Scholarly Papers
Feb 29, 2024

Optimizing Quality Control and Assurance of Design-Build Transportation Projects through Alignment of RFP Selection Criteria with Owners Expectations

Publication: Journal of Legal Affairs and Dispute Resolution in Engineering and Construction
Volume 16, Issue 2

Abstract

Schedule, cost/budget, and quality are traditionally identified as the three key performance indicators (KPI) of success in project management and delivery. Government authorities charged with delivering public infrastructure are more frequently choosing to utilize design-build project delivery due to an expected improvement in schedule and cost/budget performance, as compared to the traditional design-bid-build project delivery method. Prioritizing schedule and budget results in a gap in the relationship between quality and successful project outcome. While quality control and quality assurance procedures remain prescriptive and similar to those required via design-bid-build, the responsibilities are typically shifted to the design-builder who is striving to meet the accelerated schedule and cost efficiencies achievable through the integrated design-build process. This scholarly paper identifies opportunities for improvements in government contract documents, specifically the request for proposal (RFP) to realign and optimize project quality as an emphasized metric or KPI for design-build success. The quality gap between owner’s needs and contract documents is identified, viable strategies are explored, and techniques developed and presented to improve RFP requirements and selection criteria to keep quality on par with schedule and budget. Restoring quality as a priority on par with schedule and budget develops a platform for continued successful design-build project delivery while potentially reducing a major source of dispute during both design and construction.

Practical Applications

Design-build project delivery in the transportation sector has been highly successful and broadly accepted within the transportation construction industry, however, there remains opportunity for improvement in the development of RFPs. There remains significant opportunity for refinement and advancement in RFP development techniques as owners and practitioners grow and evolve in the design-build (DB) delivery method. The iron triangle of achieving project goals related to cost/budget, schedule, and quality continues to be the benchmark for project success, yet design-build team selection is typically driven by potential schedule gains and cost certainties. This paper focuses on improvements in quality related RFP selection criteria development to close the gap and return quality to a top three criteria on par with schedule and cost. Six (6) modifications to quality related evaluation criteria in an RFP are identified, explored, and discussed in detail. Implementation of these quality criteria modifications from the onset of the selection process may result in multiple benefits in project delivery including reduced nonconformances, achievement of design lifespan, and reduced conflicts among project participants.

Get full access to this article

View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.

Data Availability Statement

Data collected via the design build industry questionnaire is available. All data, models, or code that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Acknowledgments

The writers would like to gratefully recognize executives of WSP US and The LiRo Group for helping to facilitate meetings with SMEs including public officials, design professionals, construction contractors, quality control and quality assurance representatives, and Owner’s Representatives. We also thank members of DBIA CMAA and ASCE, and others across the country who took the time to participate in interviews and surveys, offer personal insight and commentary, and provided the unique perspectives necessary to understand how to better align RFP quality requirements with owner’s goals and successful project outcomes while delivering the next generation of infrastructure in the United States.

References

Works Cited

Alleman, D., and D. Tran. 2020. “Exploring a progressive design-build best-value delivery method in highway construction.” J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr. 13 (1): 05020018. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)LA.1943-4170.0000443.
ASCE. 2012. Quality in the constructed project: A guide for owners, designers, and constructors. Reston, VA: ASCE.
ASCE. 2021. “Report card for America’s infrastructure 2021 bridges.” Accessed May 12, 2020. http://www.infrastrucurereportcard.org/cat-item/bridges/.
Atkinson, R. 1999. “Project management: Cost, time and quality, two best guesses and a phenomenon, it’s time to accept other success criteria.” Int. J. Project Manage. 17 (6): 337–342. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-7863(98)00069-6.
Chan, A., D. Scott, and E. Lam. 2002. “Framework of success criteria for design/build projects.” J. Manage. Eng. 18 (3): 120–128. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0742-597X(2002)18:3(120).
Chen, Q., Z. Jin, B. Xia, P. Wu, and M. Skitmore. 2015. “Time and cost performance of design-build projects.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 142 (2): 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001056.
DBIA (Design-Build Institute of America). 2022. DBIA state maps: Design-build authorization for transportation 2022. Washington, DC: DBIA.
FMI. 2021. “Design-build utilization study.” Accessed January 12, 2023. https://fmicorp.com/insights/industry-insights/design-build-utilization-study/.
Gad, G., S. Adamtey, and D. Gransberg. 2015. Transportation research record: Journal of the transportation research board. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board.
Gransberg, D. D., J. Datin, and K. Molenaar. 2008. Quality assurance in design-build projects. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board.
Hale, D., P. P. Shrestha, G. E. Gibson Jr., and G. C. Migliaccio. 2009. “Empirical comparison of design/build and design/bid/build project delivery methods.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 135 (7): 579–587. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000017.
Hasanzadeh, S., B. Esmaelli, S. Nasrollahi, G. Gad, and D. Gransberg. 2018. “Impact of owners’ early decisions on project performance and dispute occurrence in public highway projects.” J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr. 10 (2): 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)LA.1943-4170.0000251.
Konchar, M., and V. Sanvido. 1998. “Comparison of U.S. Project delivery systems.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 124 (6): 435–444. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(1998)124:6(435).
Kraft, E., and K. R. Molenaar. 2013. “Fundamental project quality assurance organizations in highway design and construction.” J. Manage. Eng. 30 (4): 04014015. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000197.
Kraft, E., and K. R. Molenaar. 2014. “Quality assurance organization selection factors for highway design and construction projects.” J. Manage. Eng. 31 (5): 04014069. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000289.
Lam, E., A. Chan, and D. Chan. 2008. “Determinants of successful design-build projects.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 134 (5): 333–341. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2008)134:5(333).
Lee, D., and D. Arditi. 2006. “Total quality performance of design/build firms using quality function deployment.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 132 (1): 49–57. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2006)132:1(49).
Lee, J. H., J. Yashovardhan, and B. Ashuri. 2019. “Key issues and differences in practical components of quality management in design-build highway projects.” J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr. 12 (1): 04519029. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)LA.1943-4170.0000334.
Lee, J. H., Y. Zhou, and B. Ashuri. 2020. “Key challenges to design professional liability in the design-build environment.” J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr. 12 (3): 04520031. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)LA.1943-4170.0000413.
Ling, F., and C. Chong. 2004. “Design-and-build contractors’ service quality in public projects in Singapore.” Build. Environ. 40 (6): 815–823. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2004.07.017.
Liu, L., J. H. Lee, and B. Ashuri. 2022. “Identifying gaps in the understanding of a quality assurance program in design-build quality management.” J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr. 14 (3): 04522013. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)LA.1943-4170.0000544.
MacFarland, T. W., and J. M. Yates. 2016. “Mann-Whitney U test.” In Introduction to nonparametric statistics for the biological sciences using R, 103-32. Berlin: Springer.
Mokoena, T. S., J. Pretorius, and C. Van Wyngaard. 2013. “Triple constraint considerations in the management of construction projects.” In Proc., 2013 IEEE Int. Conf. on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management, 813–817. New York: IEEE.
Moran, R., I. Odeh, and B. Ashuri. 2022. “Key challenges in megabridge design-build project procurement.” J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr. 14 (1): 04521039. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)LA.1943-4170.0000516.
Pishdad-Bozorgi, P., and J. M. de la Garza. 2012. “Comparative analysis of design-bid-build and design-build from the standpoint of claims.” In Proc., Construction Research Congress, 21–30. Reston, VA: ASCE.
Shane, J. S., D. D. Gransberg, K. R. Molenaar, and J. R. Gladke. 2006. “Legal challenge to a best-value procurement system.” Leadership Manage. Eng. 6 (1): 20–25.
Shrestha, P. P., J. T. O’ Connor, and G. E. Gibson Jr. 2011. “Performance comparison of large design-build and design-build highway projects.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 138 (1): 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000390.
SHRP2 (Second Strategic Highway research Program). 2019. “Service life design for bridges summary guide 2019 (R19A).” Accessed February 12, 2023. https://shrp2.transportation.org/Pages/ServiceLifeDesignforBridges.aspx.
USDOL (US Department of Labor). 2019. Investigation of March 15, 2018 Pedestrian Bridge Collapse at Florida International University, Miami, FL. Washington, DC: Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
USDOL (US Department of Labor). 2021. Investigation of the April 14, 2021, Collapse of a Bridge Span under Demolition, Herbert C. Bonner Bridge, Dare County, NC. Washington, DC: Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
Warne, T. R. 2005. Design build contracting for highway projects: A performance assessment. South Jordan, UT: Tom Warne and Associates.

Information & Authors

Information

Published In

Go to Journal of Legal Affairs and Dispute Resolution in Engineering and Construction
Journal of Legal Affairs and Dispute Resolution in Engineering and Construction
Volume 16Issue 2May 2024

History

Received: Apr 15, 2023
Accepted: Sep 17, 2023
Published online: Feb 29, 2024
Published in print: May 1, 2024
Discussion open until: Jul 29, 2024

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

ASCE Technical Topics:

Authors

Affiliations

Doctoral Candidate, Dept. of Civil Engineering and Engineering Mechanics, Columbia Univ., 500 W 120th St., New York City, NY 10027 (corresponding author). ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6009-9749. Email: [email protected]
Ibrahim Odeh, Ph.D., M.ASCE [email protected]
Senior Lecturer in Discipline, Dept. of Civil Engineering and Engineering Mechanics, Columbia Univ., 500 W 120th St., New York City, NY 10027. Email: [email protected]
Professor, School of Building Construction and School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, 280 Ferst Drive, Atlanta, GA 30332-0680. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4320-1035. Email: [email protected]

Metrics & Citations

Metrics

Citations

Download citation

If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.

View Options

Get Access

Access content

Please select your options to get access

Log in/Register Log in via your institution (Shibboleth)
ASCE Members: Please log in to see member pricing

Purchase

Save for later Information on ASCE Library Cards
ASCE Library Cards let you download journal articles, proceedings papers, and available book chapters across the entire ASCE Library platform. ASCE Library Cards remain active for 24 months or until all downloads are used. Note: This content will be debited as one download at time of checkout.

Terms of Use: ASCE Library Cards are for individual, personal use only. Reselling, republishing, or forwarding the materials to libraries or reading rooms is prohibited.
ASCE Library Card (5 downloads)
$105.00
Add to cart
ASCE Library Card (20 downloads)
$280.00
Add to cart
Buy Single Article
$35.00
Add to cart

Get Access

Access content

Please select your options to get access

Log in/Register Log in via your institution (Shibboleth)
ASCE Members: Please log in to see member pricing

Purchase

Save for later Information on ASCE Library Cards
ASCE Library Cards let you download journal articles, proceedings papers, and available book chapters across the entire ASCE Library platform. ASCE Library Cards remain active for 24 months or until all downloads are used. Note: This content will be debited as one download at time of checkout.

Terms of Use: ASCE Library Cards are for individual, personal use only. Reselling, republishing, or forwarding the materials to libraries or reading rooms is prohibited.
ASCE Library Card (5 downloads)
$105.00
Add to cart
ASCE Library Card (20 downloads)
$280.00
Add to cart
Buy Single Article
$35.00
Add to cart

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Copy the content Link

Share with email

Email a colleague

Share