History And Advantages/Disadvantages Of Traditional Vs Recent Project Delivery Systems

“Traditionally, the industry, as a general rule, separates the design and construction functions leading to many large projects being undertaken by a number of specialized professional organizations each with their own expertise and agenda’s, which can lead to several questions."

• Describe whether you think this a satisfactory method of project delivery ?
• What alternative more recent systems could be used?

Research the history of project delivery and list the advantages and disadvantages of the traditional and more recent delivery systems.

You could interview a local professional and ask them if they could:

• Give several anonymous examples from their experience of different methods of delivery and their relative success
• Describe the regulatory environment for typical projects in their immediate vicinity

Understanding Project Delivery

In this world most of the projects are achieved by contracts. And as a norm to accomplish the project efficiently we ought to manage the contracts first. The proprietor has the exclusive power to choose the type of contract & execution method to be adopted for a particular facility to be built and to set onward the standings in a contractual agreement. Selecting the appropriate technique to deliver the venture will simplify the project implementation and give flexibility in the course of construction by means of saving money and time for a firm and consequently the same to the proprietor.

The traditional Construction method of delivery occasionally denoted to as design bid build remains the most generally used technique of acquiring building works. In the traditional construction method, the client every so often hires a consultant (an architectural/engineering firm) which makes the detailed drawings and stipulations for the builder (a general contractor). The consultant also performs in place of the client to supervise the development execution in the course of building Arain, (2016). The general builder is accountable for the construction itself although the labor in reality may be carried out by several specialty subcontractors.

The client generally bargains the cost for work with the consultancy (A/E) firm. Besides to the accountabilities of modelling the structure, the consultancy firm also undertakes to some level administration of the building as postulated by the client. Traditionally, the A/E firm honors itself as design experts in lieu of the client who is prohibited from connecting with probable builders to circumvent conspiracy or conflict of interest. Field overseers working for a consultancy firm generally track through the execution of a venture after the design is finalized and rarely have widespread contribution in the design itself. Because of the legal action climate in the last two decades, most consultancy firms only offer eyewitnesses instead of supervisors in the field. Even the workshop drawings of production or building schemes given by the builders for authorization are appraised with a renunciation of responsibility by the Consultancy firms Arain, (2016). 

The client may choose a builder either by reasonable bidding or by concession. Public organizations are obligatory to use the reasonable bidding approach, while cloistered groups may select whichever method of action. By means of reasonable bidding, the client is enforced to use the consultant-builder order since detailed drawings and stipulations ought to be all set prior to inviting bidders to give in to their bids. If the client selects to use a discussed contract, it is allowed to use phased building if it so longings.

The builder may opt to execute whole or a section of the building work, or perform only as a director by delegating all the building works to subcontractors. The builder may also choose the subcontractors via reasonable bidding or discussed contracts. The builder may request several subcontractors to estimate prices for the subcontracts prior to submitting its bid to the client Bailey, (2016). 
Importance of Tradition contract construction.

Traditional contract construction method of delivery has notable advantages that makes it the preferred method of delivery.

Traditional Project Delivery: Pros and Cons

Traditional construction method generally produces best quality works since the client has a close control of the ongoing operations. A case in point, the consulting firm ought to provide a structural design that attains the client’s specifications and requirements. In addition to the advices and building expertise given to the client by the design team and the builder, the client may weigh options and decide on the most appropriate design and budget suitable for the scheme Bailey, (2016).

In this method of delivery, all bidders submit bids on the same information. Hence, the client is able to select the best or lowest via competitive bidding. In addition, the building cost will be more precise since the bids are based on the complete designs and specification.

If  compared to other delivery methods, the traditional contract construction method would be easier to be adopted since this technique has been generally applied for a while, so, the designing firm and the builder are more conversant solve or endure risks in the course of construction progress Bailey, (2016).

For traditional construction delivery method, the owner may find it problematic to organize the project since he/she is mandatory to communicate with few parties at the concurrently.  A case in point, the design team and the builder do not have a contractual association, hence, if they want to communicate they have to do it through the owner first, which is very inconvenience. This might lead to miscommunication in the system Jackson, (2010).

Traditional contractual construction call for longer time frames to accomplish the project. It is because the bids will be done after the structural design and specifications are fully executed. Furthermore, if mistakes happen, the design team and the builder may dodge the accountability to each other which may take long to settle hence delay the project Mcmeel, (2011).
Alternative Modern method of constructions.

Design and Build is appealing much as the name puts it forward. The builder has the accountability for both the structural design element and the construction. The client offers a set of necessities and the builder offers the plans and specification for how the entire project will be realized.

Single point responsibility.

In design build projects, the design builder has full accountability for the result of the development, excluding for matters for that the owner is accountable. This makes it easier to manage the progress of the entire project Towey, (2013). 

Shortened project delivery time.

Proprietors perceive the shorter period of design build developments as being the utmost vital advantage design build has to deliver. When the same unit is both designing and building the facility, obtaining and early building can start long before conclusion of the design (Orstavik et al., 2015). The final months of the design stage overlap the first months of the building phase, consequential to time savings likened to the traditional end-to-end order. This both lessens building cost and accelerates the flow of revenue.

Minimized claims and changes.

One of the impressive significances of single point accountability is the minimization of claims for additions in design build developments. In traditional building projects, a builder is normally entitled to extra reimbursement arising out of mistakes, oversights or vagueness in the plans and specifications. However, in design build schemes, the designer and builder are the unchanged entity, and the design builder cannot appeal for extra reimbursement on description of its own design mistakes or assumptions (Orstavik et al., 2015).

Disadvantages of Design and build method.

Loss of checks and balances.

 In traditional building, the owner maintains the designer in the course of the building phase to act as an overseer to ensure that the facility is constructed as designed (Freedland & Kountouris, 2011). In design build projects, the designer and builder are on the matching team and are regularly, at least technically, adverse to the owner.

Less owner control.

Since the designer is on the builder's team in a design build project, the proprietor may find itself short of admittance to the kind of data that it would have on a traditional development. (Freedland & Kountouris, 2011). Even though the design builder may provide consistent status reports, the data in them is regularly less beneficial to the proprietor than what would ordinarily be provided by an engineer loyal to the owner. 

Compliance with Subcontractors

The Rent out and Subcontracting Fair Practices Act, necessitates that tenderers list their subcontractors with their tenders. This can be problematic for a design-build tenderer. Without detailed design drawings, the subcontractors cannot accurately approximate costs (Freedland & Kountouris, 2011).

Conclusion

In conclusion, Traditional contract construction method is a reliable method of project delivery. In this kind of technique the client and or engineer has full governance of the project and the builder has to conform to full design provided by the engineer.

Most appropriate type of contract for Traditional contract construction method is lump sum contract which the price given by the builder is fixed and the entire project is already designed and the range of work is unblemished and fully detailed.

References

Arain, F. M. (2016). Construction project management research compendium. Volume 6 Volume 6. Available from: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&scope=site&db=nlebk&db=nlabk&AN=1365770. [Accessed 26th September 2018].
Bailey, J. (2016). Construction Law. London, Taylor and Francis. Available from https://public.eblib.com/choice/publicfullrecord.aspx?p=4710443. 
Freedland, M. R., & Kountouris, N. (2011). The legal construction of personal work relations. Oxford, New York. 
Jackson, B. J. (2010). Construction management jumpstart. Available from https://www.dawsonera.com/depp/reader/protected/external/AbstractView/S978047076806. [Accessed 26th September 2018].
Mcmeel, G. (2011). The construction of contracts: interpretation, implication, and rectification. Oxford, Oxford University Press. 
Orstavik, F, etal. (2015). Construction Innovation. Hoboken, Wiley. Available from: https://public.eblib.com/choice/publicfullrecord.aspx?p=1895528. [Accessed 26th September 2018]. 
Towey, D. (2013). Cost Management of Construction Projects. Hoboken, Wiley. Available from: https://public.eblib.com/choice/publicfullrecord.aspx?p=1211623. [Accessed 26th September 2018].