While other alternative project delivery methods have emerged to address the limitations of Design-Bid-Build, Design-Build-Finance (DBF) has surfaced more recently. Although DBF has gained prominence in the past decade, research pertaining to this method is limited. Consequently, this research investigated the use of DBF for the delivery of transportation infrastructure by five State DOTs: Florida, North Carolina, Georgia, Michigan and Texas through a combination of interviews with DOT personnel and investigation of completed or on-going DBF projects. To complement this, subject matter experts (SMEs) were interviewed to obtain a more general market perspective of DBF. As a result, two variants of DBF, DBF – Receivables and DBF – Risk Transfer, were identified; the DOTs investigated and the US more broadly, primarily use the DBF - Receivables variant where the contractor is entitled to payments for the activities completed irrespective of the project's completion. Whereas in the DBF – Risk Transfer variant, the contractor's payments are linked to the completion of the project. Further, DBF is employed on projects that are (i) in need of acceleration, which generates (ii) social and economic benefits such as congestion relief and safety enhancements; such projects are also (iii) subjected to short-term budgetary restrictions, but they typically have (iv) funds programmed in the future. The distinction found in the variants of DBF provides a better understanding of the drivers of DBF, which were validated through interviews. In practice, this distinction also aids public agencies in better identification of the appropriate project delivery method for a given project. / Master of Science / Infrastructure projects are complex with many stakeholders involved in different stages of the project lifecycle. Design-Bid-Build (DBB) is the conventional method of project delivery for government agencies in the United States for delivery of infrastructure in the in 20th century due to legislation like the Brooks Act of 1972. Alternative project delivery methods, which can be classified into Capital Delivery Methods like Design-Build (DB) and Lifecycle Approach Methods like Design-Build-Finance-Operate-Maintain (DBFOM), have recently re-emerged to overcome the shortcomings of DBB. Design-Build-Finance (DBF) is one such alternative delivery method that has been increasingly used in the past decade to aid public transportation agencies to meet growing infrastructure needs. Significant research has been conducted to determine the drivers of alternative delivery methods like DB and DBFOM. The potential benefits of DBFOM are not found in DBF since a contractor is not involved in the operations and maintenance stages of a project. Moreover, current literature on DBF is limited since it is a contemporary phenomenon. In the US, 11 transportation projects were identified that employed DBF in the past decade. To understand why public agencies are using DBF, this research examined DBF programs in five states using a mix of interviews of key stakeholders and a review of available project documentation. Two variants of DBF with different payment structures and risk profiles were uncovered. Further, agencies tend to employ DBF to accelerate the timeline of a project that has funds programmed in later years and to realize the associated social and economic benefits such as congestion relief or improved safety. However, agencies must consider potential disadvantages such as increased oversight and financing costs when deciding whether or not to use this method.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:VTETD/oai:vtechworks.lib.vt.edu:10919/98823 |
| Date | 11 June 2020 |
| Creators | Gurram, Vikas |
| Contributors | Civil and Environmental Engineering, Garvin, Michael J., Kumar, Raman, Shealy, Earl W. |
| Publisher | Virginia Tech |
| Source Sets | Virginia Tech Theses and Dissertation |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Thesis |
| Format | ETD, application/pdf |
| Rights | In Copyright, http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/ |
Page generated in 0.0018 seconds