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.
22 This chapter reviews the results of the survey of airports regarding the use of qualifications- based selection (QBS) award for construction services. It then combines the survey output with the results discussed in Chapter 2 to outline the state of the practice. The survey sought to find instances of QBS award for construction contracts. Use of the QBS approach in the award of a single construction contract for a project whose design is 100% complete is not a routine occurrence at the U.S. airports that responded to the survey. However, ample evidence of the use of QBS to procure construction services via alter- native contracting method (ACM) procurements was found. Thus, the chapter uses the QBS working definition detailed in Chapter 1 to evaluate current practices for QBS award of the following ACMs: â¢ Construction manager-at-risk (CMR) â¢ Progressive designâbuild (PDB) â¢ Indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity (IDIQ) Note that QBS elements are also used in designâbidâbuild best value (DBB-BV), designâbuild (DB), and publicâprivate partnership (PPP). However, those three ACMs also involve including cost considerations in the contract award decision. No integrated project delivery (IPD) projects were found, and as previously stated, IPD is an emerging project delivery method for which effective practices for its application on airport capital projects remain to be developed. Airport Survey Results The following sections provide the details of the survey output from the 26 airports shown in Figure 1. The survey included the following five categories of information: â¢ Project delivery methods use to deliver QBS projects. â¢ Funding sources used on QBS projects. â¢ Project types where QBS awards were used. â¢ Qualifications evaluation factors in use. â¢ Perceptions of QBS use, benefits, and challenges. Project Delivery Method Results Past research has shown that the selection of ACMs is a function of the ownerâs statutory constraints, preferences, biases, and project characteristics (Scott et al. 2006, Touran et al. 2008, C H A P T E R 3 Current Qualifications-Based Selection Practices in Airport Project Delivery
Current Qualifications-Based Selection Practices in Airport Project Delivery 23 Tran et al. 2017). The fundamental constraint is whether the public agency is authorized by statute and/or policy to utilize a given ACM. The constraint can be further restricted by a statutory requirement that mandates the inclusion of pricing factors in the final award decision (Loulakis 2013). To be clear, even if qualifications are used to establish a shortlist if the final award decision includes price, it is a BV, not a QBS, award. Table 4 is a summary of the responses for those delivery methods that were authorized for use at the 26 airports that responded to the survey. One can see that CMR, DB, and IDIQ are generally authorized at most of the surveyed airports. However, when asked about the use of PDB, 9 of the 24 airports that indicated DB authorization responded that they did not know if they could use PDB. Therefore, it is possible that the actual total that can use PDB might be higher. Also note that IDIQ can be used as a contractual vehicle to deliver DBB, CMR, and DB project on a multiyear and multiple repetitive task order basis. Research has also demonstrated that a significant difference exists between the way owners with a mature ACM program structure their procurements and the approach used by owners with maturing ACM programs (Alleman et al. 2017, Castro-Nova et al. 2018). Experienced owners put more weight on qualifications and past performance of the competing contractors; whereas owners with less experience stressed risk shedding and put little if any weight on qualifications factors in their evaluation and award plans. For example, a recent study involving managing geotechnical risk in DB projects found a statistically significant difference in the ratings given âimpact of the designâbuilderâs geotechnical staff qualifications on DB project quality/performanceâ (Gransberg et al. 2018, p. 90). The study also found âimpact of the designâ builderâs past project experience with geotechnical issues on DB project quality/performanceâ by owners that had completed 10 or more DB projects versus those with fewer than 10 projects (Gransberg et al. 2018, p. 92). The experienced owners rated the designâbuilderâs staff quali- fications and past project experience as the most important elements of project success. As a result of the above, the synthesis survey results were also separated by experience level to furnish an assessment of whether the difference found in previous research applied to this topic. The survey asked respondents to identify those project delivery methods for which they had the authority to use and then to indicate the number of projects they had completed with each authorized ACM. For purposes of analysis, an airport was considered experienced if it had completed 10 or more projects in any one of the five ACMs listed in the survey. Table 5 shows the results of that analysis. The 10 airports shown in the shaded quadrant of the table are those that met the definition of being considered experienced with ACMs. The table shows that CMR and IDIQ are the most used project delivery methods by experienced airports. The same is true for the remaining airports. Four of the responding airportsâDallas/Fort Worth International (DFW), Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport (PHX), San Diego International Airport (SAN), and SeattleâTacoma International Airport (SEA)âhave availed themselves of all five delivery methods. The table also demonstrates a trend that as airports become more experienced with ACMs, they tend to be willing to use all available options. This trend is validated by the same finding in ACRP Web-Document 6 (Touran et al. 2009b) that having a full set of procurement options allows airports the flexibility to match the benefits associated with a given ACM to the unique requirement of a specific project. Total Construction Manager-at-Risk Designâ Build Progressive DesignâBuild PublicâPrivate Partnership Indefinite Delivery/ Indefinite Quantity 26 24 24 12 12 24 Table 4. Summary of authorized delivery methods.
24 Value, Benefits, and Limitations of Qualifications-Based Selection for Airport Project Delivery Funding Source Results Survey respondents were asked to identify the various sources of funding that were used to finance QBS projects. The possible sources contained in the survey are as follows: â¢ Federal funding when using CMR or PDB. â¢ State funding. â¢ Passenger facility charges. â¢ Airport cash flows. â¢ Debt financing/airport revenue bonds. â¢ Other public funding. Figure 5 displays the results for that question. It shows that airports routinely use most sources of available funding. The responses for the âother public fundingâ group were all related to grants from the FAA Airport Improvement Program (AIP) as well as some local grant sources. The results shown in Figure 5 lead to the conclusion that the availability of fund sources is not a major barrier to implementing a QBS award program. Airport Qualifications-Based Selection Project Type Results Survey respondents were asked to indicate the types of project on which they use the various kinds of project delivery methods. The questionnaire asked the respondents to indicate all appropriate methods for each project type, which means that more than one method could be selected for a given type. DBB was included to give a baseline comparison. Additionally, a three-way comparison was also made between DBB, IDIQ, and the sum of the responses for the CMR, DB, PDB, and PPP (termed ACM in Tables 6, 7, and 8). The purpose of the second comparison is to determine if airports use IDIQ, which can be awarded using QBS differently than other available ACMs. Additionally, the comparison of IDIQ to DBB is also of interest because of the ability to deliver multiple projects as task orders with a single procurement as opposed to procuring the same number of projects one at a time with DBB. Code CMR DB PDB P3 IDIQ Code CMR DB PDB P3 IDIQ SEA 5 5 2 1 5 GRR 1 1 0 0 2 PHX 5 5 4 1 5 LAX 1 2 1 1 4 DFW 5 5 4 1 5 IND 1 0 0 0 1 BOS 5 1 0 0 5 AZA 1 0 0 0 0 BIL 5 1 0 0 0 SAV 1 0 0 0 0 ATL 5 4 0 0 4 SLC 1 0 0 0 4 FAI 5 1 0 1 5 OKC 1 0 0 0 4 SAN 5 2 1 1 2 CAK 1 1 0 0 1 TPA 0 5 5 0 5 YVR 1 1 0 0 1 AUS 2 1 1 0 5 CLT 0 1 0 0 4 CMH 4 1 0 2 0 BUR 0 2 0 0 0 LBB 2 0 0 0 1 TVC 0 0 0 0 1 SAC 2 1 0 0 2 RIC 2 1 0 0 2 NOTES: Number of completed projects: 0 = Never or Donât know; 1 = 1â2; 2 = 3â5; 4 = 6â10; 5 = More than 10. ATL = Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport, AUS = AustinâBergstrom International Airport, AZA = PhoenixâMesa Gateway Airport, BIL = Billings Logan International Airport, BOS = Boston Logan International Airport, BUR = Hollywood Burbank Airport, CAK = Akron-Canton Regional Airport, CLT= Charlotte Douglas International Airport, CMH = Port Columbus International Airport, FAI = Fairbanks International Airport, GRR = Gerald R. Ford International Airport, IND = Indianapolis International Airport, LAX = Los Angeles International Airport, LBB = Lubbock International Airport, OKC = Will Rogers World Airport, RIC = Richmond International Airport, SAV = Savannah/Hilton Head International Airport, SLC = Salt Lake City International Airport, SMF = Sacramento Executive Airport, TPA = Tampa International Airport, TVC = Cherry Capital Airport, YVR = Vancouver International Airport. Table 5. Summary of airport experience with authorized delivery methods.
Current Qualifications-Based Selection Practices in Airport Project Delivery 25 FEDERAL FUNDING (PDB, CMR) STATE FUNDING PASSENGER FACIL ITY CHARGES AIRPORT CASH FLOWS FOR PROJECT F INANCE DEBT F INANCING / AIRPORT REVENUE BONDS OTHER PUBLIC FUNDING 0 5 10 15 20 25 Number of Responses FUNDING SOURCES USED ON QBS PROJECTS Figure 5. Sources of funding for airport projects. Project DBB IDIQ CMR DB PDB P3 ACM Small projects (<$5M) 15 12 7 2 0 1 10 Larger projects (â¥$5M) 10 0 13 10 5 3 31 Table 6. Project size summary. Project Type DBB IDIQ CMR DB PDB P3 ACM New construction/ expansion: Airside 19 0 11 9 2 2 24 New construction/ expansion: Landside 14 1 14 10 4 6 34 New construction/ expansion: Terminals 9 1 16 9 5 0 30 Table 7. New construction project delivery method summary. Project Type DBB IDIQ CMR DB PDB P3 ACM Reconstruction/ rehabilitation (civil) 17 5 6 6 0 2 14 Renovation (buildings) 13 11 9 7 3 1 20 Maintenance 11 13 0 1 0 0 1 Safety projects (e.g., runway incursion) 13 6 6 7 3 0 16 Systems (baggage handling; people mover; mechanical, electrical, and plumbing) 6 5 9 9 4 2 24 Table 8. Reconstruction, renovation, maintenance, safety, and system project delivery method summary.
26 Value, Benefits, and Limitations of Qualifications-Based Selection for Airport Project Delivery Table 6 shows that airports prefer DBB and IDIQ over ACMs for small projects, and when they do choose an ACM, CMR is the preferred choice. This is logical in that small projects often are technically straightforward and offer limited opportunity for innovation (Touran et al. 2009a). IDIQ is obviously not considered appropriate for large projects, and that may be due to contractual limitations on the size of a single task order in the typical IDIQ contract (Rueda 2013). Taken together, this leads to the conclusion that QBS awards can be implemented using IDIQ for small projects and ACMs for large projects. The next comparison is between new construction projects and projects involving alterations to existing facilities as well as routine maintenance, safety, and airport systems construction. Tables 7 and 8 contain the results of the survey for those categories. The new construction results mirror those found for large projects with ACMs being preferred in all categories and IDIQ being the least preferred method. The results shown in Table 8 are mixed. ACMs are preferred for building renovation, safety, and systems projects. DBB and IDIQ are the preferred approaches for routine maintenance, and DBB was preferred for reconstruction/rehabilitation of civil facilities such as runways and utilities. Comparing new construction to the other types of projects leads to the suggestion that airports see ACMs as their preference for delivering new construction, building renovation, safety, and systems projects. DBB and IDIQ are more often used for routine projects. Given the size of the sample, there is no clear trend for civil reconstruction/ rehabilitation projects. Qualifications Evaluation Factors The survey asked respondents to identify those factors that they considered when making the decision to use a QBS-related procurement award method. Respondents were asked to rate the frequency of each consideration on the following scale: 5 = Always consider; 4 = Usually consider; 3 = Considered; 2 = Rarely considered; 1 = Not considered. Figure 6 shows the results of that analysis by the average rating for each factor. A rating of 3.0 is neutral, and so, all the factors shown in Figure 6 were considered. The two most frequent factors in Figure 6 are project complexity and a complicated sequence of work. Project complexity deals with the technical challenges, whereas a complicated sequence of work embodies the challenges present to complete the construction in a manner that meets the constraints placed on the contractor by security, operational, and third-party demands. Note also that the five of the seven factors that had average ratings above 4.0, (i.e., the most frequent considerations) are factors in the construction process and its ability to optimize the schedule within operational constraints. Put another way, those factors all relate to achieving a high level of schedule certainty. The other two, complexity and contingency management, are related to both schedule and cost certainty. This leads one to infer that airports view QBS awards as a vehicle to allow them to manage complexity by increasing cost and schedule certainty better than traditional DBB project delivery. The survey also asked respondents to identify the factors that are typically included in the evaluation plan for projects with a QBS component. Figure 7 and Figure 8 are the results and show the top 10 factors. Again, respondents were asked to rate the frequency of occurrence. They were also asked to rate the value of each factor with regard to selecting the best con- tractor. The four most frequent factors were the capacity of the contractor, its availability, the companyâs past performance, and experience of key personnel. These factors are the essence of QBS delivery. QBS delivery enhances the certainty that projects will be completed on time and within budget because the contractors involved in the project are selected based on their qualifications and past performance and not because they offered the lowest bid price.
Current Qualifications-Based Selection Practices in Airport Project Delivery 27 3.00 3.25 3.50 3.75 4.00 4.25 4.50 4.75 5.00 NUMBER OF PRIVATE THIRD-PARTY STAKEHOLDERS NUMBER OF PUBLIC THIRD-PARTY STAKEHOLDERS NEW TECHNOLOGY INCLUDED IN DESIGN PERSONNEL SECURITY ISSUES NEED FOR ENHANCED COST CERTAINTY PHYSICAL SECURITY ISSUES NUMBER OF UTIL ITY CONFLICTS TRANSPARENCY IN PRICING PROCESS IMPACT ON OPERATIONS DURING CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE CONSIDERATIONS NEED FOR PHASED CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY MANAGEMENT/CONTROL NEED FOR EARLY CONTRACTOR INVOLVEMENT COMPLICATED SEQUENCE OF WORK PROJECT COMPLEXITY FACTORS CONSIDERED IN DECISION TO USE QBS Figure 6. Frequency of factors considered when deciding to use QBS delivery on typical airport projects. FINANCIAL STRENGTH AND BONDING CAPABIL ITY QUALITY ASSURANCE PLAN PAST PERFORMANCE OF CONTRACTOR'S PROPOSED PROJECT PERSONNEL EXPERIENCE (SKILL SETS) OF CONTRACTOR'S PROPOSED PROJECT PERSONNEL EXPERIENCE AND PAST PERFORMANCE WITH DESIRED DELIVERY SYSTEM (METHOD) SAFETY PLAN AND SAFETY RECORD EXPERIENCE OF THE COMPANY PAST PERFORMANCE OF THE COMPANY AVAILABIL ITY TO PERFORM THE WORK CAPACITY OF CONTRACTOR TO PERFORM THE WORK FREQUENCY OF FACTORS INCLUDED IN QBS EVALUATION PLAN 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 5.0 Figure 7. Frequency of selection factors.
28 Value, Benefits, and Limitations of Qualifications-Based Selection for Airport Project Delivery Figure 8 shows the perceived value of each evaluation factor and mirrors Figure 6 in the top five factors. Note that financial/bonding capability is at the bottom of the list. This is probably because this factor is in effect a âgo/no goâ evaluation, that is, the contractor either can or cannot furnish the necessary bond. It is also notable that the contractorâs quality assurance plan is near the last as well. This tracks with a previous study of quality management plans in DB projects, which found that public owners used the experience and past performance factors as an indication that design and construction quality would be satisfactory (Gad et al. 2015). To further amplify the output from the two ratings, the team turned to importance index theory, which furnishes an objective methodology to rank a list of attributes based on their relative importance. The importance index (II), proposed by Assaf and Al-Hejji (2006), is a combination of the frequency at which a specific factor was observed in the survey and its influ- ence measured by the value rating. As such, the importance index holds that factors that are used frequently that are of high perceived value are more important than low frequency, low-value factors. This permits an objective ranking of evaluation factors, which can then be used to infer the relative importance of adopting a specific factor into an airportâs QBS program. The impor- tance index is derived by first computing a frequency index (FI) and a value index (VI) based on Equations 1 and 2 to furnish input to the importance index calculation shown in Equation 3: FI % 100 (1)n N Tn( )( ) = Î£ where n = number of observations of a frequency rating for a specific factor, N = total observations of all frequencies for a specific factor, and Tn = total observations of all frequencies for all factors. 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 5.0 FINANCIAL STRENGTH AND BONDING CAPABIL ITY EXPERIENCE AND PAST PERFORMANCE WITH DESIRED DELIVERY SYSTEM (METHOD) QUALITY ASSURANCE PLAN EXPERIENCE (SKILL SETS) OF CONTRACTOR'S PROPOSED PROJECT PERSONNEL PAST PERFORMANCE OF CONTRACTOR'S PROPOSED PROJECT PERSONNEL SAFETY PLAN AND SAFETY RECORD EXPERIENCE OF THE COMPANY PAST PERFORMANCE OF THE COMPANY AVAILABIL ITY TO PERFORM THE WORK CAPACITY OF CONTRACTOR TO PERFORM THE WORK VALUE OF FACTORS INCLUDED IN QBS EVALUATION PLAN Figure 8. Value of selection factors.
Current Qualifications-Based Selection Practices in Airport Project Delivery 29 VI % 100 (2)d D Td( )( ) = Î£ where d = number of observations of a given value rating for a specific factor, D = total observations of all value ratings for a specific factor, and Td = total observations of all value ratings for all factors. II % FI VI (3)( )( ) = Table 9 provides the results of the importance index analysis, sorted from most important to least important. The calculations confirm the inference made from the above figures. Thus, as shown in the table, the contractorâs experience with the given delivery method was rated as the least important of the factors. This leads to the finding that a QBS evaluation plan could include, as a minimum, criteria assessing the following factors: â¢ Qualifications, experience, and past performance of proposed key personnel. â¢ Companyâs experience with relevant projects and past satisfactory performance on those projects. â¢ Contractorâs capacity and availability. â¢ Contractorâs safety record. Perceptions of QBS Benefits, Challenges, and Effectiveness The survey also sought to understand the motivations of the airport respondents regarding the implementation of QBS contracts. It did so by asking respondents to rate the anticipated benefits and challenges that are associated with QBS projects. Once again, the respondents were asked to rate the magnitude of the benefit on the following scale: 5 = Significant benefit, 4 = Some benefit, 3 = No benefit, 2 = Negative impact, 1 = Significant negative impact. They were asked to conduct a similar rating for the challenges using this scale: 5 = Show-stopper, 4 = Major challenge, 3 = Routine challenge, 2 = Minor challenge, 1 = Not challenging. Figure 9 is the summary of the benefit ratings, and Figure 10 is a summary of the challenge ratings. Looking at the two figures, it is worth noting that all the benefits were rated above the neutral rating of 3.0 and all the challenges, except determining which project is appropriate for QBS delivery, were rated at or below the neutral value. This leads to the conclusion that the anticipated benefits outweigh the perceived challenges of implementing QBS. It also leads to future research to provide a tool to better assist airports in identifying those projects that will benefit from QBS delivery. Factor FI VI II Experience (skill sets) of contractor's proposed project personnel 97.8 97.8 95.6 Past performance of contractor's proposed project personnel 97.8 96.7 94.5 Capacity of contractor to perform the work 97.8 95.6 93.4 Availability to perform the work 97.8 95.6 93.4 Quality assurance plan 96.7 91.1 88.1 Experience of the company 94.4 91.1 86.0 Past performance of the company 93.3 91.1 85.0 Safety plan and safety record 94.4 87.8 82.9 Financial strength and bonding capability 90.0 88.9 80.0 Experience and past performance with desired delivery system (method) 85.6 81.1 69.4 Table 9. Importance index analysis.
3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 LOWER L IFE CYCLE COSTS LOWER DESIGN COSTS LOWER CONSTRUCTION COSTS BETTER PROMOTION OF TECHNICAL INNOVATION SHORTER PROJECT TIMELINES GREATER UTIL IZATION OF TECHNOLOGY SUCH AS BIM FEWER WARRANTY ISSUES TRANSPARENCY IN DECISION-MAKING ENHANCED COLLABORATION/COMMUNICATION HIGHER QUALITY CONSTRUCTION REDUCED CHANGE ORDERS REDUCED RISK IN COMPLEX PROJECTS ENHANCED ABIL ITY TO OVERCOME CHALLENGES REDUCED L IT IGATION GREATER PROJECT VALUE BETTER PROJECT CONTROL PREDICTABIL ITY BETTER LONG-TERM RELATIONSHIPS MORE EFFICIENCY THROUGHOUT THE PROJECT PROCESS GREATER CONTINUITY THROUGHOUT PROJECT PROCESS MORE ACCURATE PROJECT SEQUENCING/SCHEDULING EARLY INVOLVEMENT OF THE KEY MEMBERS BEST QUALIFIED TEAM SELECTED (FLEXIBIL ITY) PREQUALIFICATION OF SUBCONTRACTORS ANTICIPATED BENEFITS OF QBS DELIVERY Figure 9. Summary of perceived QBS benefits. 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 GETTING BUY- IN FROM STAKEHOLDERS ESTABLISHING THE SELECTION COMMITTEE DEVELOPING DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCESS DEALING WITH PASSAGE OF ENABLING STATUTES STAFF EXPERIENCE WITH QBS PROJECTS DETERMINING SELECTION CRITERIA EDUCATING AND TRAINING PROJECT TEAM OBTAINING REQUIRED LEADERSHIP FROM PROJECT TEAMS USE OF NEW PROCUREMENT METHODS/CONTRACTS RESOURCING THE REQUIRED OWNER STAFFING WORKING WITH EXISTING PROCUREMENT CODES GETTING BUY- IN FROM PROJECT TEAM ENHANCED ABIL ITY TO OVERCOME CHALLENGES DETERMINING PROJECT PERFORMANCE INDICATORS REDUCED COST CERTAINTY AT CONTRACTOR SELECTION EXECUTING NEGOTIATIONS WITH CONTRACTORS ESTABLISHING ACCOUNTABIL ITY AND COMMON GOALS PROJECT FUNDING SOURCE DETERMINING WHICH PROJECTS WILL BENEFIT FROM QBS CHALLENGES FACED WITH QBS USE Figure 10. Summary of QBS challenges.
Current Qualifications-Based Selection Practices in Airport Project Delivery 31 Figure 9 shows that the greatest perceived value is found ensuring that well-qualified con- tractors and subcontractors are brought to the job. The opposite end of the list is the potential benefits associated with lower design, construction, and life-cycle costs. Intersecting this finding with the one regarding cost and schedule certainty obtained from the analysis of Figure 6 leads to a conclusion that QBS delivery provides enhanced certainty that projects will be completed on time and within budget. Contractors involved in the project were selected based on their qualifications and past performance and not because they offered the lowest bid price. Twenty years ago, a study by Lingard et al. (1998, p. 101) concluded that âthe lowest contemporaneous price cannot be guaranteed to yield the overall lowest project cost after execution.â Hence, the results of this synthesis confirm that conclusion reached two decades earlier. The second challenge shown in Figure 10 is project funding. The finding from the Figure 5 analysis demonstrated that airports are generally able to use QBS with most types of available funding. Therefore, the neutral rating shown in the above figure confirms the conclusion reached that, except for AIP and some state constraints, funding source procurement conditions are not the major barrier to implementing QBS. The remaining challenges would fit nicely into future research associated with updating ACRP Report 21 (Touran et al. 2009a). Figure 11 displays the responses received to a survey question that asked respondents to provide their perceptions of the impact of QBS delivery. The question was included as a means to identify personal biases of the individuals representing their organization and intended to be an objective means to disqualify a specific survey as biased and drop it from the population if necessary. First, note that no respondents indicated that QBS should not be used on a publicly funded project and that only one indicated that QBS should only be used for professional service con- tracts as is done in a Brooks Actâgoverned DBB project. Those findings are interpreted to demonstrate that no respondents retained a personal bias against QBS that would have influ- enced their other survey responses. Hence, all the responses discussed in the report are based on 100% of those received. Next, the highest rated response was the perception that QBS can be used to reduce the possibility that an airport will have to continue to award construction contracts to contractors with poor or marginal records of past performance. Gransberg and Riemer conducted inter- views regarding perceptions of contractor prequalification with 10 U.S. and Canadian general contractors and found them to be receptive âto implementing this system [QBS], because it reduces the number of marginally qualified contractors against which they must competeâ (Gransberg and Riemer 2009, p. 2). The same study also noted that a sophisticated contractor has difficulty competing with a marginally qualified contractor on a low-bid basis because the less qualified con- tractor will likely not recognize all the project risks until they are realized in the field. Another study of ACM delivery in the building construction sector found that CMR projects out- performed both DBB and DB because the contractor and owner can negotiate the projectâs risk profile before agreeing to a GMP (Molenaar et al. 2009), which reduces the amount of contin- gency that is buried in the construction price. That study did not include PDB directly, but the CMR finding would probably apply to PDB for the same reason. Finally, taking all the statements that were selected more than 50% of the time together leads one to infer that in addition to getting better-qualified contractors, the respondents feel that airports will also experience a decrease in disputes and a better-quality project. This perception is confirmed by a recently completed ACRP study on the impact of partnering at airports whose study population included ACMs with a QBS component (Mollaoglu et al. 2019). The authors Airports perceive significant benefits associated with the ability to select construction contractors on a basis of qualifications and past performance . . . including enhanced cost and schedule certainty, better quality, and a reduction in disputes during project execution.
32 Value, Benefits, and Limitations of Qualifications-Based Selection for Airport Project Delivery of the study found that DB and CMR/CMGC foster team collaboration between designers and contractors starting early during project delivery, improve contractorsâ commitment to collabo- rate, and resolve unforeseen issues. This might explain the higher perceived impact of partnering on team and individual performance in projects. State-of-the-Practice Summary Current QBS practices from surveyed airports can be summarized as follows: â¢ The use of QBS construction contractor selection where no preconstruction services are contemplated is rare. 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0% QBS SHOULD NOT BE USED ON PUBLICLY FUNDED PROJECTS FOR ANY SERVICES. QBS SHOULD ONLY BE USED FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PROCUREMENT ( I .E . , ARCHITECTURAL, ENGINEERING SERVICES) REPLACING A LOW BID SELECTION WITH QBS WILL INCREASE THE COST OF AIRPORT PROJECTS REPLACING A LOW BID SELECTION WITH QBS WILL MAKE IT DIFFICULT TO DETERMINE REASONABLENESS OF COSTS REPLACING A LOW BID SELECTION WITH QBS WILL ENHANCE THE TIMELY COMPLETION OF AIRPORT PROJECT. REPLACING A LOW BID SELECTION WITH QBS WILL DECREASE DISPUTES ON AIRPORT PROJECTS REPLACING A LOW BID SELECTION WITH QBS WILL PROVIDE AIRPORTS WITH BETTER QUALIFIED CONTRACTORS REPLACING A LOW BID SELECTION WITH QBS WILL INCREASE THE QUALITY OF AIRPORT PROJECTS REPLACING A LOW BID SELECTION WITH QBS WILL PROVIDE AIRPORTS WITH ABIL ITY TO AVOID AWARDING CONTRACTS TO CONTRACTORS WITH POOR RECORDS OF PAST PERFORMANCE. PERSONAL PERCEPTIONS OF QBS IMPACTS Figure 11. Summary of respondent personal perceptions regarding QBS.
Current Qualifications-Based Selection Practices in Airport Project Delivery 33 â¢ The use of QBS without a price component is reasonably widespread when the selection of the construction contractor is part of a CMR, PDB, or IDIQ contract. â¢ Many airports maintain one or more on-call general contractors through various IDIQ arrangements under different names. â¢ The most common IDIQ arrangement is called a managing general contractor services contract in which the owner will either stipulate or negotiate the contractorâs management fee and then reimburse the direct costs of each task order (project) on a time and materials basis or through some previously agreed formula. â¢ The primary motivation for choosing to implement QBS is to better manage project complexity. â¢ The use of QBS is also common for CMR and PDB contracts. In some jurisdictionsâArizona and Florida are two examplesâthe contract is awarded without the submission of any pricing information. In others, pricing information is submitted but not opened until the QBS award is made and merely serves as the basis for starting price negotiations. â¢ Airports perceive significant benefits associated with the ability to select construction con- tractors on the basis of qualifications and past performance. Those perceived benefits are enhanced cost and schedule certainty, better quality, and a reduction in disputes during project execution. â¢ The perceived benefits of QBS outweigh the perceived challenges of implementing QBS. â¢ There was no bias detected against QBS implementation among the 26 airports that responded to the survey. The preceding findings lead to the conclusion that the use of QBS awards that conform to the working definition proposed in Chapter 1 in CMR, PDB, and IDIQ contracts would be expected to promote project success by decreasing the risk that a marginally qualified contractor with a less than satisfactory record of past performance would win an airport project.