Alternative Project Delivery Methods for Water and Wastewater Projects: The Satisfaction Level of Owners

Abstract

According to the 2013 Report Card for America’s Infrastructure, prepared by American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), the drinking water and wastewater infrastructure received grade of ‘D’. The American Water Works Association (AWWA) estimated that it would cost about $1 trillion to replace every drinking water pipe in U.S. Further, it would cost about $298 billion over the next 20 years to fix the nation’s wastewater and storm water systems. Owners, engineers, and contractors are using alternative project delivery (APD) methods, e.g., construction management-at-risk (CMAR), design-build (DB), construction manager/ general contractor to build water and wastewater projects in order to save time and cost as well as to improve the quality of the projects. In this study, a survey was designed to assess the satisfaction levels of policy makers, project staffs and utility managers regarding various benefits related to APD methods. The surveys were emailed to 455 owners using APD methods in their water and wastewater projects. The study results showed that, on average, owners and project staffs were satisfied with most of the issues related to these delivery methods. Particularly, study results elaborate on the differences in satisfaction levels between respondents involved in CMAR and DB projects.