Project teams that deliver high risk, complex projects in the civil construction industry need tools to enable successful delivery. Construction Manager/General Contractor (CM/GC) is an innovative alternate delivery method, providing one such a tool. CM/GC furnishes public agencies with an attractive option for delivering projects in a less adversarial and more constructive manner by involving the contractor during design. The sophisticated public owner does not have to relinquish control of the details of the design in order to accelerate the schedule or see the benefits of real-time cost estimating data. There are also significant cost and schedule benefits with not degradation in quality. However, because CM/GC is relatively unknown to the civil construction industry much remains to be investigated about how CM/GC processes effect successful project delivery. This research investigated how CM/GC processes affect the three critical elements of construction process risks (including quality, schedule, cost and collaboration), project specific risks, and innovation. By identifying the processes that benefit these elements, successes can be repeated and increased. Additionally, an understanding of the differences in the perception of CM/GC processes, given by contractors, owners, and design engineers, provided perspective into improving the process. Analyzing data on current CM/GC projects and programs, as well as the compiled experience of field-experienced project teams, provided the information the industry needs to pursue implementation. Identified advantages of the process can be tied to strategies for successful delivery. Identified disadvantages expose barriers to implementation to be overcome by the project team. Project teams state that while the process does have disadvantages, many are perceptional and not fatal flaws to the method. Findings of this research link CM/GC processes to robust risk management results and the opportunity for successful innovation.

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.

abstract: The water and wastewater industry in the United States is in dire need of renovation due to dwindling infrastructure and requires substantial reinvestment. Design-bid-build (DBB) is the traditional method of project delivery most widely applied in this industry. However, alternative project delivery methods (APDM) are on the rise and touting the benefits of reduced project schedule and cost. The main purpose of this study is to conduct a qualitative and quantitative performance evaluation to assess the current impact of APDM in the water and wastewater industry. A national survey was conducted targeting completed water and wastewater treatment plant projects. Responses were obtained from 75 utilities and constructors that either completed their projects using DBB, construction manager at risk (CMAR), or design-build (DB). Data analysis revealed that CMAR and DB statistically outperformed DBB in terms of project speed and intensity. Performance metrics such as cost growth, schedule growth, unit cost, factors influencing project delivery method selection, scope changes, warranty and latent defects, and several others are also evaluated. The main contribution of this study was that it was able to show that for the same project cost, water and wastewater treatment plants could be delivered under a faster schedule and with higher quality through the utilization of APDM. / Dissertation/Thesis / Masters Thesis Construction Management 2018

abstract: Water utilities across the United States are facing numerous challenges, such as limited funding and increasing project complexity, in constructing and upgrading their aging infrastructure. One innovative method to overcome these challenges is through the use of alternative project delivery methods (APDM), such as construction management at-risk (CMAR) and design-build (DB). Previous research has shown that APDM have the potential to deliver higher performing water infrastructure projects when compared to the traditional design-bid-build (DBB) method. However, there is a need to further examine APDM practices and develop tools that may support utilities in the delivery of their APDM water infrastructure projects. This study fills the knowledge gap by conducting several studies that may support public and private utilities in improving the delivery of their APDM water infrastructure projects. First, APDM implementation practices for water infrastructure projects are identified by assessing the state of practice, particularly during project procurement and execution. Second, DB project administration best practices are determined to support utilities seeking to add DB to their organization’s project delivery toolbox. Third, a pioneering web-based project delivery method decision-support tool was developed to aid utilities in selecting the appropriate delivery method for their water project. Finally, project-specific factors and attributes that impact project delivery performance are investigated through exploratory modeling and analysis. The study collected data on 75 completed treatment plant projects, conducted interviews with ten utilities that successfully deliver their water projects using DB, and worked closely with several industry experts through industry workshops and panels. Key findings related to water infrastructure project delivery revealed in this study included: (1) guaranteed maximum price (GMP) is the preferred compensation type for APDM projects; (2) utilities statistically having the lowest comfort level with delivering CMAR projects; (3) qualifications-based procurement is an effective DB project delivery practice; (4) the identification of 13 key project delivery method selection factors; and (5) the three highest predictors that impact unit cost performance are project complexity, project team chemistry and communication, and project size. / Dissertation/Thesis / Doctoral Dissertation Civil, Environmental and Sustainable Engineering 2020

abstract: The alternative project delivery methods (APDMs) today are being increasingly used by owner organizations in the architecture, engineering, and construction (AEC) industry. Yet the adoption of these methods can be extremely difficult to accomplish and requires significant change management efforts. To facilitate the APDM adoption, this research aimed to better understand how AEC owner organizations have changed from only using the design-bid-build method to also successfully implementing APDMs from an organizational change perspective. This research utilized a literature review, survey and interviews to fulfill the research objectives. The dissertation follows a three paper format. The first paper focuses on identifying organizational change management (OCM) practices that, when effectively executed, lead to increased success rates of adopting APDMs in owner AEC organizations. The results of the first paper indicated that the five OCM practices with the strongest correlations to successful APDM adoption were realistic timeframe, effective change agents, workload adjustments, senior-leadership commitment, and sufficient change-related training. The second paper focuses on investigating AEC employees’ reactions to the adoption of APDMs. The findings of the second paper revealed that employees in AEC organizations react favorably to adopting a change in their project delivery systems. The findings further revealed that increasing the use of OCM practices is related to decreased employee resistance to change. The third paper aimed to provide guidelines detailing on how to lead APDM adoption. The findings of the third paper indicated that there was a general sequence of four implementation phases, which were preparing and planning, pilot project testing, expanding to the intended scale, and sustaining and evaluating. The phases include specific OCM practices that increase the probability of successful APDM adoption. The dissertation results can help in guiding the senior managers of construction organizations and OCM consultants to effectively implement APDMs for the first time in the construction sector. / Dissertation/Thesis / Doctoral Dissertation Construction Management 2020

Le Syndrome Dysgénésique et Respiratoire Porcin (PRRS) est la maladie infectieuse endémique la plus couteuse en élevage porcin dont l'agent responsable est un Arterivirus, le PRRSV, qui présente une grande diversité génétique. L'infection par le PRRSV est fréquemment associée à l'infection par les virus influenza. La vaccination est une méthode de lutte adaptée contre ces virus. Dans le cas du PRRSV, les vaccins les plus utilisés sont des virus vivants modifiés (MLV) qui induisent une immunité protectrice peu efficace contre les variants viraux. Dans le cas du virus influenza, les vaccins inactivés utilisés présentent la même insuffisance.Dans ce travail de thèse, j'ai évalué des stratégies vaccinales visant à induire une immunité efficace contre des variants viraux, en utilisant des antigènes conservés entre souches, adressés aux cellules présentatrices d'antigènes (APC), et j'ai analysé l'effet de différentes voies et modes d'administration.Dans le cas du virus grippal, le ciblage d'antigènes conservés (HA2, M2e, NP) au CD11c a permis d'augmenter la réponse T uniquement lors d'administration par voie intramusculaire (IM) et fut sans effet sur la réponse anticorps. La vaccination par voie intradermique s'est traduit par une exacerbation de la pathologie lors d'une épreuve virale, alors que la vaccination par voie IM a réduit les symptômes, la durée d'excrétion virale en corrélation avec une meilleure réponse anticorps anti-HA2 et M2e.Dans le cas du virus PRRSV qui fut mon sujet principal d'étude, j'ai cherché à optimiser des réponses lymphocytaires T IFNγ en employant une stratégie vaccinale ADN codant des antigènes contenant des épitopes T conservés entre souches, ciblés aux APC. En effet, alors que les mutations virales conduisent à un échappement aux anticorps neutralisants, la réponse lymphocytaire T IFNγ a été proposée impliquée dans la protection croisée. J'ai montré que l'immunogénicité optimale de vaccins ADN PRRSV, conduisant à la réponse T la plus large, est obtenue par l'administration intradermique associée aux nanoparticules de PLGA (NP), suivi d'une électroporation (EP), par rapport à EP seul ou délivrance intradermique ou transcutanée avec des patches à micro-aiguilles résorbables. Cette immunogénicité optimale est associée à une bonne transfection des cellules de la peau, à une accumulation de cellules inflammatoires, et à une mobilisation des cellules dendritiques. J'ai ensuite utilisé ce mode d'administration EP+NP pour immuniser des porcs avec des plasmides codant des antigènes conservés du PRRSV adressés ou non aux APC via CD11c ou XCR1. Les porcs ont été immunisés soit avec des injections répétées d'ADN seul soit en prime-boost ADN-MLV. Le régime ADN-MLV s'est montré supérieur pour l'induction de réponse B et T à celui de l'ADN ou du MLV seuls, et le ciblage aux APC a nettement augmenté la réponse anticorps mais pas la réponse T IFNγ. Dans une expérience suivante à visée d'application sur le terrain, j'ai utilisé le régime ADN-MLV (sans NP cette fois), délivré avec EP ou avec jet sous pression (PJ). Dans ces conditions, la primo-vaccination avec ADN n'a pas significativement augmenté la réponse T IFNγ induite par le MLV, mais elle a clairement augmenté la réponse anticorps avec un bénéfice du ciblage des APC. L'immuno-potentialisation induite par la primo-vaccination ADN n'a pas conduit à l'amélioration de la protection contre une épreuve avec un virus hétérologue et a montré que cette protection n'est au final pas corrélée avec la réponse lymphocytaire T IFNγ et opère en l'absence d'anticorps neutralisants détectables. Enfin, l'ensemble de ce travail montre que l'effet du ciblage des APC chez le porc est influencé par la voie d'administration et par le régime d'administration comme le prime-boost ADN-MLV. / The Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome (PRRS) is the most damaging infectious disease in pigs worldwide. The etiologic agent is an Arterivirus, the PRRSV, which presents a large genetic diversity. PRRSV infection is frequently associated with influenza virus co-infection. Vaccination is a highly suitable way to control these viruses. In the case of PRRSV, the most effective commercial vaccines are modified live vaccines (MLV) which induce only a partial protection against heterologous strains. In the case of the influenza virus, the available inactivated vaccines show the same weakness.With the goal to control emerging influenza and PRRSV variants, I evaluated vaccine strategies involving conserved viral antigens between strains which were targeted to antigen-presenting cells (APC) and delivered by different routes and methods.In the case of influenza virus, the targeting of conserved antigens (HA2, M2e and NP) to CD11c led to increased IFNγ T cell responses only when vaccines were delivered by the intramuscular (IM) route and had no effect on the humoral response. The intradermal route exacerbated disease following challenge whereas the IM route reduced the symptoms, the duration of viral excretion in correlation with higher anti-HA2 and anti-M2e antibody responses.In the case of PRRSV, which was my main subject, I sought to optimize the IFNγ T cell responses by using DNA vaccines encoding antigens with conserved T-epitopes between strains, and targeted to APC. Indeed, whereas viral mutants escape neutralizing antibodies, it has been proposed that the IFNγ T cell responses are instrumental for cross-protection. I showed that the broadest T cell responses were induced by DNA vaccines combined to nanoparticles PLGA (NP) injected by the intradermal route, followed by electroporation (EP) compared with EP-only, intradermal route-only or transcutaneous dissolvable microneedles. This optimal immunogenicity was associated with a high transfection level of skin cells, an accumulation of inflammatory cells, and dendritic cells mobilisation. Next I used the EP+NP method to immunize pigs with plasmids encoding conserved PRRSV antigens targeted or not to APC via CD11c or XCR1. Pigs were immunized either with repeated injections of DNA alone or with a prime-boost DNA-MLV. The DNA-MLV regimen induced improved humoral and IFNγ T cell responses compared to DNA alone or MLV alone and the APC-targeting significantly increased the humoral response but not the IFNγ T cell response. Finally, I evaluated the DNA-MLV regimen efficacy, with an applied perspective, using naked DNA without NP and delivered by EP or by a convenient needle free injection technology (PJ). In these conditions, the DNA prime did not significantly increase the IFNγ T cell response induced by the MLV, but clearly increased the humoral response with a benefit of the APC-targeting. However, the immune potentiation induced by the DNA prime did not lead to an improved protection following a heterologous challenge. The heterologous protection was not correlated to the measured humoral and IFNγ T cell responses, and neutralizing antibodies were undetectable. Thus cross-protective effectors have not been sufficiently activated by our DNA-MLV strategy and the immune correlates of protection against heterologous PRRSV are still to be identified to develop cross-protective vaccines. Finally, this work shows that the effect of APC-targeting in pigs is influenced by delivery routes and methods and by vaccine regimen such as the prime-boost DNA-MLV.

This research determined the preferred project delivery method utilized by campus planners when building student housing on a university campus. Four key performance indicators were also evaluated to determine if they influenced the campus planner to select a particular project delivery method. The four key performance indicators were: owner input, cost, safety, and on-time completion. Campus planners identified though the Society for Campus and University Planners (SCUP), were invited to participate in this survey research method. Five research questions were explored in this study. They were: 1. What is the preferred project delivery method (PDM) when building a residence hall on a college campus? 2. Do key performance indicators influence a campus planner’s choice of preferred project delivery method? 3. Does the preferred project delivery method differ by the number of beds? 4. Does the preferred project delivery method differ geographically? 5. Does the preferred project delivery method differ between public and private institutions? Based on the survey findings, analyzed using SPSS, sufficient information was garnered from the data to allow responses to the five research questions. In sum, there was a significant preference on the part of campus planners for the construction management at risk project delivery method when building student housing. This finding was consistent across regions and between public and private institutions. The design-bid-build project delivery method was the preferred approach when building student housing of less than 200 beds. Key performance indicators were shown to have little influence on the decision regarding which project delivery method to choose.