Currently, many researchers and stakeholders believe that effective delivery systems for construction projects are key to improving project quality and value in the construction industry. Therefore, it is important that owners use the best project delivery system because there are significant consequence due to differences in contracting processes and roles and responsibilities among contracting parties. For the reason, this research aims to compare the efficiency of DB with that of CMAR, as two methods used to select or deny expectations, specifically through quantitative and qualitative analysis. In order to do that, the researcher identified performance data and benefits, drawbacks, and success factors of DB and CMAR through survey and case projects and also analyzed performance data collected from two case projects. Consequently, owners will be able to understand characteristics, differences, and success factors of two different PDSs based on the comparative study. Furthermore, this research could be used to develop a decision support system for owners to select an appropriate PDS.

Design Build is rapidly becoming one of the most commonly used project delivery methods in the construction industry. The United States Corp of Engineers (USACE) has started implementing its own version of Design Build with the introduction of Military Transformation in April 2005. Per the Department of the Army (2008) Military Transformation is a term employed by the Corps to implement the use of alternate project delivery method as a means of achieving best value. The United States Air Force (AF) and the Air Force Reserve Command (AFRC) are expected to establish a target of 75% of all future Military Construction Projects (MILCONs) executed when using the Design Build method. The use of this delivery method results in significant changes to the relationships between the various parties associated with facility project delivery compared to the traditional Design Bid Build method. AFRC construction project procedures and requirements must also change.

Environmental planning and permitting for transportation projects is often seen as one of the top reasons for project delay. On design-build projects, this process is often treated as the critical path to advertising the project and on all transportation projects many critical phases of the project such as right of way acquisition, final design, and construction cannot begin until the environmental planning process is complete. The objective of this research is to identify challenges to the environmental planning and permitting process and opportunities for managing those challenges. To identify these challenges and opportunities, a synthesis of transportation and design-build research was done along with interviews with agencies leaders at seven State Departments of Transportation (DOTs). Once these challenges and opportunities were identified, example environmental planning documents and requests for proposals were reviewed from various State DOTs to document their usage. Additionally follow up interviews were conducted with environmental planning experts with experience on design-build projects from six of the State DOTs that were previously interviewed. This research contributes to the state of knowledge through providing comprehensive information on environmental planning and permitting challenges that must be managed on design-build transportation projects and opportunities for managing these challenges. Managing the identified challenges by utilizing these opportunities provides transportation agencies with opportunities to make the environmental planning and permitting process on design-build projects more efficient. This research contributes to the state of practice of transportation agencies through providing opportunities for streamlining environmental analysis and permitting that is vital to transportation agencies who strive to accelerate the delivery of design-build projects.

abstract: Over the last two decades, Alternative Project Delivery Methods (APDM), such as Design-Build (DB), have become more popular in the construction industry, specifically in the U.S., and the competition for APDM projects has risen among construction companies. The Engineering News Record (ENR) magazine analyzes DB firms and publishes the list of the top 100 every year. According to ENR articles and many scientific papers, the implementation of DB method has grown drastically over the last decade, however, information about growth trends depending on firm size and segment is lacking. Also missing is knowledge the future market trends over the next five years. Furthermore, public agencies and DB firms may be worried that DB projects do not distribute wealth equally among DB firms. Using the top 100 firms deemed representative of the DB market, the author has divided the market into volumes based on rankings to analyze the total DB market revenue growth. A comparison between international and domestic revenues indicated that the top five DB firms have 64% more involvement in the international market compared to the domestic market. Furthermore, while the research shows increasing market share only for the top five firms, the author has found that (1) a large portion of their market share is due to a large growth in their international market, and (2) revenues for all volumes of the DB market have increased. Moreover, regression and time series analyses allow for the forecasting of the DB market growth, which the author anticipate to move from about $100B to about $150B in 2020. / Dissertation/Thesis / Masters Thesis Construction 2014

abstract: Transportation systems in the U.S. are in a poor state of disrepair. A significant investment is needed to replace or rehabilitate current transportation infrastructure. Currently, transportation investments are lackluster with the recession of 2008 heavily impacting transportation spending, inciting deficits and budgetary cuts at state and federal government levels. As a result, policy makers and public officials are increasingly looking for innovative financing and alternative delivery methods to supplement traditional financing and delivery for transportation projects. Subsequently, the number of public-private partnerships (PPP or P3) has increased substantially over the last two decades. There is a growing need to quantify the project performance and financial benefits of PPP. This dissertation fills this gap in knowledge by performing a comprehensive quantitative analysis of PPP project performance and financial sources for transportation projects in the U.S. This study’s specific research objectives are: (1) Develop a solid baseline for comparison, comprised of non-PPP projects; (2) Quantify PPP project cost and schedule performance; and (3) Quantify private versus public financing sources of PPP. A thorough literature review led to the development of a structured data collection process for PPP and comparable non-PPP projects. Financing data was collected and verified for a total of 133 ongoing and completed projects; while performance data was verified for a subset of 81 completed projects. Data analysis included regression analysis, descriptive statistics, inferential statistics and non-parametric statistical tests. The results provide benchmarks for PPP project performance and financing sources. For the performance results, non-PPP projects have an average cost change of 8.46 percent and an average schedule change of -0.22 percent. PPP projects have an average cost change of 3.04 percent and average schedule change of 1.38 percent. Statistical analysis showed cost change for PPP projects were superior to that of non-PPP; however, schedule change differences were not significant. For the financing results, private financing totaled 44.5 percent while public financing totaled 55.5 percent. This result shows private financing can be used to leverage public financing with close to a one-to-one ratio and that PPP has the potential to double the amount of infrastructure delivered to the public. / Dissertation/Thesis / Doctoral Dissertation Civil and Environmental Engineering 2016

Submitted by Suethene Souza (suethene.souza@ufpe.br) on 2015-03-03T18:32:34Z No. of bitstreams: 2 DissertacaoDesignBuild.pdf: 3398710 bytes, checksum: ef609f38cfa0477d8bd3c9f076675594 (MD5) license_rdf: 1232 bytes, checksum: 66e71c371cc565284e70f40736c94386 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2015-03-03T18:32:34Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 2 DissertacaoDesignBuild.pdf: 3398710 bytes, checksum: ef609f38cfa0477d8bd3c9f076675594 (MD5) license_rdf: 1232 bytes, checksum: 66e71c371cc565284e70f40736c94386 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2012-05-31 / Este estudo objetiva identificar as contribuições do método design-build, bem como riscos envolvidos na sua adoção, com vistas à minimização de problemas entre projeto e construção de obras públicas, oriundos em parte da dissociação entre projeto e construção imposta pela legislação brasileira ao determinar contratações distintas para ambos. Para que as contribuições do método fossem visualizadas foi necessário compará-lo ao que atualmente é utilizado pela Administração, método design-bid-build. Assim, foi realizado um estudo de caso de natureza qualitativa, no qual foram realizadas pesquisas documentais e de campo, na forma de entrevistas. Sobre os dados documentais e de campo foi aplicada análise de conteúdo, bem como triangulação de métodos e fontes, o que possibilitou investigar os problemas sob pontos de vistas diversos, captados por métodos diferentes, oferecendo um panorama bem mais próximo da realidade. Dentre os problemas identificados figuram falta de interação direta entre projetistas e construtoras, prazos irreais determinados pelo contratante para elaboração dos projetos e longo período de tempo entre concepção do projeto e efetiva execução da obra. Identificados os problemas foi verificado quais deles poderiam ser solucionados ou minimizados com a adoção do método de contratação design-build, considerando sua principal característica de concepção do projeto e execução da obra realizados por uma única empresa, em uma única contratação. Ao mesmo tempo, com vistas a uma possível adoção do método, foram levantados aspectos negativos, riscos prováveis e respectivas estratégias de enfrentamento. Dentre os aspectos críticos observados pelos entrevistados sobressaíram a possibilidade da empresa contratada se beneficiar elaborando um projeto ajustado às suas disponibilidades e não à real necessidade do contratante, associada à falta de estrutura dos órgãos públicos para exercerem o controle requerido pelo método design-build. Verificou-se que o método design-build seria uma solução possível para alguns dos problemas encontrados. Entretanto, o contratante deve precaver-se dos aspectos negativos e riscos possíveis, adotando medidas que eliminem ou minimizem seus efeitos. Os resultados encontrados contribuirão certamente não apenas para uma possível implantação do método, em contextos inclusive distintos do público, como também para a melhoria dos processos concernentes a projeto e execução de obras, independente do método de contratação porventura utilizado. No âmbito acadêmico poderá contribuir incentivando a realização de mais pesquisas sobre projeto e execução de empreendimentos de construção

No description available.

Trafikverkets drift- och underhållsentreprenader "basunderhåll väg" anses av entreprenörerna ha en obalanserad riskfördel. Huvudfrågan är om totalentreprenad är den bästa lösningen på Trafikverket driftkontrakt på vägsidan. Examensarbetet har utförts tillsammans med NCC. Datainsamlingen har gjorts dels genom litteraturstudier och dels genom intervjuer med Trafikverket, Sveriges Byggindustrier samt de stora entreprenörerna Svevia, NCC, Peab och Skanska. Slutsatsen av arbetet är att kontrakten innehåller för många oklarheter för att upphandlas på totalentreprenad, men får Trafikverket kontroll på mängder som ska utföras framöver är det fullt möjligt att upphandla kontrakten på totalentreprenad. Däremot kommer det inte att hinnas med någon inventering av mängderna inför kommande upphandling. Av den anledningen föreslås att kontrakten 2018 upphandlas som samverkansentreprenad utan incitamentsavtal under de två första åren då entreprenören tillsammans med Trafikverket inventerar och planerar vad som ska utföras under den fyraåriga kontraktstiden. Inför tredje och fjärde året görs ett incitamentsavtal 50/50 när omfattningen är mera känd. / Trafikverket:s Road maintenance contracts, "Basunderhåll väg", is considered by the contractors to have an uneven distribution of risk between the partners. The main question is if Design-build contract is the best solution for Trafikverket:s Road maintenance contracts on the roadside. The essay has been written on behave of NCC account. The study is based upon literature studies, but also by interviewing staff from big companies, whom are affected by these contracts (Trafikverket, Sveriges Byggindustrier, NCC, Svevia, Peab, Skanska). The main conclusion with the essay is that the contracts maintain too many uncertainties to be procured at a Design-build contract. However, if Trafikverket manages to control the amount mass data, it is highly possible to procure contracts with Design-build contract contracts in the near future. Although, it will not be obtainable to have some sort of inventory of these amounts for the upcoming procurements. By this reason, the proposal is Partnering contract procured by 2018 without any incentives during the first two years. Both the contractors and Trafikverket plan the inventory of what shall be done during the four-year contract period. For the third and the final year they shall make an agreement on a target price for the incentive 50/50 when the extent is better known. Key

No description available.

Massachusetts General Laws (M.G.L.'s) require state agencies to procure construction contracts using the design-bid-build project delivery system, unless special legislation is enacted to allow the use of alternative methods. Considering the wide range of alternative delivery methods for construction contracts, this thesis focuses on design-build on public projects. Even though Massachusetts laws do not expressly prohibit design-build, they do preclude its use indirectly by requiring the separation of design and construction services, and by requiring that construction contracts be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder only after the project is fully designed. The objectives of this study are to specifically examine the reasons behind the legislature unwillingness to allow design-build as a conventional project delivery method; and to determine the likelihood that design-build will become a conventional delivery system in Massachusetts in the future. For this purpose, several academic research papers, case studies and industry reports have been reviewed. As well, pertinent sections of the M.G.L.'s and other references have been examined. Personal interviews were conducted with key representatives of the public and private sectors, who provided valuable input regarding design-build on public projects. The analysis of the information collected reveals that three principal areas seem to hinder any successful attempts to enact a legislation making design-build a conventional delivery method. These areas can be summarized as (1) loss of opportunities for the design and construction community, (2) technical and management issues at the public sector level, and (3) nature of the political environment in Massachusetts. Due to the unpredictable political environment, and the competing interests within the private sector, within the public sector, and between the private and public sectors, it is highly unlikely that design-build will become a conventional delivery method for public projects in the near future. The report concludes with recommendations to increase the likelihood of design-build to become a conventional project delivery method, considering the issues denoted above.