Empirical Comparison of Design/Build and Design/Bid/Build Project Delivery Methods

2009 ◽  
Vol 135 (7) ◽  
pp. 579-587 ◽  
Author(s):  
Darren R. Hale ◽  
Pramen P. Shrestha ◽  
G. Edward Gibson ◽  
Giovanni C. Migliaccio
Keyword(s):  
Project Delivery ◽  
Empirical Comparison ◽  
Delivery Methods ◽  
Project Delivery Methods ◽  
Design Build ◽  
Design Bid Build

A PRELIMINARY STUDY OF ALTERNATIVE TECHNICAL CONCEPTS IN HIGHWAY PROJECT DELIVERY METHODS

2017 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
R. Edward Minchin ◽  
Parth Choksi ◽  
Linda Konrath ◽  
Sid Scott ◽  
Yuanxin Zhang
Keyword(s):  
Resource Constraints ◽  
Project Delivery ◽  
Department Of Transportation ◽  
Delivery Methods ◽  
Time Saving ◽  
Federal Highway ◽  
Project Delivery Methods ◽  
Design Build ◽  
Request For Proposal ◽  
Design Bid Build

Department of Transportation (DOT) budgets are being stretched to the limits, while the infrastructure needs of the nation continue to grow. To address this issue, a few DOTs have adopted strategies that promote innovation and motivate industry to propose cost or time saving ideas. The advent of the Design Build (D-B) and General-Contractor-as-Construction-Manager (CM/GC) project delivery methods in highway and bridge construction has established the early involvement of the contractor in the design phase of a project. The next step on this evolution may be Alternative Technical Concepts (ATCs). The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has defined an ATC as “a request by a proposer to modify a contract requirement, specifically for that proposer’s use in gaining competitive benefit during the bidding or proposal process and must provide a solution that is equal to or better than the owner’s base design requirements in the invitation for bid (for a design-bid-build project) or request for proposal (for a D-B project) document”. ATCs have been reported to improve constructability, enhance innovation, and ultimately save costs. Issues with ATC use includes: time and resource constraints, confidentiality concerns, submittal issues, and difficulties in conducting fair “apples to apples” evaluations. This paper will report the findings of the research team as it goes through the early stages of identifying best practices for the FHWA to bring uniformity to the ATC process.

scholarly journals Design-Build Project Delivery in Military Construction: Approach to Best Value Procurement

2008 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 35
Author(s):  
Birtice Garner ◽  
Kathleen Richardson ◽  
Daniel Castro-Lacouture
Keyword(s):  
Air Force ◽  
The United States ◽  
Project Delivery ◽  
Delivery Methods ◽  
Traditional Design ◽  
Best Value ◽  
Design Build ◽  
Facility Construction ◽  
Design Bid Build ◽  
Military Construction

Design-Build is rapidly becoming one of the most commonly used project delivery methods in the facility construction industry. The United States Air Force and the Air Force Reserve Command (AFRC) are expected to establish a target of 75% of all Military Construction (MILCON) projects delivered using the Design-Build method. The use of this delivery method will bring significant changes in the relationships between the various parties associated with facility project delivery when compared to the traditional Design-Bid-Build method. This paper demonstrates that Design-Build delivery with a best value selection is an important tool in accomplishing AFRC’s cost efficient, rapid response transformation goals applicable to facility construction. Three hundred thirty two projects in program years 2002 through 2006, constructed using both traditional Design-Bid-Build or Design-Build delivery methods, were examined. Parameters used for comparisons were construction cost and schedule growth, project cost, vertical versus horizontal construction, and number of days required to prepare solicitation documents, advertise and accomplish construction award. This research reveals significant project schedule advantages with Design-Build best value selection delivery. The advantages are apparent in both pre and post construction award activities. Potential Design-Build cost advantages are hindered by Defense Federal Acquisition Regulations requiring firm fixed price contracts at construction award.

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

2019 ◽  
Vol 2673 (1) ◽  
pp. 261-268 ◽  
Author(s):  
Douglas D. Gransberg ◽  
Keith R. Molenaar
Keyword(s):  
Project Delivery ◽  
Federally Funded ◽  
Delivery Methods ◽  
Highway Projects ◽  
General Contractor ◽  
Traditional Design ◽  
Project Delivery Methods ◽  
Design Build ◽  
Permitting Process ◽  
Environmental Permitting

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.

scholarly journals Post-Disaster Infrastructure Delivery for Resilience

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (6) ◽  
pp. 3458
Author(s):  
Mikhail Chester ◽  
Mounir El Asmar ◽  
Samantha Hayes ◽  
Cheryl Desha
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effective ◽  
Project Delivery ◽  
Delivery Methods ◽  
Project Delivery Methods ◽  
Alternative Project Delivery Methods ◽  
Resilient Infrastructure ◽  
Alternative Project Delivery ◽  
Innovative Contracting ◽  
Alternative Delivery ◽  
Post Disaster

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document