Construction Manager/general Contractor Research Articles

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%.

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.

Staffing needs and utilization for alternative contracting methods in highway design and construction

PurposeThis research investigates procedures and effective practices on staffing needs and utilization for successful implementation of alternative contracting methods (ACMs) in the United Sates, including design–build (D–B) and construction manager/general contractor (CM/GC) delivery methods.Design/methodology/approachThe review of published empirical studies, a national survey of transportation agencies and case studies of highway agencies form the basis of the conclusions in this research. In addition to the national survey, with 46 of 50 agencies participating, the research presents case studies from five highway agencies in the United States including the following: California, Florida, Georgia, Minnesota and Virginia. These five case studies were selected from agencies that have extensive experience in delivering ACM projects. The case studies involved a thorough procedural review and structured interviews of agency personnel. The agencies then validated the results and conclusions.FindingsThe results showed that implementing ACM projects requires different knowledge, skills and management and coordination efforts than traditional design–bid–build (D–B–B) projects. The study found that the key success factors of implementing ACMs are the following: (1) establishment of an ACM champion; (2) active involvement of key staff throughout the ACM project development process; (3) appropriate use of consultants and (4) ACM training and staff development.Research limitations/implicationsThe issue on how to attract and retain talented staff and a committed core workforce with appropriate skills and competences for ACM implementation is vital for highway agencies, but it lacks information and guidance. The chief limitation of this research is that the primary data were collected from highway agencies in the United Sates. Any future research should include more data to enhance the validity of this study outside of the public transportation sector.Practical implicationsDeveloping a sustainable level of core staff plays an important role in implementing an ACM program. The result of this research will help transportation agencies and other public owners to develop effective staffing strategies for successful implementation of ACMs. The findings of this research also address the appropriate use of consultants to supplement core staff with regard to delivery of ACM projects.Originality/valueThis research is the first attempt to examine the staffing needs and utilization for ACM projects.

Contract Administration Tools for Design-Build and Construction Manager/General Contractor Highway Projects

AbstractAlternative contracting methods (ACMs) such as design-build (DB) and construction manager/general contractor (CM/GC), when used strategically, have been shown in some studies to offer cost ...

Just-in-Time Delivery Requires Just-in-Time Production X2 – Sychronising Factory and Site for Successful Prefabrication

Failure to synchronize production on-site with production in the factory leads to losses for the client/owner, the Construction Manager/General Contractor (CM/GC) and subcontractors as well as to delays in the construction schedule. How can off-site fabrication of sub-assemblies be synchronised with predictable production and assembly on-site so as to increase the chances that the site is ready to receive each sub-assembly when it arrives and that site operations are not delayed by waiting for delivery of sub-assemblies? From the construction literature and the authors’ personal experiences it is clear that Critical Path Methods are not fit for this purpose; rigorous, collaborative, short-term planning is much more effective. Value for practitioners: ideas for what to pay attention to, in order to reduce both work waiting for workers (or robots) and workers (or robots) waiting for work. Value for scholars: ideas for further research.

Critical Comparison of Progressive Design-Build and Construction Manager/General Contractor Project Delivery Methods

Progressive design-build (PDB) is an emerging variation of alternative contracting methods (ACMs) in the highway construction industry. It is widely used in water/wastewater and airport projects, but it is new to federally-funded highway projects. A few state department of transportations (DOTs) have begun to experiment with the method, using their experience with qualification-based selection (QBS) and a subsequent negotiated construction price from construction manager/general contractor (CMGC) contracting. There has been little written that provides guidance to public highway agencies who are interested in implementing PDB. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to first describe the mechanics of PDB project delivery to provide consistent foundation information from which DOTs can inform their decision as to when to use it. The paper also provides a comparative analysis of PDB with CMGC and finds that they are nearly identical with regard to format, differing only in whether the owner retains the design responsibility in CMGC or assigns it to the design-builder in PDB. It also finds that PDB is more appropriate than traditional design-build (DB) for projects in which the owner needs to engage the design-builder in the preliminary engineering and environmental permitting process.

Timing of Cost Certainty in Highway Construction Project Delivery: Perceptions versus Empirical Results

The early timing of cost certainty during highway project delivery is a primary reason for using alternative contracting methods, but the relative performance of these delivery methods has not been quantified by previous researchers. This research addresses the gap in knowledge by quantitatively showing how the traditional design-bid-build delivery method and the alternative contracting methods of construction manager/general contractor (CM/GC) and design-build (D-B) compare in the timing of cost certainty on U.S. highway construction projects. A novel comparison of the performance of CM/GC versus D-B projects procured by best value is performed. The results reveal a difference between the perceptions of agency decision makers and empirical project performance. By comparing empirical project data with findings aggregated from experts in a Delphi study and with a review of the limited relevant literature, this paper highlights contradictory findings and inconsistencies in the relative performance among the different sources of information. For the alternative contracting methods, the empirical project results show earlier timing for cost certainty than perceived by agency experts. Results reveal that agency personnel underestimate the potential time savings of CM/GC because they believe that D-B is faster to the point of cost certainty. However, empirical data show that CM/GC is substantially faster. The authors emphasize the need for further research to clarify the contradictions and inconsistencies in order to produce reliable, validated results that can provide useful recommendations for application in highway construction project delivery.

Roles and Responsibilities of Independent Cost Estimator in Construction Manager–General Contractor Highway Construction

The use of construction manager–general contractor (CM-GC) project delivery is gaining momentum with highway projects across the United States. This project delivery process is different from the traditional design–bid–build (D-B-B) process in that an agency works with one CM-GC to develop the construction cost. To ensure that agencies receive fair market value, many agencies employ an independent cost estimator (ICE) in lieu of competitive bidding. The findings of a research effort to explore ICE roles, responsibilities, and best practices within highway construction are presented. The findings were derived through a review of previous literature, current agency CM-GC ICE policies, surveys of 25 completed CM-GC projects, and in-depth interviews with highway agency officials on six of the projects. The six projects were selected for interviews from the set of completed projects to allow for cross-case comparison. Although multiple best practices are identified, the two key findings of the research are that the ICE should have construction experience and local knowledge and should be an involved team member throughout the design process. In summary, all of the reviewed agencies found the ICE role to be essential in establishing a competitive construction contract cost and thereby gaining value through early contractor involvement. Some agencies found that the ICE added value beyond the costing process as a team member throughout design, but this practice was not found to be universal across all projects studied.

Exploration of Early Work Packaging in Construction Manager–General Contractor Highway Projects

State agencies have been successfully implementing construction manager–general contractor (CM-GC) delivery on highway projects. Although early work packaging is frequently cited in the literature as a primary benefit of CM-GC projects, there is limited research to substantiate or refute these benefits. In addition, agencies need a better understanding of the current state of the practice of early work packaging in the CM-GC process to help with effective implementation. In an ongoing FHWA research project, 12 of 34 completed CM-GC projects reported the use of early work packaging; these projects will be the focus of this study. Research methods used within this study include literature review, content review of agency manuals and instructions, project surveys, agency interviews, and case studies. Triangulated findings suggest that early work packaging can contribute to expediting project completion, mitigating project risk, reducing project cost, and minimizing public impacts. To achieve these outcomes, agencies must perform detailed planning to generate severable and independent packages that take into account all potential impacts to the project. Trends in data indicate that early work packages can lead to cost savings, yet the sample size does not provide statistical significance. Future research should explore the performance of a larger data set of CM-GC projects with and without early work packaging along with a cost–benefit analysis of early work packages.

Project Spotlight: Fast Fix 8 project features specialized reinforcement in Tennesee interstate

The construction manager/general contractor (CM/GC) project delivery method is being piloted in the Tennessee Department of Transportation (TDOT). The Fast Fix 8 project on Interstate 40 was TDOT’s first CM/GC project.

Comparison of Qualifications-Based Selection and Best-Value Procurement for Construction Manager–General Contractor Highway Construction

Faster project delivery and the infusion of contractor knowledge into design are the primary drivers for choosing construction manager–general contractor (CM-GC) project delivery. This study focuses on the use of qualifications-based selection (QBS) and best-value (BV) procurement approaches, how and why agencies use each approach, and their associated opportunities and obstacles. Data for this study were obtained from a majority of federally funded CM-GC projects completed between 2004 and 2015. It was found that the use of BV procurement versus QBS procurement had no statistically significant difference in project characteristics or in performance of the projects in the data set. The choice of BV or QBS procurement coincided with an agency’s CM-GC stage of organizational development and influences of nonagency stakeholders on the CM-GC process. When agencies and the local industry were new to CM-GC, they were found to use BV procurement because it is closer to the traditional procurement culture and is perceived to result in a fair market project price. Alternatively, agencies and local industry partners with an established history of using CM-GC projects were found to choose QBS procurement. Because of the low level of design at the time of procurement, assumptions relating to risk, production rates, materials sources, and other aspects may be too preliminary to secure a reliable price. The use of BV procurement was found to pose a risk to innovation and to increase negotiation efforts. Qualitative trends from the project data, interviews, and the literature point to agencies using QBS procurement for the majority of CM-GC projects and BV procurement for CM-GC projects with lesser complexity or more highly developed designs at the time of selection.

Comparing Construction Manager–General Contractor and Federal Early Contractor Involvement Project Delivery Methods

Past studies of the construction manager–general contractor (CMGC) project delivery method have focused on its use by state and municipal departments of transportation. The literature also includes the approach to the CMGC delivery method based on Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) termed early contractor involvement (ECI), which the literature classifies as merely a different term for CMGC. The desire to use CMGC project delivery by the Federal Lands Highway Divisions stimulated a deeper study of the restrictions placed on federal agencies by the FAR and found that although CMGC and ECI project delivery are indeed similar, they are not identical. The findings of that study are reported. A comparative analysis of the two project delivery models is presented, and it is found that ECI delivery is substantially different from CMGC delivery because of FAR-based limitations on preconstruction services and pricing methodology. It is concluded that the use of an incentive–disincentive scheme and the bidding of a proposed profit margin enhance competition during the ECI contractor selection process. The results of this study can be used outside the federal sector by state and local transportation agencies to furnish an alternative to the CMGC delivery method in those areas in which industry opposition is the primary barrier to implementing the CMGC delivery method.

Empirical Study of the State of the Practice in Alternative Technical Concepts in Highway Construction Projects

State departments of transportation (DOTs) are encouraging early involvement of contractors in highway design and construction through the solicitation of alternative technical concepts (ATCs) during procurement. This approach provides DOTs with the opportunity to tap industry experience and expertise for design alternatives. ATCs can improve constructability, enhance innovation, shorten schedules, reduce risk, and ultimately save costs. DOTs have documented significant cost savings from ATCs on a project-by-project basis. This paper provides an up-to-date perspective on the types of projects in which ATCs are used in U.S. highway construction, according to empirical data from a national study of 250 projects completed by DOTs and the Office of Federal Lands Highway. These projects were completed through design–build, construction manager–general contractor, and design–bid–build project delivery methods, and only 40 of the projects solicited ATCs during procurement. The quantitative findings presented in this paper were facilitated by the use of the project information from the national study and complimented by an extensive literature review on the use of ATCs in the U.S. highway construction sector. It was found that DOTs used ATCs on 51% of the 70 design–build projects procured by best-value selection in the study. Given that only 2% of the 116 design–bid–build projects and 5% of the 38 low-bid design–build projects in this study used ATCs and that no construction manager–general contractor projects used ATCs, there appears to be an opportunity to capitalize on the benefits of ATCs in projects using those delivery methods.

Environmental Reviews and Case Studies: NEPA Strategies for Accelerating Project Delivery: Every Day Counts, Tiering, and Alternative Delivery in the I-70 Mountain Corridor

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) have used Every Day Counts tools and other strategies to accelerate the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process for projects intended to relieve congestion and improve safety in the Twin Tunnels area of Colorado’s Interstate 70 (I-70) Mountain Corridor. These Tier 2 projects follow the I-70 Mountain Corridor Tier 1 Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS). The Tier 2 Twin Tunnels projects incorporated tools from the FHWA Every Day Counts Shortening Project Delivery Toolkit, including the Planning and Environmental Linkages concept, legal sufficiency enhancements, and programmatic agreements; the Construction Manager/ General Contractor (CM/GC) alternative delivery method; and a unique stakeholder engagement approach. These tools were effective in reducing the Tier 2 NEPA process to half its normal duration, thereby accelerating overall project delivery. The Tier 2 process was easier to implement because of the scaffolding developed during the Tier 1 process. Establishing an early involvement agreement related to legal reviews allowed FHWA attorneys to work with the project team at early decision points. Using the CM/GC alternative delivery method allowed for early input from the contractor on the preliminary design, avoided the need for NEPA re-evaluations during the final design or construction process, and led to new ideas for avoiding or minimizing impacts to environmental resources. Early and continuous engagement with partner agencies and other stakeholders allowed for quick feedback and provided the necessary support to move the project forward quickly.Environmental Practice 17: 278–290 (2015)

Effects of CM/GC Project Delivery on Managing Process Risk in Transportation Construction

AbstractTeams that deliver complex transportation construction projects need tools that manage risk and allow for successful delivery. Construction manager/general contractor (CM/GC) project delivery is an alternative method that furnishes public agencies with an attractive option for delivering projects in a less adversarial and more constructive manner by involving the contractor during the design phase. This paper identifies the effects of CM/GC delivery on construction process risk. Owners, contractors, and design engineers with sizable CM/GC experience on transportation-related projects were surveyed to identify differences in the perception of CM/GC processes, especially compared to design-build and design-bid-build project delivery methods. The perceived benefits and disadvantages regarding quality, schedule, cost control, and collaboration/flexibility are discussed. The benefits include strategies for robust process risk management and successful project delivery, while the disadvantages expose ba...

A Hybrid Cross-Impact Approach to Predicting Cost Variance of Project Delivery Decisions for Highways

AbstractCross-impact analysis (CIA) is a technique that is designed to predict future events by capturing the interactions among variables. It is an appropriate tool to deal with the selection of a project delivery method. Project delivery selection involves the assessment of tradeoffs between numerous risks and uncertainties, complex relationships among variables, and multiple decision alternatives. In fact, the number of variables involved in project delivery decisions creates CIA models that are extremely complex, and few researchers have attempted to apply them. This paper presents a hybrid CIA approach to project delivery decisions in highway design and construction. It provides for the evaluation of project cost with projects in three fundamental delivery methods: design-bid-build (DBB), design-build (DB), and construction manager/general contractor (CMGC). The paper discusses in detail how the cross-impact concepts support the selection of an appropriate delivery method in highway projects. The hyb...

Benefits of owner mandated CM/GC contract amendment templates

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to explore how implementing a standardized/owner-mandated template for Construction Manager/General Contractor (CM/GC) contract amendments can minimize errors. The focus is on public owners who manage multiple CM/GC projects at any one time. Design/methodology/approach – A case study format was used to compare contract amendments errors using a baseline project, transition project and best practices project. Six metrics were identified, including factual recital errors, summary formatting errors, schedule of values errors, construction services fee errors, allowance schedule errors and data consistency errors. Findings – The baseline and transition projects both had an average of seven errors per amendment, while the best practices project produced zero errors. The amendment template creation process helped design out common errors. The use of the template can be contract-mandated, while transition projects require owner commitment. Research limitations/implications – Future research should focus on completed projects’ closeout data that have been consolidated since the transition project was in its final stage and the best practices project was relatively early in the construction process. Practical implications – The findings of this research indicate that by implementing a mature owner-mandated CM/GC contract amendment template, owners can greatly reduce errors that arise during the amendment process. It should be noted, however, that challenges will most likely occur during the implementation phase. Originality/value – No similar studies were found and the results of the research informs Facilities Management departments that they can significantly reduce errors by utilizing a mature, owner-mandated template for CM/GC contract amendments.

Risk-Based Project Delivery Selection Model for Highway Design and Construction

AbstractProject-delivery methods allocate risk for design and construction between contractual parties. State departments of transportation (DOTs) using federal funds employ three primary project-delivery methods: (1) design-bid-build (D-B-B); (2) design-build (D-B); and (3) construction manager/general contractor (CM/GC). Because the choice of a project-delivery method is best made early in the project-development process, it is a complex decision that is fraught with risk and uncertainty. This paper presents a risk-based modeling methodology to evaluate and quantify the potential differences in project cost attributable to the selection of a project-delivery method. The risk-based model consists of (1) an input structure of assessment and evaluation of delivery-risk factors; (2) a computational-modeling structure for calculating costs; and (3) an output structure to communicate model results and implementation. The assessment and evaluation process determines the risks that are incorporated into the del...

Exploring critical delivery selection risk factors for transportation design and construction projects

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to investigate the impact of risk on the project delivery selection process of three primary methods in use in the USA, including design-bid-build (DBB); design-build (DB); and construction manager/general contractor (CMGC). Design/methodology/approach – The review of empirical studies, national survey questionnaire, multivariate analysis, and cross-validating discussion are adopted for this research. The risk factors were identified through an exhaustive literature review and empirical studies that included more than $10 billion of transportation projects. Experts with an average of 25 years of professional experience related to risk and project delivery methods in the transportation industry were invited to participate in the survey. Findings – There were six critical risk factors for DBB, seven for DB, and six for CMGC. These critical risk factors are ranked differently from each delivery method. The most critical risk factor for DBB is construction risk, for DB is scope risk, and for CMGC is constructability and documentation risk. Research limitations/implications – Knowledge of the risk factors will allow researchers to better understand the impact of risk on DBB, DB, and CMGC projects. The chief limitation of this research is that the primary data were mostly opinions from experts although several empirical data were collected for cross-validation. The future research may take into account the role of participant's risk aversion in project delivery decision frameworks. Practical implications – Transportation agencies and other practitioners can use these risk factors to make more effective and defensible decisions on which delivery method is the most suitable for their projects. The result from this study provides a foundation for decision makers to use a risk-based approach in the project delivery decision. Originality/value – This research is the first attempt to examine the impact of risk on the project delivery selection process.

Applying Alternative Technical Concepts to Construction Manager–General Contractor Project Delivery

This paper discusses four public agency approaches to applying alternative technical concepts (ATCs) to construction manager–general contractor (CMGC) project delivery through an analysis of case study projects. The CMGC projects included a slope stabilization project in Michigan, a bridge in Oregon, the urgent, in situ foundation stabilization of a dam in Kansas, and a commuter rail project in Utah. The study results showed that ATCs provide a valuable mechanism to identify the best qualified contractor during the CMGC selection process. ATCs also permit an owner to consider innovative design solutions to constructability problems through the contractor's early involvement. The addition of ATCs to CMGC procurements permits an owner to accrue all of the savings offered by a contractor's ATCs because the contractor's preconstruction services’ contract compensates the contractor for developing the ATCs.