Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
TCRP G-08 â Project Delivery Methods Chapter 10 - Summary CHAPTER 10 â SUMMARY The objective of this research was to study alternative project delivery methods for transit projects and to develop a guidebook for selecting the most appropriate delivery method for a transit project. The delivery methods considered were the traditional design-bid-build (DBB), CM-at-risk (CMR) or CM/GC, design-build (DB), and design-build-operate- maintain (DBOM). Until recent times the traditional design-bid-build approach was the common choice for the project delivery method used by transit agencies, mainly due to statutory limitations and agenciesâ experience with this delivery method. Legal limitations have been removed to a large degree and this has provided much flexibility in the choice of project delivery and contracting method. Five transit agencies were interviewed and an in- depth study was completed on nine transit projects executed by these agencies. Relevant literature on project delivery methods, decision support systems, public transportation and transit projects were reviewed. A comprehensive list of pertinent issues that can affect the project delivery decision was compiled and studied. It was found that various transit agencies have different motivations in selecting an alternative delivery method. The research conducted by the authors concluded that no single project delivery method was superior to all others and that transit agencies need to carefully analyze the characteristics of the given project and seek to find the project delivery method whose benefits are most closely aligned to project requirements. It also showed that the most common reasons for choosing an alternative project delivery method, as stated by the project directors that were interviewed, were as follows: 1. Reducing/compressing/accelerating the project delivery period; 2. Encouraging innovation; 3. Early budget establishment and early contractor involvement; and 4. Flexibility needs during the construction phase. Transit agencies should carefully study the risks, costs and benefits associated with each project delivery method for the project under consideration and select the project delivery method that best suits legal, technical, and business environment in which the project must be built. This effort resulted in a 3-tier approach for project delivery method selection. The user goes through the three tiers sequentially and narrows down the viable delivery methods by a process of eliminating the inferior choices. In Tier 1 or the Analytical Approach, this is accomplished by evaluating the viability of each delivery method against a number of pertinent issues that can be of vital importance for the projectâs success in achieving its goals and objectives. Among the pertinent issues that affect the project delivery decision, there are certain issues that may render one or more delivery Northeastern University The Research Report 173
TCRP G-08 â Project Delivery Methods Chapter 10 - Summary Northeastern University The Research Report 174 method inappropriate. These issues involve project schedule constraints; federal, state, and local laws; third party agreements; and labor union agreements. The transit agency needs to review these issues to determine if they eliminate any of the delivery methods. In other words, the agency should make a âgo/no-go decisionâ based on these pertinent issues. After this stage, the user examines the remaining project delivery choices against a list of pertinent issues and rates each delivery method based on its advantages and disadvantages in coping with each pertinent issue. The summary of these ratings is compiled in a table and studied to see if a decision can be made based on the overall capabilities of competing delivery methods in dealing with these pertinent issues. If a clear winner emerges at this point, a report can be generated that describes the reasons for the choice of delivery method. If more than one delivery method remains viable after going through Tier 1, the user should move to Tier 2. In this Tier a select subset of goals and pertinent issues will be identified that are of profound importance to the transit agency. Each goal or issue is weighted according to the clear instructions that are provided and an overall score is computed for each delivery method. Again, a report can be generated that documents the decision-making process. If more than one delivery method remains viable after going through the first two tiers, the user should move to Tier 3. In this Tier, the user will review and identify project risks and prepare a table for risk allocation that provides a clear comparison between the remaining delivery methods in terms of risks that are inherent to them. This table should help the user to select the delivery method that results in a more favorable risk profile. Project risks can also be quantified through well-established risk analysis techniques and a decision regarding the most appropriate delivery method can be reached based on the expected cost of risks for each delivery method. However, the quantitative approach will require significant effort, and will depend on the willingness of the owner to embark on this analysis, and the availability of risk assessment report for input to this process. The delivery selection system was tested and validated by several transit agencies. The overall assessment was very positive and the users found the process to be easy to follow and informative. Their comments and feedback were carefully reviewed and implemented in the guidebook. The authors believe that the guidebook developed as a product of this research is a valuable tool for transit agencies, especially those with limited experience with alternative project delivery methods.
