Alternative Project Delivery Methods Research Articles

Construction safety challenges and opportunities at design stage for building industry in Pakistan

The implementation of Design for Construction Safety (DfCS) at the early design phase can proactively identify and address potential hazards in construction projects. By integrating safety considerations into the design process, it becomes possible to eliminate or minimize risks before they become costly and dangerous issues can also be avoided during construction. To gain insights into the current practices and barriers faced by professionals in the construction industry of Pakistan regarding DfCS, a comprehensive study was conducted. This study utilized a combination of questionnaire-based surveys and interviews to gather data from various stakeholders involved in the design and construction processes. The research revealed that DfCS was absent in the standard design practice. The weaknesses identified for the implementation of DfCS were designers’ inevitable doubts about increasing cost, schedule problems, absence of contracts and regulations, designers’ lack of safety knowledge and skills. The largest influential factors were regulatory liability on the designer (29%) and increasing costs (27%). The study identified that less trained worker were rated 59% for site accidents. 87% of respondents suggested revision of contract and regulations. The study proposed a framework to check constructability with respect to safety standards. Alternative project delivery method i.e., Design Build (DB) was recommended to reduce health and safety accidents and barriers.

Key lessons learned from adopting relational principles in the public sector: a case study in california.

Alternative project delivery methods that support collaboration are gaining significant attention in the public sector in the U.S., with increasing examples of owners that transform their traditional delivery methods into ones that reflect relational contracting principles. These approaches are new and despite their proven benefits, their widespread is hindered by the novelty and unfamiliarity nature. The aim of this paper was to contribute to bridge this gap. The key elements associated with relational principles were drawn from the literature and discussed in the light of an empirical case in California. This successful case study provides evidence that these elements can work, even with the limitations commonly observed in the public sector. The paper discusses observed best practices and reveals some practical insights from a project team that was implementing relational elements in the public sector for the first time. The findings of this study will hopefully contribute to the widespread of these practices, and inspire academics and practitioners to initiate or continue their journey towards more collaborative project delivery methods in the construction industry.

Exploring Unit Cost Performance for Water Infrastructure Delivery

Various delivery methods are used in the water industry for delivering treatment plant projects, which include the traditional design-bid-build (DBB) method as well as alternative project delivery methods (APDM), such as construction manager at risk (CMAR) and design-build (DB). Research has shown that APDM may improve water infrastructure project delivery performance when compared to DBB. However, utilizing an APDM does not guarantee a project’s successful delivery; other project variables also influence project delivery performance. The objective of this study is to develop exploratory mathematical models to investigate the impact of project-specific delivery factors and attributes on a water project’s success. The authors assess unit cost performance, which is a measure of a water treatment plant’s capacity in million gallons per day, over a project’s total cost. This study consisted of holding an industry expert workshop to review and develop a data collection questionnaire. Information on a total of 15 water treatment plant projects delivered in the US was collected and used to develop multiple linear regression models that explored project-specific key factors and attributes that impact unit cost performance. Results of the regression models revealed four critical variables: (1) use of GMP; (2) project team experience; (3) level of design completed before constructor engagement; and (4) project complexity, to have a statistically significant impact on the unit cost performance of water projects. The findings and contributions of this study can aid water stakeholders in understanding the unit cost performance impact of key project variables on their projects and support them in their project delivery method decisions.

Comparing Cost, Schedule, and Quality of CM/GC and DBB Project Delivery for Repetitive Commercial Construction

ABSTRACT 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%.

Alternative Project Delivery Method Adoption in the AEC Industry: An Organizational Change Perspective

ABSTRACT In the last two decades, an increasing number of organizations have shifted from using the design-bid-build delivery method (DBB) to alternative project delivery methods (APDMs). This shift requires changes for both the organizations and the individuals involved. This study provides guidelines detailing how to lead APDM adoption at the organizational level through using a change management perspective. The guidelines were developed based on analyzing the results of semi-structured interviews with nine individuals. The participants were industry professionals who were selected because their organizations had successfully adopted APDMs. The findings from the interviews indicate that the best opportunity to implement APDMs successfully is available through using four phases. The phases are preparing and planning, pilot project testing the project, expanding to the intended scale and sustaining and evaluating. The phases include specific organizational change management (OCM) practices that increase the probability of successful APDM adoption. This study contributes to organizational change in the AEC industry by explaining how OCM practices are used to implement APDMs successfully. This study also contributes to the existing body of knowledge by providing guidelines that can help public owner organizations as they consider adopting APDMs for the first time.

Constructability Reviews Utilization Practices for Traditional and Alternative Project Delivery Methods Across State Transportation Agencies

State Transportation Agencies (STAs) recognized that to enhance the quality of construction documents, a review process must be incorporated into project planning, design, and procurement to evaluate projects for constructability. The benefits promised by constructability reviews (CRs) encouraged STAs to adopt it as part of their operations. This approach soon evolved into a structured process, recognized by researchers and practitioners as, the constructability review process (CRP). A significant component to the CRP success is to involve experienced construction personnel in CRs during the design phase; a major limitation of the traditional design-bid-build (DBB) delivery method. To overcome this limitation, more emphasis is being placed towards alternative project delivery methods (APDMs). As such, design–build (DB) and construction manager/general contractor (CM/GC) are among the APDMs most utilized by STAs to deliver transportation projects. Although extensive research has investigated CRs under DBB projects, research on CRs implementation under APDMs is remarkably absent. This study examines CRs utilization and staffing practices adopted by STAs across DBB, DB, and CM/GC projects. The results of this study were drawn utilizing data collected through a national survey questionnaire and interviews with selected STAs. The study found that CRs are initiated and implemented at proportionally similar phases across DBB, DB, and CM/GC projects. Investigation of staffing needs revealed that although the agency holds the executive role in implementation of CRs on DBB projects, their role shifts on DB projects to become more administrative. The agency continues to be involved in CRs under CM/GC projects, along with their allocated design consultant, in conjunction with the GC. The results of this study are anticipated to provide STAs with guidance for CRs utilization on DBB, DB and CM/GC projects.

Transition from traditional to alternative project delivery methods in water and wastewater project: executive decision-makers' perspective

PurposeThe purpose of this study is to determine the barriers and constraints executive decision-makers have to face during the delivery method selection stage of water and wastewater projects using alternative project delivery (APD) methods, e.g. design-build (DB), design-build-operate (DBO) and construction management-at-risk (CMAR).Design/methodology/approachStructured interviews were conducted with 18 executive decision-makers from public agencies to identify the reasons for transitioning to APD from the design-bid-build (DBB) method. Respondents were also asked about the major obstacles they faced during the decision-making process, as well as key positive and negative factors in using APD methods. The executive decision-makers were also asked about their lessons learned during this process. In addition, this study collected key steps in making APD water and wastewater projects successful. All of the findings from the interview phase were validated by seven public agency executive decision-makers of water and wastewater industries.FindingsOne major study finding was that executive decision-makers chose the APD method because it provided cost and schedule benefits and the owner could also choose the designer or builder based on qualifications. The study also found that the main obstacles executive decision-makers faced were: (1) difficulty in implementing APD methods because they do not follow the low-bid process, (2) reluctance to use DB/CMAR because of the status quo and (3) unfamiliarity of city councils/elected commissions with the DB/CMAR process. The validation survey found that most findings from the initial phase of interviews were confirmed by the executives who took part in validation phase.Research limitations/implicationsThe major limitation of this research is the small sample size. As the executive decision-makers are very hard to reach for interviews, the authors failed to get interviews from a large number of them, despite repeated efforts made by the authors. Another limitation of this study is that the authors contacted most of the executive decision-makers listed in the WDBC list. These executive decision-makers worked for public agencies and, therefore, the views from private agencies could not be included in this research. The authors understand that the validation of the study findings is very important. However, due to the scope and limited time available for the research, the authors could not validate the findings of this study with other public agencies.Practical implicationsSelecting APD methods instead of DBB methods in water and wastewater projects for public agencies is a crucial issue during the project planning phase. Agencies' executive decision-makers need to understand the advantages and disadvantages of APD methods, along with the transition process in order to smoothly deliver projects. The findings of this study will assist public agency executive decision-makers to mitigate risks, overcome obstacles and become more educated about the APD method process, so that these projects can be successfully delivered within budget and on time.Originality/valueThis paper contributes to the existing body of knowledge by identifying lessons learned related to various APD method issues, which can be utilized by municipal executive decision-makers to successfully complete future APD projects.

Post-Disaster Infrastructure Delivery for Resilience

As climate change increases the frequency and intensity of disasters and associated infrastructure damage, Alternative Project Delivery Methods are well positioned to enable innovative contracting and partnering methods for designing and delivering adaptation solutions that are more time- and cost-effective. However, where conventional “build-back-as-before” post-disaster reconstruction occurs, communities remain vulnerable to future disasters of similar or greater magnitude. In this conceptual paper, we draw on a variety of literature and emergent practices to present how such alternative delivery methods of reconstruction projects can systematically integrate “build-back-better” and introduce more resilient infrastructure outcomes. Considering existing knowledge regarding infrastructure resilience, post-disaster reconstruction and project delivery methods, we consider the resilience regimes of rebound, robustness, graceful extensibility, and sustained adaptability to present the potential for alternative project delivery methods to improve the agility and flexibility of infrastructure against future climate-related and other hazards. We discuss the criticality of continued pursuit of stakeholder engagement to support further improvements to project delivery methods, enabling new opportunities for engaging with a broader set of stakeholders, and for stakeholders to contribute new knowledge and insights to the design process. We conclude the significant potential for such methods to enable resilient infrastructure outcomes, through prioritizing resilience alongside time and cost. We also present a visual schematic in the form of a framework for enabling post-disaster infrastructure delivery for resilience outcomes, across different scales and timeframes of reconstruction. The findings have immediate implications for agencies managing disaster recovery efforts, offering decision-support for improving the adaptive capacity of infrastructure, the services they deliver, and capacities of the communities that rely on them.

Employee Reactions to Adoption of Alternative Project Delivery Methods within the AEC Industry

ABSTRACT The implementation of alternative project delivery methods (APDMs) in the architecture, engineering, and construction (AEC) industry has increased in recent years. Yet implementation of these methods requires an organizational change effort. One of the challenges facing organizations that are implementing organizational change initiatives is employee resistance to change. The aim of this study was to investigate AEC employees’ reactions to the adoption of APDMs and to examine the methods used to communicate the APDM adoption to employees. To achieve the aim, survey responses were collected from 140 respondents across AEC owner organizations in the United States. Results indicate that employees in AEC owner organizations react favorably to adopting a change in their project delivery systems. Results further reveal that increasing the use of organizational change management (OCM) practices is related to decreased employee resistance to change. Surprisingly, employee reactions do not mediate the relationship between OCM practices and APDM adoption. The findings also indicate that the most effective ways to disseminate change messages to employees are presentations, on-the-job support, and meetings. The findings of this study may be useful for change practitioners in which employees’ reactions toward the changes in project delivery methods are more supportive than resistive to change.

Best practices of organizational change for adopting alternative project delivery methods in the AEC industry

PurposeAlthough numerous studies have examined alternative project delivery methods (APDMs), most of these studies have focused on the relationship between these methods and improved project performance. Limited research identifies how to successfully add these methods within architectural, engineering and construction (AEC) organizations. The purpose of this paper is to identifying organizational change management (OCM) practices that, when effectively executed, lead to increased success rates of adopting APDMs in owner AEC organizations.Design/methodology/approachSeven OCM practices were identified through a comprehensive literature review. Then, through a survey of 140 individuals at 98 AEC organizations, the relationships between OCM practices and organizational adoption of APDMs were established.FindingsThe findings indicate that OCM practices with the strongest relationship to successful APDM adoption are realistic timeframe, effective change agents, workloads adjustments, senior-leadership commitment and sufficient change-related training.Practical implicationsAdopting APDMs can be extremely difficult and requires significant organizational change efforts to ensure the change is a success. Organizations that are implementing APDMs for the first time should consider applying the OCM practices that this study identifies as most related to successful APDM adoption.Originality/valueThis study contributes to the existing body of knowledge by identifying the OCM practices that are most significantly associated with successfully adopting APDMs.

Improving cost performance in design-bid-build road projects by mapping the reasons for cost overruns into the project phases.

Alternative project delivery methods such as design-build (DB) have shown to be better for controlling cost growth comparing with the traditional Design-Bid-Build (DBB) method. The purpose of this research is to identify the main reasons for cost overruns in the design, the procurement and the construction phases of DBB road projects as a point of departure to find specific elements of DB project delivery that might help to minimize these reasons. To identify these reasons, an exploratory content analysis was performed based on the study of 41 interviews conducted with professionals involved in road project management in Chile. Literature review and document analysis of DB were used to analyze the identified reasons under the framework of the DB practice in the United States. The results showed that four elements based on the DB approach might be used to minimize cost overruns in DBB projects: (1) In the design phase, road administrators should consider the early integration of the constructor’s expertise. In the procurement phase, they should establish (2) instances for effective information exchange and (3) a goal-oriented selection process. Overall, road administrators should consider (4) establishing a one-point of high-level accountability for the design, the procurement, and the construction phases. This study will serve DBB road administrators to start the transition from DBB to more collaborative approaches that will help to minimizer cost overruns and therefore, to improve the project cost performance.

Design information release under alternative design-construction modes

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to analyse the impact of schedule compression under alternative project delivery methods (APDMs) on the design information release (DIR). The objectives are to understand the dynamics and the respective implications of the DIR under alternative design-construction (DC) modes (e.g. fast-track).Design/methodology/approachThe methodology of work includes: (1) identifying the relevant factors that may impact the release of design deliverables under APDMs, (2) representing the selected APDMs with corresponding DC sequencing modes and (3) conceptualizing the possible alternative dynamics of the released deliverables.FindingsThe findings reveal that in contrast to the traditional one-time packaging of design deliverables, multiple DIR – with less certainty on their scope, timing, frequency and coordination quality – are released under alternative DC modes. This uncertainty mainly emanates from the deduced impact of the identified factors (e.g. DC overlapping intensity and degree of pressure by the builder) on the design deliverables dynamics.Practical implicationsThis study can be of benefit to Architecture/Engineering (A/E) professionals as well as to project owners in better planning for their roles and responsibilities under each of the identified modes, as it helps raising their awareness on new issues brought about by APDMs. For instance, the presented analysis indirectly informs designers, design review professionals and project owners about a potentially increased liability exposure emanating from the reduced certainty on the DIR's coordination quality. Moreover, it informs design managers about the need for a design team's re-formation and/or re-structuring (i.e. of the involved staff) in order to accommodate for the hypothesized DIR dynamics.Originality/valueThis work offers a novel study that theorizes the impact of time-reduction-related factors, under alternative DC modes, on the release of design deliverables.

A comparison of project delivery method performance for water infrastructure capital projects

Water and wastewater infrastructure globally is aging and in need of rehabilitation and replacement. Design-bid-build (DBB) is the traditional method of project delivery widely applied across the construction industry. However, alternative project delivery methods (APDM) such as construction manager at risk (CMAR) and design-build (DB) are on the rise demonstrating project delivery performance benefits. The research objective is to assess the impact of APDM specifically for the water and wastewater industry. A comprehensive list of performance metrics was identified from the literature and through an industry expert workshop. Information on 75 water and wastewater treatment plant projects using DBB, CMAR, and DB was collected. Quantitative data analysis revealed that DB statistically outperformed DBB in terms of project speed and intensity. This study contributed to the existing body of knowledge by showing that treatment plants can be delivered significantly faster and with greater quality for no additional cost by using APDM.

Comparative Analysis of Alliancing and Public Private Partnership Cost Performance in Australasia Infrastructure Projects

Alternative project delivery methods such as Alliancing and Public-Private Partnership (PPP) are increasingly used to deliver complex infrastructure projects around the world and in Australasia in particular. Alliancing is expected to benefit owners with superior cost control, high levels of collaboration, and better risk management. Yet, PPP has remained the dominant provider for infrastructure projects. This paper empirically compares the cost growth performance of Alliancing and PPP in Australasia infrastructure projects under the lenses of Relational Contracting Theory and Transaction Cost Economics Theory (TCE). Data were collected from state records and previous studies on 48 completed projects. The analysis of the data using change order growth, bid growth, and project growth ratios shows that alliancing outperformed PPP in meeting cost expectations. These results challenge the traditional assumption of PPP superiority in delivering infrastructure projects.

Methodology to Assess the Impact of Lump-Sum Compensation Provisions on Project Schedules

AbstractAlthough alternative project delivery methods have become increasingly popular among state transportation agencies and researchers, common design-bid-build (DBB) procurement methods are the...

Investigation of Legal Issues in Construction-Manager-at-Risk Projects: Case Study of Airport Projects

AbstractThe use of alternative project delivery methods has increased significantly in the last decade. In the past, airport projects were designed and constructed using the traditional design-bid-...

Long-Term Performance Benefits of the Design-Build Delivery Method Applied to Road Pavement Projects in the U.S.

The use of alternative project delivery methods has grown significantly over the last two decades. One such method is design-build (DB), which has been increasingly used due to its improved project cost and schedule performance. However, the project itself is only a fraction of the lifecycle of a built facility. Therefore, there is a need to understand whether delivery methods also impact the long-term performance of facilities. This paper focuses on quantifying the long-term performance impact of DB on pavements, compared to pavements delivered using the traditional design-bid-build (DBB) method. The international roughness index is selected as the metric to compare ride quality across projects. In total, the authors collected 9,946 data points representing 37 unique lane directions from 26 projects in six states, which they analyzed using linear mixed-effects methods. Results show that long-term performance of asphalt concrete pavement resurfacing DB projects is superior to that of comparable DBB projects by an equivalent of eight years of pavement life. A life cycle cost analysis shows the estimated monetary impact of these findings on the National Highway System is around $100 billion over the next 45 years.

Legal and Contractual Issues in Lump-Sum Design-Build Implementation on Large-Scale Airport Projects

AbstractChanges in legislation and increases in the complexity of airport projects have led owners to expand the use of alternative project delivery methods, such as the lump-sum design-build (DB) ...

Design-Build for Transportation Projects: Cost and Schedule Change Performance Analysis

AbstractDesign-build (DB) is an alternative project delivery method that has been used to great effect in transportation project delivery. Measuring the performance of DB projects has been the subj...

Evaluation of the contract reliability for alternative infrastructure project delivery: a contract engineering method

Governments at all levels are increasingly motivating the private sector to participate in infrastructure development using alternative project delivery methods to relieve financial burden. When designing contracts, governments usually offer incentives while requiring cost or time guarantee to balance project attractiveness to the private sector and fair protection of public interest. However, a practical and critical problem is how to properly design these provisions. Although previous studies have investigated the value of these provisions, a knowledge gap still exists with respect to methods of fairly and effectively designing such provisions. This study fills this gap by developing a methodology that analyzes the appropriateness of guarantee or warranty provisions for contracts. In this study, a contract reliability index is constructed, and a process of evaluating contract reliability is proposed. The New Mexico Highway 44 project, in which three warranty provision arrangements are investigated, is used as a case study to illustrate the analysis process. Results show that although a ceiling clause can effectively motivate the private sector to participate in the project, it sacrifices a significant amount of public benefits. By contrast, although a warranty option can protect public benefits, it cannot effectively incentivize the private sector. A combination of the ceiling clause and the warranty option will therefore result in improved contract provision design. The proposed methodology in this study is especially useful for governments in properly determining contract clauses in infrastructure development.