Alternative Project Delivery Methods in California: The Path Forward

Design/Bid/Build (DBB) delivery is the traditional approach for establishing the least cost for building projects, but other alternative project delivery methods have become increasingly popular. Although multiple studies have compared delivery methods for vertical construction, there have not been any comprehensive studies quantifying how delivery methods compare specifically for repetitive commercial construction. This research utilized a mixed methods approach to compare the cost, schedule, and quality of Construction Manager/General Contractor (CM/GC) delivered projects with DBB projects for repetitive commercial construction, using 173 facilities built with the same base floorplan. A comprehensive quantitative comparison was conducted, excluding potential confounding variables and including short- and long-term direct and indirect costs, construction time, and quality assessment scores. Contractors and project managers were also surveyed regarding their perceptions of CM/GC process effectiveness in a repetitive construction environment. This research demonstrated that the CM/GC delivery method was more effective for repetitive commercial construction, uniquely quantifying the relative cost, schedule, and quality improvements of CM/GC delivery over DBB projects. Compared to DBB, CM/GC projects produced total construction cost savings of 5.4%, a 20% shorter construction cycle time, consistently higher quality assessment scores, and an overall reduction in repair costs of 34%.

The impact of alternative project delivery methods (APDM) was compared with that of the traditional method of design–bid–build (DBB) on the long-term performance of transportation projects. The metric used to quantify long-term performance differences between projects is the international roughness index (IRI), which is an indicator of ride quality. Data were collected on four alternative delivery projects on the National Highway System in Arizona and Colorado, along with data on their comparable DBB projects. Two of the projects provided northbound and southbound data and their respective comparisons, so six pairs of projects were investigated. In the study of the IRI time series, five of the six APDM projects were found to perform better than their traditional counterparts. This exploratory study contributes to the body of knowledge by starting to quantify the impact of APDM on the actual long-term performance of transportation projects.

Traditional Design/Bid/Build project delivery methods are inherently cumbersome for complex façade repair programs. The repair program on an 11 — story apartment building is documented, demonstrating the aspects and benefits of utilizing a Design/Build contracting approach, with the Design-Professional leading the repair program. The project begins with an assessment that concludes with the recommendation to replace the façade. Early evaluation efforts document the need for immediate safety/ stabilization measures, then progress through the successful delivery of a complex façade repair program under a project delivery method that is growing in acceptance.

This guidebook describes various project delivery methods for major airport capital projects. The guidebook also evaluates the impacts, advantages, and disadvantages of these various project delivery methods. The project delivery methods discussed include design-bid-build (DBB), construction manager at risk (CMR), and design-build (DB). The guidebook offers a two-tiered project delivery selection framework that may be used by owners of airport projects to evaluate the pros and cons of each delivery method and select the most appropriate method for their project. Tier 1 is an analytical delivery decision approach that is designed to help the user understand the attributes of each project delivery method and whether the delivery method is appropriate for their specific circumstance. Tier 2 uses a weighted-matrix delivery decision approach that allows users to prioritize their objectives and, based on the prioritized objectives, select the delivery method that is best suited for their project. The report will be helpful to airports with determining the most appropriate project delivery methods (e.g., DBB, DB, or CMR) for various types of airport capital projects.

The province of Quebec, Canada, seeks to implement relational alternate project delivery methods to achieve sustainability and energy efficiency in public construction. However, the relational differences between the formal written parts of different delivery methods have yet to be analyzed and understood, as is the case with the relational aspects of contracts and the achievement of sustainable and energy-efficient infrastructure. Using a hermeneutic interpretation of Macneil’s relational contract norms and grounded theory, 26 contracts involving Quebec’s largest public client of vertical infrastructure and representing three different types of project delivery methods (design–bid–build (DBB), design–Build (DB), and construction manager–general contractor/integrated project delivery (CMGC/IPD)) were analyzed using NVivo. It was found that CMGC/IPD is the most relational project delivery method available to Quebec’s public clients, namely because of the public client’s active involvement in the realization process, the increasing complexity of roles, the multitude of common management structures, and the internalization of sustainability measures and conflict resolution. Furthermore, Quebec’s CMGC/IPD was found to be an IPD-ish delivery method, lacking the early involvement of the construction manager and the risk/reward sharing mechanisms necessary to achieve pure IPD status. The findings and theoretical considerations discussed here will help policymakers, contract drafters, and public clients interested in implementing relational contracting practices in public construction projects.

Performance in the construction industry is wrought with challenges and owners often are victim to cost and schedule overruns, particularly on high profile projects that are large, complex, and risky. Alternative project delivery methods and techniques are continually being developed and implemented by buyers of construction services to address these problems. The Best Value Business Model (BVBM) has been rigorously tested and shown to improve project performance via its three-phased approach to project delivery. BVBM increases performance throughout the construction project lifecycle by utilizing value-based selection processes, pre-contract planning methodologies, and performance measurement systems. The objective of this research is to provide a detailed case study of BVBM application on a design-build project to deliver a highly complex research facility with tight schedule and budget thresholds. The implementation process is discussed in detail and project results are provided and analyzed to demonstrate the ability of BVBM to improve project performance. Special attention is paid to the ability of BVBM to optimize project cost and schedule performance through the application of a value-based selection methodology, a pre-contract preplanning period, and a weekly risk management system.

The project delivery method has a great impact on project performance and construction quality. The numerous studies on the project performance of the two project delivery methods, design-bid-build (DBB) and design-build (DB), have found differing results depending on the project locations, the project types, and the project sizes. Since no previous studies have been conducted with regard to large-sized apartment housing projects, this paper presents the comparative analysis results for the project performance of the DB and DBB methods, focusing on the large-sized public apartment housing projects built in Korea. The project performances considered include cost, cost growth, construction duration, construction duration growth, and quality performance. The cost and schedule performance analysis results show that the cost growth of the DB method is about 5% lower than that of the DBB method and the construction duration is shortened by twelve days per floor. The quality performance analysis results demonstrate that the satisfaction with the DB method is higher in terms of the construction quality and efficiency of the DB method. This paper contributes to the growing body of research into the efficiency of project delivery methods, expanding the body of knowledge for large-sized public apartment housing projects.

Airport projects are sensitive in terms of security and control over operations. They are usually complex undertakings and require a comprehensive risk analysis. Many airport projects have a phased plan for expansion which equates to simultaneous operation and construction. These distinguishing characteristics affect the choice of project delivery method (PDM) as each PDM provides the airport with its own advantages and disadvantages in terms of risk, control and security. This paper studies the interactions of risk, control and security in airport projects and discusses these interactions in the context of major available PDMs, namely design-bid-build (DBB), design-build (DB) and construction manager at risk (CMR). Several interviews with airport authorities were conducted to ensure the validity of findings. This paper shows that there is no ideal delivery method that can facilitate risk transfer and security measures implementation while giving the owner a high level of control over the project with the lowest possible contract price. The trade-off between risk and control in airport projects is the main focus of the paper.

The emergence of alternative project delivery and finance methods in developing and sustaining infrastructure assets increases the significance of valuing such facilities. As private participants are introduced into the delivery of public facilities, the balance of possible future cash flows with initial capital inflows is an essential aspect of ensuring project viability. Traditional valuation techniques, which provide a tangible basis for the ultimate investment decision, often are employed in project financial analysis. The uncertainty of future cash flows, however, presents unique challenges for the use of these traditional methods. Moreover, the active management and planning of infrastructure projects creates flexibility that is largely ignored by traditional valuation methods. The Dulles Greenway, a recent private highway venture, provides a perspective to understand how “options” are used intuitively throughout a large-scale project and how the “option” to wait and resolve uncertainty can be valued with simple techniques that supplement traditional valuation methods. This article retrospectively analyzes project cash flows and the decision to invest in the Dulles Greenway.

Project Delivery Methods in Large Public Road Projects – A Case Study of E6 Jaktøyen - Sentervegen

This study was conducted to compare design errors risk in Design-Bid- Build (DBB) (traditional) and Design-Build (DB) methods in building projects. Several construction projects under both DB and DBB method were reviewed. On most of construction projects under DB method, it was found that there were over supply of floor area due to different reasons. Also, it was found that, clients’ requirements were changed during project execution, which resulted into change on schedule, contract value and project quality. It was also revealed that in most cases, designs were in accordance with the clients’ requirements as submitted earlier but during construction clients requested to add some items, which resulted in change of both contract sum and period. For projects under DBB method, the results showed that during project enactment, projects experienced design errors in different ways such as change in specifications, slow decision making, unforeseen conditions and change in clients’ requirements as the aspect of design errors. Approvals of changed materials and additional works were delayed in some occasions; thus, leading to contractors to slow down the construction. It was also further found that the variation in final cost, time and project quality of building construction projects due to design error aspect is more likely to occur when using DB as a delivery method than DBB. The study suggests knowledge sharing, visitation to site before designing and proper planning for design error reduction.

The demand for commercial interior design and fit-out projects has been increasing steadily, with the Architectural, Engineering, and Construction (AEC) industry paying more attention to this area due to the demand for commercial sectors such as offices, retail, and hospitality. Limited research is available on commercial interior design and fit-out practices, particularly on the effectiveness of the design-build (DB) project delivery method in dealing with the project objectives, such as timeline, cost, quality, and client satisfaction. This research aims to identify the significance of commercial interior design and fit-out (CIDFO) in the AEC industry in Auckland, New Zealand. It further evaluates the interior design and fit-out processes and the role and effectiveness of the design-build (DB) project delivery method used by companies in delivering fit-out projects, as compared to traditional project delivery methods. This research engages interpretative and social constructionist perspectives to enrich qualitative data analysis by shedding light on the practitioner’s interplay between social context and individual experiences. Data is integrated through semi-structured interviews with practitioners who work within Auckland's CIDFO industry. The findings of this research captured the practitioner's perception of their understanding of the CIDFO in Auckland and the effectiveness of DB on project timeline, cost, quality and client satisfaction. This was based on their project role and experiences. In narrating the meanings and processes of commercial interior design and fit-out, the practitioners drew on their own real-world experiences of situations and the characteristics of the companies they work in. In doing so, this study fills the research gap on commercial interior fit-out practices and processes. It provides insights into why the design-build project delivery method is perceived to be effective and widely used by commercial interior design companies in delivering fit-out projects. The study will be important for interior designers, architects, builders, and project managers in evaluating the effectiveness of the design-build project delivery method in delivering commercial interior design and fit-out projects.

Determining an appropriate delivery method for highway projects is a complex process. This paper presents a decision support approach to assist highway agencies in evaluating and selecting the most suitable delivery method for their projects. The approach uses a matrix to consider three fundamental delivery methods currently in use by the highway industry: design–bid–build, design–build, and construction manager–general contractor. The approach, which is in use by the Colorado Department of Transportation (DOT), includes four primary selection factors (delivery schedule, complexity and innovation, level of design, and initial project risk assessment) and four secondary selection factors (cost, staff experience and availability, level of oversight and control, and competition and contractor experience) in the delivery decision. These eight selection factors, along with opportunities and challenges for each delivery method, were identified through a literature search and were tested by discussions and workshops with innovative contracting leaders from the Colorado DOT, FHWA, the American Council of Engineering Companies, Associated General Contractors of America, and the University of Colorado. The approach enables an initial risk assessment to occur early in the project development process and before the project delivery decision. The project delivery selection matrix promotes a better understanding of project goals, risks, and opportunities and enhances alignment among project participants. The approach has been successfully tested and implemented through eight projects of varying scope throughout Colorado. This paper presents the project delivery selection matrix along with an illustrative case study to demonstrate the results. The research provides a defensible and repeatable process for highway agencies to select an appropriate delivery method for their projects.

A project quality assurance organization (QAO) assigns project quality responsibilities and relationships, both for design and construction. In the highway sector, all project quality roles and responsibilities have historically been assigned to the state highway agency (SHA), an accepted and well-understood industry practice. However, increasing use of alternative project delivery methods and reductions in SHA staffing are having an impact on traditional QAO practices. SHAs are increasingly selecting alternative QAOs, but they are making these selections in an ad hoc manner because of limited staff knowledge and experience, and a lack of guidance from the research community. Highway design and construction quality research focuses almost exclusively on inspections, observations, corporate quality, warranties, and materials testing, resulting in a gap in the research about shifts in project quality roles and responsibilities. This research extends the civil engineering quality management body of knowledge by identifying factors that influence the selection of QAOs and rating the appropriateness of the QAOs for each selection factor. Because of the complexity of the topic, scope of the decision process, and the limited project data available, structured interviews and the Delphi method were chosen to explore the selection factors. The research discovered 10 factors: project size, project complexity, project delivery method, project schedule sensitivity, availability of agency project staff, agency project staff experience, agency culture, industry ability to manage their own quality, trust between agency and industry, and amount of quality risk to shift away from the agency. The research provides the highway industry with new understanding of the effects that each selection factor has on the fundamental QAOs. This fundamental knowledge will allow SHAs to make more informed QAO selections.

In this study, four road project delivery models are analyzed by the grey relational analysis (GRA). The four models are design-bid-build (DBB), design-build (DB), construction management (CM) and design build-maintenance (DBM). Evaluating road project delivery models is difficult because the projects differ from road to road, state to state and country to country. Thus, the evaluation data of project delivery systems are poor and lacking. Therefore, grey relational analysis and grey entropy weighting method are considered to compare the efficiency of the four road project delivery models. Grey system theory is a multidisciplinary and generic theory dealing with systems characterized by poor information and/or for which information is lacking. According to the result, DBM is the best model. DBB is the worst one and DB is better than CM. The results may provide public sectors to employ an adequate model so as to proceed with road construction project.