Lessons Learned in Design and Commissioning of Digester Gas CHP Energy Recovery Projects in a Design/Build Project Delivery Environment

2012 ◽  
Vol 2012 (8) ◽  
pp. 6594-6600
Author(s):  
Scott A. Hardy ◽  
Michael Reisinger ◽  
Richard Schoeck ◽  
Adam Minchey ◽  
Richard Porter ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Energy Recovery ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Project Delivery ◽  
Design Build

Lessons Learned in Design and Commissioning of Digester Gas CHP Energy Recovery Projects in a Design/Build Project Delivery Environment

2012 ◽  
Vol 2012 (2) ◽  
pp. 1431-1437
Author(s):  
Scott A. Hardy ◽  
Michael Reisinger ◽  
Richard Schoeck ◽  
Adam Minchey ◽  
Richard Porter ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Energy Recovery ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Project Delivery ◽  
Design Build

scholarly journals Demystifying progressive design build: implementation issues and lessons learned through case study analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 2095-2108 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luming Shang ◽  
Giovanni C. Migliaccio
Keyword(s):  
Single Point ◽  
Performance Outcomes ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Project Delivery ◽  
Design Stage ◽  
Successful Implementation ◽  
Early Design ◽  
Early Design Stage ◽  
Design Build

AbstractThe design–build (DB) project delivery method has been used for several decades in the US construction market. DB contracts are usually awarded on the basis of a multicriteria evaluation, with price as one of the most salient criteria. To ensure the project’s success, an owner usually has to invest enough time and effort during scoping and early design to define a program, scope, and budget, ready for procurement and price generation. However, this process can become a burden for the owner and may lengthen the project development duration. As an alternative to the traditional DB, the progressive design–build (PDB) approach permits the selection of the DB team prior to defining the project program and/or budget. PDB has the advantage of maintaining a single point of accountability and allowing team selection based mainly on qualifications, with a limited consideration of price. Under PDB, the selected team works with the project stakeholders during the early design stage, while helping the owner balance scope and budget. However, the key to the effectiveness of PDB is its provision for the ongoing and complete involvement of the owner in the early design phase. Due to the differences between PDB and the other project delivery methods (e.g., traditional DB), project teams must carefully consider several factors to ensure its successful implementation. The research team conducted a case study of the University of Washington’s pilot PDB project to complete the West Campus Utility Plant (WCUP). This paper carefully explores and summarizes the project’s entire delivery process (e.g., planning, solicitation, design, and construction), its organizational structures, and the project performance outcomes. The lessons learned from the WCUP project will contribute to best practices for future PDB implementation.

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

2021 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Pramen P. Shrestha ◽  
Jacimaria R. Batista
Keyword(s):  
Project Planning ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Project Delivery ◽  
Public Agencies ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Public Agency ◽  
Design Build ◽  
Water And Wastewater ◽  
Alternative Project Delivery

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.

scholarly journals Computational Experiment Study on Selection Mechanism of Project Delivery Method Based on Complex Factors

2014 ◽  
Vol 2014 ◽  
pp. 1-8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiang Ding ◽  
Zhaohan Sheng ◽  
Jianguo Du ◽  
Qian Li
Keyword(s):  
Project Performance ◽  
Project Delivery ◽  
Main Task ◽  
Delivery Method ◽  
Factors Affecting ◽  
Project Complexity ◽  
Design Build ◽  
Delivery Planning ◽  
Project Delivery Method ◽  
Design Construction

Project delivery planning is a key stage used by the project owner (or project investor) for organizing design, construction, and other operations in a construction project. The main task in this stage is to select an appropriate project delivery method. In order to analyze different factors affecting the PDM selection, this paper establishes a multiagent model mainly to show how project complexity, governance strength, and market environment affect the project owner’s decision on PDM. Experiment results show that project owner usually choose Design-Build method when the project is very complex within a certain range. Besides, this paper points out that Design-Build method will be the prior choice when the potential contractors develop quickly. This paper provides the owners with methods and suggestions in terms of showing how the factors affect PDM selection, and it may improve the project performance.

scholarly journals Demystifying Collaboration in BIM-Based Projects Under Design-Build Procurement

2018 ◽  
pp. 158-190
Author(s):  
Benjamin R. Jowett ◽  
Malak Al Hattab ◽  
Mohamad Kassem
Keyword(s):  
Management Practices ◽  
Project Delivery ◽  
Full Potential ◽  
Integrated Project Delivery ◽  
Building Information Modelling ◽  
Engineering Construction ◽  
Design Build ◽  
Building Information ◽  
Integrated Project ◽  
Value Realization

Building information modelling (BIM) tools and workflows, new procurements methods, and emerging management practices are being adopted on projects to overcome collaboration barriers and improve project performance within the architecture, engineering, construction, and operation (AECO) sector. Academic literature and industry reports recommend the use of collaborative procurement methods such as design and build (DB) procurement and integrated project delivery (IPD) when adopting BIM workflows. However, to date there are little operationalization and empirical evidence of the value realization potential when using BIM in conjunction to these procurement methods. This chapter draws upon five case studies of BIM-based DB projects to analyze and quantify the potential of value realization using clash detection as a use value. The results reveal potential hurdles inhibiting BIM from reaching its full potential. Accordingly, recommended changes to the current processes are suggested to facilitate BIM in enhancing value on DB projects.

Delivering upstream gas developments in Papua New Guinea—challenges and lessons learned

2010 ◽  
Vol 50 (2) ◽  
pp. 722
Author(s):  
Simon High
Keyword(s):  
Local Community ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Project Delivery ◽  
Security Risks ◽  
The Past ◽  
Project Outcomes ◽  
Local Labour ◽  
High Elevations ◽  
Future Project ◽  
Very High

PNG is a unique environment and culture that presents some intriguing risks and challenges in project delivery. Clough has delivered 68 projects in PNG over the past 26 years and is recognised as one of the most experienced contractors in the region. The company has been involved in all major PNG upstream gas developments including Hides, Kutubu, Moran and Gobe. Clough is currently delivering the upstream infrastructure for ExxonMobil’s US$11 billion PNG LNG project. This paper will use case studies from Clough’s 26-years of experience in PNG to review the key challenges and define strategies used to overcome these challenges in order to deliver PNG’s largest ever resource project. Key challenges include: Logistics—most of the gas reserves in PNG are difficult to access and located at very high elevations. For example, the Hides wellpads for PNG LNG are located approximately 2,700 m above sea level and accessed by a rough and dangerous road. Security—overcoming security risks including community unrest and the existence of armed bandits on key supply routes.Landowner issues—how to work with PNG’s local communities to ensure they are happy with project outcomes to reduce landowner issues. Training local labour—equipping the local workforce with the skills required to deliver the project to Australian standards, which provides life changing skills for the local community. Key to Clough’s continued success in PNG has been its ability to effectively capture lessons learned on all completed projects and apply this knowledge to improve future project outcomes. Critical lessons will be communicated during this presentation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document