Understanding Different Project Delivery Systems In Construction Projects Is Crucial For Successful Essay.

The portfolio is based on the delivery system of the “Case project”, where students use real-life project as the vehicle for learning and developing their competencies in this unit of study. The case project should be selected by students in their field of interest. The portfolio includes three components:

1. Literature review on the case project, including the typical delivery models and contexts.

2. Development of the methodology for case project delivery system.

3. Implementation of the methodology from 2 to design case project delivery systems. Students will also discuss results and expected outcomes and suggest implementation plan for the case project. 

Different Project Delivery Systems

Project delivery in construction projects involves planning, designing, construction, and project management services like organizing, planning, execution and management. A typical project involves three key internal including owner, designer, and developer that have major impacts on the project outcome. They need to take critical decisions on the project such as method of procurement to use, contract types to develop and delivery method to use. When taking decisions about the delivery systems, these stakeholders may have different perspectives as every delivery system may have different set of advantages and disadvantages for each of them.

Common types of delivery systems used worldwide are design bid build construction management multi-prime, construction management at risk, design build, design build operate/maintain, and an integrated project delivery model. Some benefits provided by a specific delivery model could be associated with all the three types of stakeholders but there are no absolute values. A design-build project would have a positive impact on the project schedule which can benefit all. Integrated Product Delivery (IPD) increases process efficiencies as well as reduce the risks of litigation. Thus, it is seen as the best delivery system by many contractors. Based on the different perspectives of the people on these benefits decision can be taken on which delivery model to use on a project. Any delivery model that is chosen must try to reduce the wastage on the project and may even be changed if currently used delivery system is causing wastage (Fischer, Reed, Khanzode, & Ashcraft, 2012).

Figure 1: Design-bid-build

This is the traditional method of delivery system in which separate contracts are created for separate project participants. In Design-Bid-Build model of project delivery, two types of contracts are formed, one for the architect and other for a main contractor to take care of other deliveries. The work follows a linear sequence on this project and thus have advantages like low cost and greater control over design. A typical design-build project would follow a linear sequence of execution starting with engagement of a qualified engineer, and then designing, obtaining bids for execution, and engaging contractor for project completion. There can also be some variations from this sequence such as addition of performance measures during designing and building of contractors based on performance specifications (Beck group, 2015).

However, because of this linearity, the project can be very time consuming to execute. Also, the project owner is responsible for any cost changes on the project and the contractor may not have any say on it. Thus, the contract favours the owner more than the contractor (Rawlins & Godwin, 2015).

Design-Bid-Build Construction Model

The selection of right designer is critical for such a project as remining project stages would largely depend on the efficiency of the project design. Thus, an engineer involved in this work is carefully selected considering certifications of quality standards, experience, vendor partnerships, and pricing strategy compared to competition. Considerations also have to be made for product knowledge, time available for outsourcing work, and needs for project management (Walewski, G. Edward Gibson, & Jasper, 2001).

Figure 2: Construction Management Multi-Prime

In this type of project delivery mode, several different contracts are made for architect, contractors and subcontractors. This model also lets the project owner retain the control over the design and gives the advantage of low cost of execution. However, it fast tracks the project by involving contractors at early stages. However, owner is responsible for making any changes in scope and the subcontractor may not be involved in the process which leads to a lac of oversight on the project (Rawlins & Godwin, 2015).

Figure 3: Construction Management-at-Risk

Just like the design-bid-build model, this types delivery model also involves development of two types contractors including those for architect and for contractor. However, the contractor is selected based on specific qualifications and the paid fee. The contractor can assign sub-contracts to other contractors. The project price is flexible for suppliers and subcontractors due to open book process. In this type of delivery model also, the owner is only responsible for the selection of the contractor and take major business decisions. No inputs may be taken from the contractor while planning design for a construction project. In this arrangement, codesigning and construction phases are separated. The construction manager is the owner of the design phase while construction is majorly taken care of by the contractor (LEVELSET, 2019).

Figure 4: Design-Build (DB)

In design-build project delivery systems, a single point of contact is made which makes this a the fastest delivery system. The project scope is well-defined and the approach is cost effective. The single major contractor needs to administer the whole design-build process. In this type of delivery system, inputs are also taken from the main contractor during the designing phase of the project. Any gaps or overlaps existing are identified during the pre-construction stage. With early resolution of the issues related to construction and designing, the schedule of the project can be improved and a tight budget control system can be implemented to ensure adherence to allotted budget (Molenaar, Harper, & Yugar-Arias, 2014).

Construction Management Multi-Prime Model

The costs are reduced in these types of contracts and procurement can happen directly through trades without addition of any mark up on supply prices. This type of contract may serve best in the interest of the project owner. However, this type of project delivery also has some drawbacks such as lack of oversight for contractor, responsibility for the change lying on the project owner, need for advanced understanding and planning of performance criterial, and need of the owner to take early decisions that can influence the whole project thereafter (Beck group, 2015).

Figure 5: Integrated Project Delivery

In the integrated project delivery system, an integrated team of contractors and architects is formed such that designers as well as construction contractors can all contribute to the project in all phases. This eliminates redundant efforts and thus, reduce cost of construction by reducing wastage (Cassino, 2018).

Figure 6: Integrated Project Delivery System (Fischer, Reed, Khanzode, & Ashcraft, 2012)

In IPD system, synergies need to be created between different technical systems operating in a project including product, processes, information and project organizations. Specific performance metrics are developed by the owner to measure the achievements on the project at every stage. The integrated system relies on the concept of working together and works on the belief that no system can be build on isolation but needs collaboration from all. Fr instance, when designing lightening for a building, other considerations that may be associated with other contractors are important  to make. The width of the building and height of the floors may affect the choice of lightening (T., Lehoux N., & Y., 2017).

There can be different ways of doing process integration. An integration can happen between the value defined for the project and the designing process as the users may not be able to understand the value as well as what they want through the design. A design needs to be validated by different users while in making such that adjustments have to be made by the designer accordingly. The construction perspective also has to be brought in the process of designing because of creation of building design is the key output in the project design process which can affect the whole construction project (Chong, Brandt, & and Martin, 2010).

Figure 7: IPD Framework (Ashcraft, 2011)

The objectives behind using an IPD framework for project deliveries are removal of barriers to communication, alignment of all project participants to common goals, and increasing of the project value by associating it with rewards. An IPD project relies on key structural elements that include early involvement of project participants, shared risk as well rewards between participants, join control over the project, reduced exposure to liability, and joint development as well as validation of project targets (Walewski, G. Edward Gibson, & Jasper, 2001).

The current research takes the case of construction for the expansion of a children’s hospital called Cardinal Glennon in St. Louis, Missouri. The project consisted of 138,000 square foot of space that was built in the budget of $45.5 million. The project used Integrated Project Delivery approach which was decided by developer, architect and engineer of the project during the designing stage. This choice was made to share project responsibilities equally among partners, build high level of coordination between teams and saving money through management of contingencies (Christner Inc., 2010). 

References

Ashcraft, H. W. (2011). The IPD Framework. San Francisco, CA: Hanson Bridgett.

Beck group. (2015). An Analysis of Design/Build vs. Design-Bid-Build. Beck group.

Cassino, K. E. (2018). Project Delivery Systems: How They Impact Efficiency and Profitability in the Buildings Sector. McGraw Hill.

Chong, G. H., Brandt, R., & and Martin, W. M. (2010). Design Informed: Driving Innovation with Evidence-Based Design. . Wiley.

Christner Inc. (2010). Integrated Project Delivery: Case Studies. AIA.

Fischer, M., Reed, D., Khanzode, A., & Ashcraft, H. (2012). A simple framework for integrated project delivery. Stanford University.

LEVELSET. (2019). Common Construction Project Delivery Methods: A Breakdown. LEVELSET.

Molenaar, K., Harper, C., & Yugar-Arias, I. (2014). Guidebook for Selecting Alternative Contracting Methodsfor Roadway Projects:Project Delivery Methods, Procurement Procedures,and Payment Provisions. Boulder, Colorado : University of Colorado .

Rawlins, D. D., & Godwin, B. (2015). CHoosing a Project Delivery Method. Design-Build Institute of America.

T., P., Lehoux N., & Y., C. (2017). Design-Build in Construction: Performance and Impact on Stakeholders. 25th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction (IGLC), (pp. 35-43). Heraklion, Greece.

Walewski, J., G. Edward Gibson, J., & Jasper, J. (2001). Project Delivery Methods and COntracting Approaches Available for Implementation . Austin, TX : The University of Texas at Austin .