Owner's control and risks in various airport delivery methods

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.

Integrating Research Findings into Sustainable Building Delivery Teaching

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.

Appropriate project delivery method (PDM) is vital to ensure good performance of construction project. For decades, numerous researches have been conducted to develop a structured and descriptive decision-making framework for selecting an appropriate PDM. However, the adoption of structured and descriptive decision-making in selecting PDM in the construction industry is still understudied, especially in the Malaysian public sector. Thus, this paper attempts to investigate the practices and constraints of the Malaysian public sector in PDM selection for construction projects. This paper adopts an interpretive approach by conducting in-depth literature reviews of the numerous related researches, government policy and guidelines of PDM selection. This paper also assesses the effectiveness of the current PDM selection practices based on previous study findings and reports on PDM performance. Findings indicate that the traditional delivery method is prevalent PDM in most Malaysian public-funded construction projects. The Malaysian public sector has practised authoritarian and prescriptive decision-making governed by the government procurement guidelines in selecting PDM, which intentionally preserves political interests. Inappropriate PDM selection in project execution has produced an unconvincing performance by showing optimism bias on the expected outcome. The Malaysian public sector needs to improve the decision-making process by introducing a structured and descriptive PDM selection framework to derive better outcomes and convincing results. Thus, this paper is significant in improvising the decision-making mechanism in selecting appropriate PDM for the Malaysian public construction project.

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.

Alternative Project Delivery Methods (APDMs) are increasingly being recognized as effective alternatives to the traditional Design-Bid-Build (DBB) approach for transportation projects. As APDMs gain traction among California’s transportation agencies, understanding the legislative frameworks that enable their use and the characteristics of each method is critical. This study benchmarks the existing use of APDMs in California transportation agencies of varying types and sizes, while considering the characteristics (advantages and barriers/challenges to implementation) of each APDM and the authorizations enabling its implementation. Based on these findings, it also provides recommendations for key factors to consider in APDM selection and implementation. The study used a four-pronged mixed-methods approach, including a literature review, content analysis of 30 APDM-related bills (1999–2024), a statewide agency survey, and eight in-depth case studies. Findings reveal growing legislative support for broader APDM adoption with fewer restrictions than in the past, but findings also highlight disparities in implementation between agencies of different types (e.g., state vs. county agencies). Public and private sectors show differing levels of APDM maturity (experience and readiness) and future adoption plans, with greater interest in the Construction Manager/General Contractor (CM/GC) and Progressive Design-Build (PDB) methods than Design Build (DB). Key barriers include limited internal capacity, legislative constraints, and a lack of staff training, particularly among smaller agencies. The study also identifies a strong need for industry-wide awareness and strategic method selection based on project complexity and agency readiness. This study contributes actionable recommendations for legislators, agencies, and contractors to support effective APDM implementation. It lays the groundwork for future research into the effect of agency governance structures and decision-making cultures on APDM implementation and the development of tools to assess agency readiness and support informed APDM selection. This report supports the California State Transportation Committee (CSTC) and the State Legislature's decisions by providing a state-of-the-art exploration of the APDMs used in California and can help shape future APDM legislative directions. By helping agencies understand different project delivery methods, this research supports faster, more cost-effective, and higher-quality transportation projects that better serve California communities.

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

The proposed study investigates the differences in project owner decision outcomes for selecting the most suitable project delivery approach, using two Multi-Criteria Decision Making Methods, the Analytic Hierarchy Process and the Technique of Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution. The study considers three primary project delivery approaches: Design and Build, Traditional Design Bid Build, and Construction Management. The factors affecting owners' delivery preferences were explored in the literature and data was collected from project owners across the United Arab Emirates. The analyses were carried out on the three delivery methods. The results from the two methods were compared to find the differences in decision outcomes related to delivery type selection. The analysis showed that both methods yield the same results. Hence, both methods are applicable to use as a basis for decision making regarding the appropriate project delivery method and based on typical owners' preferences.

The proliferation of the several alternatives to the traditional design-bid-build (DBB) project delivery method (PDM), coupled with the ever-increasing demand to reach a faster delivery of ...

This paper is concerned with emerging trends within the delivery systems and financing methods of public and private infrastructure projects in the US, and with the ongoing debate on public/private partnerships. Project delivery methods and more generally the procurement policies that currently drive the management of the US infrastructure system are explored. The historical evolution of government procurement policies of facilities indicates a wide variety of strategies including a dual-track procurement strategy that used a combination of different delivery methods and, in many instances, private financing. The methods ranged from the combined procurement of the design, construction, operation and maintenance of a facility, such as Design-Build-Operate (DBO) and Design-Build-Finance-Operate (known outside the US as ‘BOT’), to the separate procurement of these services, such as Design-Bid-Building (DBB) and Design-Build (DB). In the last 50 years, there has been a shift toward the exclusive reliance on separate procurement such as DBB and the use of public funding. This approach is not sustainable financially,considering the widening gap between the availability of public funds and the increasing needs of the existing infrastructure system. Some drivers that foster a possible future shift in public procurement procedures are highlighted as well as the development of a more efficient infrastructure management practice. Cet article s'intéresse aux tendances qui se dessinent actuellement en matière de systèmes de livraison et de méthodes de financement de projets d'infrastructures publics et privés aux Etats-Unis ainsi qu'au débat sur les partenariats publics/ privés. Il analyse les méthodes de livraison des projets et, plus généralement, les politiques d'approvisionnement qui régissent aujourd'hui la gestion des systèmes d'infrastructure dans ce pays. L'évolution historique des politiques d'approvisionnement d'infrastructures du Gouvernement est marquée par une grande diversité de stratégies dont, notamment, une stratégie d'approvisionnement double qui repose sur une combinaison de différentes méthodes de livraison et, dans de nombreux cas, et de financement privé. Ces méthodes vont de l'approvisionnement combiné regroupant étude, construction, exploitation et maintenance d'une infrastructure, de type CCE (conception- construction-exploitation) et BOT (construction-exploitation-transfert), à l'approvisionnement distinct de ces services (par exemple, conceptionsoumission-construction ou DBB et conception-construction ou DB). Au cours des cinquante dernières années, on a préféré s'en remettre exclusivement à des approvisionnements séparés de type DBB et au financement public. Cette méthode n'est pas soutenable sur le plan financier vu l'écart qui se creuse entre la disponibilité des fonds publics et les besoins croissants des systèmes d'infrastructure existants. L'auteur met en lumière quelques arguments qui militent en faveur d'un éventuel retour vers les procédures d'approvisionnements publics et vers le développement de méthodes plus efficaces de gestion des infrastructures.

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.

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.

As chairman of the Council of American Structural Engineers (CASE), I would be remiss and probably impeached if I do not start by highlighting the need for an agreement between the Architect or the Engineer and the client to establish a scope of services to be provided by the design team and an understanding of the relationship among parties. CASE Document 2-2003 — An Agreement Between Client and Structural Engineer of Record for Professional Services is available on the ACEC — CASE Website.

This report documents the results of the second Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP 2) R07 project to develop and implement performance specifications for rapid highway renewal. The project adopted a broad definition of performance specifications to address not only the performance of the physical products of construction (including pavements, bridges, and earthwork) but also contractor performance in terms of time, safety, work zone traffic control, and other important project parameters. Performance specifications were considered in the context of different project delivery methods— including design-bid-build and design-build—and other innovative contracting variations involving warranties or maintenance and operation agreements. The products of the research include guide performance specifications for different application areas and delivery methods that users may tailor to address project-specific goals and conditions. Implementation guidelines were also prepared to accompany the guide specifications. To validate these materials, demonstration projects were conducted for geotechnical and bridge deck applications. The findings of the study generally support the use of performance specifications as a viable option for agencies interested in empowering the private sector to provide creative solutions to save time, minimize disruption, and enhance durability in the interest of rapid renewal.