Project Delivery Method Performance for Public School Construction: Design-Bid-Build versus CM at Risk
Publication: Journal of Construction Engineering and Management
Volume 142, Issue 10
Abstract
The construction of public schools is a complex endeavor due to the involvement of multiple and diverse parties, funding and budgetary concerns, and statutory limitations imposed by local, state, and federal agencies, all of which serve to increase project risk. Project delivery methods using distinctive procedures to manage the design and construction process have been developed to reduce risk and improve project performance. To increase the probability of successful project outcomes, those responsible for public school construction require conclusive delivery method performance data. Completed in 2014, this two-year study used actual construction documents from 137 southeastern public schools to analyze and determine project delivery method cost, time, quality, and claims performance. The analysis indicated that performance of the Design-Bid-Build (DBB) method was significantly superior across all cost metrics, whereas the Construction Manager at Risk (CM at Risk) method produced higher levels of product and service quality. Essentially, public school administrators were paying a significant premium to obtain perceived improvements in both service and product quality. This research empowers decision-makers and benefits the public by providing evidence of the most efficient and effective means for the construction of new public schools.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
References
Abramson, P. (2012). “The 2012 school construction report.”, School Planning and Management, Chatsworth, CA.
Abramson, P. (2013). “The 2013 school construction report.”, School Planning and Management, Chatsworth, CA.
Addis, B. (2007). Building: 3000 years of design engineering and construction, Phaidon Press Limited, London.
Akintoye, A. S., and MacLeod, M. J. (1997). “Risk analysis and management in construction.” Int. J. Project Manage., 15(1), 31–38.
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.
Bennett, J., Pothecary, E., and Robinson, G. (1996). “Designing and building a world-class industry.” Centre for Strategic Studies in Construction, Univ. of Reading, Reading, U.K.
Bullen, C. V., and Rockart, J. F. (1981). “A primer on critical success factors.” Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
Carolinas AGC. (2009). Conf. on Alternative Project Delivery Methods, Charlotte, NC.
Chan, A. P. C., and Chan, A. P. L. (2004). “Key performance indicators for measuring construction success.” Benchmarking: An Int. J., 11(2), 203–221.
Cox, T., Kenig, M., Allison, M., Kelley, S. W., and Stark, M. (2011). “Primer on project delivery.” American Institute of Architects (AIA), Washington, DC.
D’Agostino, B., and Bridgers, M. (2010). Eleventh annual survey of owners: Rising from the ashes of recent economic woes, FMI/CMAA, Raleigh, NC.
Demkin, J. A., and AIA (American Institute of Architects). (2008). The architect’s handbook of professional practice, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ.
Fitchen, J. (1986). Building construction before mechanization, MIT Press, Cambridge, U.K.
Forester, J. (1989). Planning in the face of power, University of California Press, Los Angeles.
Ghavamifar, K., and Touran, A. T. (2008). “Alternative project delivery systems: Applications and legal limits in transportation projects.” J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract., 106–111.
Gordon, C. (1994). “Choosing appropriate construction contracting method.” J. Constr. Eng., 196–210.
Heady, E. J. (2012). Construction Law; the History is Ancient! Construction Connection News Letter, 〈http://www.constructionconnection.com/blog/tag/history-of-construction-law/〉 (Jun. 26, 2012).
Kangari, R. (1995). “Risk management perceptions and trends of U.S. construction.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 422–429.
Kenig, M. E. (2011). Project delivery systems for construction, Associated General Contractors of Americas, Arlington, VA.
Konchar, M. (1997). “A comparison of united states project delivery systems.”, Pennsylvania State Univ., University Park, PA.
Konchar, M., and Sanvido, V. (1998). “Comparison of U.S. project delivery systems.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 435–444.
McNichol, E., Oliff, P., and Johnson, N. (2011). States continue to feel recession’s impact, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Washington, DC.
National Research Council. (2009). Advancing the competitiveness and efficiency of the U.S. construction industry, National Academies Press, Washington, DC.
O’Connor, P. J. (2009). “Integrated project delivery: Collaboration through new contract forms.” Faegre & Benson LLP, Minneapolis.
Oliff, P., Mai, C., and Palacios, V. (2012). States continue to feel recession’s impact, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Washington, DC.
Rockart, J. F. (1979). “Chief executives define their own data needs.” Harvard Bus. Rev., 57(2), 81–93.
Rojas, E. M., and Kell, I. (2008). “Comparative analysis of project delivery systems cost performance in Pacific Northwest public schools.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 387–397.
RS Means. (2013). RS means construction cost data, 71st Ed., Construction Publishers & Consultants, Norwell, MA.
Sanvido, V., and Konchar, M. (1999). “Selecting project delivery systems: Comparing design-bid-build, design-build, and construction management at risk.” Project Delivery Institute, State College, PA.
Saporita, R. (2006). Managing risk in design and construction projects, ASME Press, New York.
SAS/STAT version 9.3 [Computer software]. SAS Institute, Cary, NC.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2011). “Capital spending report 2011.pdf (application/pdf object).” Washington, DC.
U.S. DOT (U.S. Department of Transportation). (2006). “Design-build effectiveness study.” Washington, DC.
Vincent, J. M., and McKoy, D. L. (2008). The complex and multi-faceted nature of school construction costs: Factors affecting California, American Institute of Architects, Sacramento, CA.
Williams, G. H. (2003). “An evaluation of public construction contracting methods for the public building sector in Oregon using data envelopment analysis.” Ph.D. dissertation, Portland State Univ., Portland, OR.
Zaghloul, R., and Hartman, F. (2003). “Construction contracts: The cost of mistrust.” Int. J. Project Manage., 21(6), 419–424.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management
Volume 142 • Issue 10 • October 2016
Copyright
© 2016 American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Received: Oct 21, 2015
Accepted: Jan 12, 2016
Published online: Apr 19, 2016
Discussion open until: Sep 19, 2016
Published in print: Oct 1, 2016
Authors
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.