It has been shown that there exists a correlation between the cost of construction of elementary schools and the project delivery systems. Previous research showed that Competitive Sealed proposal contract method of construction is $4000 cheaper than the Construction Manager at Risk method of construction per student for elementary school construction in Texas. This research investigates the elements causing construction cost variation in elementary schools of Texas by comparing and contrasting the two forms of contract documents, CSP and CMR. Two schools were selected for the study, although the schools are technically in different regions of Texas, the geological record suggests that there is not much difference in the techniques used for foundation construction and hence a reasonable comparison is possible. A comparison was completed of the contract documents for two elementary schools. School A was built using CSP and School B using CMR. The two schools were built for about $13000 per student in line with A. N. Reinisch’s findings for CSP contracts in Texas, but not CMR average costs. The two ISD’s who supplied the documents were clearly concerned at cost control and appear to have managed this process. The earlier findings of a cost difference between CSP and CMR are not overturned by this study. Future studies involving a greater number of schools and the development of a central database are recommended.

In recent decades, the use of construction manager-at-risk (CMAR) has surged as an innovative construction project delivery method in comparison to traditional competitive bid procurement methods. The conceptual pros and cons of the method are widely accepted throughout the construction industry; however, very little quantitative research exists validating such beliefs. The study presented in this technical paper empirically compares the performance of CMAR to that of the more traditional method of competitive sealed proposal (CSP) in the construction of higher educational facilities. In a study of 33 projects constructed by The Texas A&M University System, 19 procured using CMAR and 14 procured using CSP, observed results show a reduction in schedule growth and change order quantity when using CMAR over CSP. However, additional results show that CSP is more apt to result in decreased project and construction costs than CMAR. Business practices of The Texas A&M University System, statistical significance testing of research data, and practical applications of research findings are included.

abstract: Much of the water and wastewater lines in the United States are nearing the end of their useful life. A significant reinvestment is needed in the upcoming decades to replace or rehabilitate the water and wastewater infrastructure. Currently, the traditional method for delivering water and wastewater pipeline engineering and construction projects is design-bid-build (DBB). The traditional DBB delivery system is a sequential low-integration process and can lead to inefficiencies and adverse relationships between stakeholders. Alternative project delivery methods (APDM) such as Construction Manager at Risk (CMAR) have been introduced to increase stakeholder integration and ultimately enhance project performance. CMAR project performance impacts have been studied in the horizontal and vertical construction industries. However, the performance of CMAR projects in the pipeline engineering and construction industry has not been quantitatively studied. The dissertation fills this gap in knowledge by performing the first quantitative analysis of CMAR performance on pipeline engineering and construction projects. This study’s two research objectives are: (1) Develop a CMAR baseline of commonly measured project performance metrics (2) Statistically compare the cost and schedule performance of CMAR to that of the traditional DBB delivery method A thorough literature review led to the development of a data collection survey used in conjunction with structured interviews to gather qualitative and quantitative performance data from 66 completed water and wastewater pipeline projects. Performance data analysis was conducted to provide performance benchmarks for CMAR projects and to compare the performance of CMAR and DBB. This study provides the first CMAR performance benchmark for pipeline engineering and construction projects. The results span across seven metrics in four performance areas (cost, schedule, project change, and communication). Pipeline projects delivered using CMAR have a median cost and schedule growth of -5% and 5.10%, respectively. These results are significantly improved from DBB baseline performance shown in other industries. To verify this, a statistical analysis was done to compare the cost and schedule performance of CMAR to similar DBB pipeline projects. The results show that CMAR pipeline projects are being delivered with 6.5% less cost growth and with 12.5% less schedule growth than similar DBB projects, providing owners with increased certainty when delivering their pipeline projects. / Dissertation/Thesis / Doctoral Dissertation Civil Engineering 2015

abstract: Alternative Project Delivery Methods (APDMs), namely Design Build (DB) and Construction Manager at Risk (CMAR), grew out of the need to find a more efficient project delivery approach than the traditional Design Bid Build (DBB) form of delivery. After decades of extensive APDM use, there have been many studies focused on the use of APDMs and project outcomes. Few of these studies have reached a level of statistical significance to make conclusive observations about APDMs. This research effort completes a comprehensive study for use in the horizontal transportation construction market, providing a better basis for decisions on project delivery method selection, improving understanding of best practices for APDM use, and reporting outcomes from the largest collection of APDM project data to date. The study is the result of an online survey of project owners and design teams from 17 states representing 83 projects nationally. Project data collected represents almost six billion US dollars. The study performs an analysis of the transportation APDM market and answers questions dealing with national APDM usage, motivators for APDM selection, the relation of APDM to pre-construction services, and the use of industry best practices. Top motivators for delivery method selection: the project schedule or the urgency of the project, the ability to predict and control cost, and finding the best method to allocate risk, as well as other factors were identified and analyzed. Analysis of project data was used to compare to commonly held assumptions about the project delivery methods, confirming some assumptions and refuting others. Project data showed that APDM projects had the lowest overall cost growth. DB projects had higher schedule growth. CMAR projects had low design schedule growth but high construction schedule growth. DBB showed very little schedule growth and the highest cost growth of the delivery methods studied. Best practices in project delivery were studied: team alignment, front end planning, and risk assessment were identified as practices most critical to project success. The study contributes and improves on existing research on APDM project selection and outcomes and fills many of the gaps in research identified by previous research efforts and industry leaders. / Dissertation/Thesis / Doctoral Dissertation Civil Engineering 2014