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.
AUTHOR ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The research herein was performed under TCRP Project G-08 by a team consisting of Northeastern University, University of Oklahoma, and University of Colorado. Northeastern University was the contractor for this study. Dr. Ali Touran, Associate Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Northeastern University was the Project Director and the Principal Investigator. Dr. Douglas D. Gransberg, Professor, Construction Science Division, University of Oklahoma and Dr. Keith R. Molenaar, Associate Professor of Civil Engineering, University of Colorado at Boulder were co-Principal Investigators. D.J. Mason of Keville Enterprises and Lee A. Fithian of Fithian Architects were consultants. Kamran Ghavamifar of Northeastern University was a Research Assistant. ABSTRACT This research documents the benefits and disadvantages of various project delivery methods for capital transit projects and provides guidelines for selecting the most appropriate delivery method for a specific project. Project delivery methods considered are Design-Bid-Build (DBB), Construction Manager at Risk (CMR), Design-Build (DB), and Design-Build-Operate-Maintain (DBOM). The results of several extensive interviews with directors of transit projects throughout the United States are reported. A three-tiered project delivery selection framework is developed that can help the owners of transit projects to evaluate pros and cons of each delivery method and select the most appropriate for their project. Tier 1 is a qualitative approach that allows the user to document advantages and disadvantages of each competing delivery method. The user can then review the results of this analysis and select the best delivery method. If at the conclusion of this analysis, still a clear option does not emerge, the user can move to Tier 2. Tier 2 is a weighted matrix approach that allows the user to quantify the effectiveness of competing delivery methods and select the approach that receives the highest score. The third Tier uses principles of risk analysis to evaluate delivery methods. Regardless of how many tiers an agency uses to arrive at a project delivery method selection decision, the framework forces the decision-makers to document their logic as they proceed through the process. This aspect will prove especially helpful as agencies can use these documented decisions in future projects.
