Transit Cooperative Research Program (1995). “Transit Labor Protection-A Guide to Section 13(c)”, Legal Research Digest, number 4, Federal Transit Administration, Washington, D.C. Transit Cooperative Research Program (2002). “Design-Build Transit Infrastructure Projects in Asia and Australia”, Federal Transit Administration, Washington, D.C. This report was sponsored by the TCRP and covers DB application in transit projects in Asia and Australia. It was observed that many transit-related projects in Hong Kong have been done using DBOMT; in Thailand, some transit projects are done by DBOOT. They collected the experiences and lessons learned on DB application in these countries and Australia. They found that using DB would reduce the number of approval milestones and help the project go forward when approved once. The report explains different aspects of DB contract like risk, control, and quality in some detail. Trombly, J., Luttrell, T. (2000). “Michigan Intelligent Transportation System Center: Use of Design/Build/Warranty Contract”, Federal Highway Administration. Twomey, T.R. (1989). Understanding the Legal Aspects of Design/Build, R.S. Means Co., Kingston, Mass. TRB (1999). “Report on Innovative Financing Techniques for Transit Agencies”, TRB Report Number TL01. TRB (2000). “Systems Approach to Evaluating Innovations for Integration into Highway Practice”, TRB Document Number NR442. Touran, A., P. Bolster, and S. Thayer (1994). “Risk assessment in fixed guide way construction,” Report No. FTA-MA-26-0022, Federal Transit Admin., U.S.D.o.T. This is one of the earlier reports on probabilistic risk analysis for estimating the probability of cost and schedule overrun in transit projects. The report contains a section on risk allocation in the construction contract. Northeastern University The Research Report 195

TCRP G-08 – Project Delivery Methods Appendix B - Annotated Bibliography Touran, A. (2006). “Owners Risk Reduction Techniques Using a CM”, Construction Management Association of America. This report, sponsored by CMAA, explains the methodology of risk analysis and risk management in different phases of a project and shows the role of a CM in conducting successful risk mitigation. The author divides risk analysis into five steps: validation of cost/schedule, risk identification, risk quantification, risk mitigation, and implementation of risk mitigation plan. This report has a risk catalog as an appendix. U.S.Army Corps of Engineers (1997). “Design-Build and Military Construction Workbook”, Corps of Engineers Training Management Directorate, No.425-FY95 (PROJECT), Huntsville, Alabama. Walewski, J. Gibson, G., Jasper, J. (2001). “Project Delivery Methods and Contracting Approaches Available for Implementation by the Texas Department of Transportation”, Texas Department of Transportation, Austin, Texas, 116 pages. The report gives an analysis of alternative project delivery methods and provides insight on how alternative delivery methods can help achieve successful projects in Texas. It also describes the limitations of Texas laws in using various project delivery systems. Warne, T. and Beard, J. (2005). Project Delivery Systems Owner's Manual. American Council on Engineering Companies, Washington, D.C. Weber, M., Borcherding, K. (1993). “Behavioral Influences on Weight Judgments in Multiattribute Decision Making”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 67, pp. 1-12. Wiss, R., Roberts, R., Phraner, S. (2000). “Beyond Design-Build-Operate-Maintain,” Transportation Research Record, Paper No. 00-0675, 13-18. This paper mainly discusses DBOM transit projects in the State of New Jersey. The focus of the paper is on preceding stages of DBOM and explains the development of Public-Private-Partnership. The main advantage of PPP compared to DBOM is said to be new allocation of risks in the project. A transit project starts from a need for public transportation and goes through different studies and phases by various entities, before it goes to the construction phase. In PPP, the legislators let the private sector partner with the public entity, finance the project, design it, build it and operate it for a predetermined time. NJDOT receives proposals (13 mentioned in the paper) for any kind of PPP project. Barriers to this procurement are public ignorance, environmental mandates and mistrust between the parties. Yin, R.K. (2004). “Conducting Case Studies: Collecting the Evidence” [WWW document]. URL http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:jHb6y55UFJ8J:www.idt.mdh.se/ Northeastern University The Research Report 196

TCRP G-08 – Project Delivery Methods Appendix B - Annotated Bibliography Northeastern University The Research Report 197 phd/courses/fallstudie/slides%2520-%2520seminarie%25202/Yin%2520- %2520kapitel%25204%2520Rev%25203.ppt+conducting+case+studies&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&c d=1 (visited 2006, March 13). Yin, R. K. (1994). Case Study Research: Design and Methods, Sage Publications.