Impact of Project Delivery Methods on Risk Allocation during the Planning Phase of Transportation Projects
Publication: Journal of Legal Affairs and Dispute Resolution in Engineering and Construction
Volume 16, Issue 4
Abstract
The construction of transportation projects in the United States has been increasing over the last few decades; more mega projects are expected to be procured in the next few years due to the new bipartisan infrastructure bill, for example, the federal government has allocated USD 110 billion in additional funds for transportation repairs over the next five years. It thus becomes crucial to develop and adapt innovative and effective risk management strategies to minimize the potential impact of claims or disputes on these mega projects, which could include the use of innovative project delivery methods. Construction risks can materialize at any of the project phases: planning, pre-award, and postaward stage. However, the planning stage is considered the most critical stage of any construction project’s life cycle as it sets the stage for projects’ expectations and risk management strategies. Parties in this project phase need to make risk allocation decisions such as those for land acquisition, utility relocation, and third-party agreements risks, while allocating these risks to the parties best able to manage them. This paper aims to conduct an analysis of risk allocation strategies that could be employed in the planning phase of mega transportation projects in the United States, considering different project delivery methods. The aim is to provide a comprehensive understanding of the risk allocation strategies employed by owners in drafting their contracts, including factors they need to consider at that stage. Results showed that the most critical risks to be taken into consideration during the planning phase are governmental approvals, third-party approvals, environmental approvals, right of way, and utilities. The contribution of this paper is that it addresses contract risk allocation in various project delivery methods while considering the increased size and risk of transportation projects, with a focus on preplanning stage. It also provides owners and stakeholders with risk allocation strategies they can employ on their projects.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
Data Availability Statement
All of the data, models, and code supporting this study’s findings are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge the support received from the National Commission of Highway Research Program (NCHRP) 25-03 project, the projects case study participants, in addition to the project team who assisted in the data collection of these projects: Ms. Hajer Dawoody of CPP, and Ms. Christine Ryan and Ms. Patricia M. de la Peña of Nossaman LLP.
References
Works Cited
Akintoye, A. S., and M. J. MacLeod. 1997. “Risk analysis and management in construction.” Int. J. Project Manage. 15 (1): 31–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-7863(96)00035-X.
ARTBA (American Road and Transportation Builders Association). 2022. “Highway dashboard – IIJA.” Accessed June 17, 2023. https://www.artba.org/market-intelligence/highway-dashboard-iija/.
Babatunde, S. O., O. Adeniyi, and O. A. Awodele. 2017. “Investigation into the causes of delay in land acquisition for PPP projects in developing countries.” Accessed August 27, 2022. https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/JEDT-05-2016-0029/full/html.
Batson, R. G. 2009. “Project risk identification methods for construction planning and execution.” In Proc., Construction Research Congress 2009. Reston, VA: ASCE.
Bing, L., A. Akintoye, P. J. Edwards, and C. Hardcastle. 2005. “The allocation of risk in PPP/PFI construction projects in the UK.” Int. J. Project Manage. 23 (1): 25–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2004.04.006.
Cantarelli, C. C., B. Flyvbjerg, S. L. Buhl, and E. J. Molin. 2012. “Geographical variation in project cost performance: The Netherlands versus worldwide.” Transp. Res. Part A: Policy Pract. 46 (1): 1–15.
Department of Commerce. 2022. “US and world population clock. United States Census Bureau.” Accessed August 27, 2022. https://www.census.gov/popclock/.
Dixit, S., K. Sharma, and S. Singh. 2020. “Identifying and analyzing key factors associated with risks in construction projects.” In Emerging trends in civil engineering, 25–32. Singapore: Springer.
FHWA (Federal Highway Administration). 2007. “Major projects.” Accessed August 27, 2022. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/majorprojects/cost_estimating/guidance.cfm.
FHWA (Federal Highway Administration). 2017. “Highway history.” Accessed August 27, 2022. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/longest.cfm.
Franklin, P. 2009. “Risk analysis for transportation projects.” In Proc., Annual Reliability and Maintainability Symp., 274–278. New York: IEEE.
Goodrum, P., A. Smith, B. Slaughter, and F. Kari. 2008. “Case study and statistical analysis of utility conflicts on construction roadway projects and best practices in their avoidance.” J. Urban Plann. Develop. 134 (2): 63–70. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)0733-9488(2008)134:2(63).
Hallowell, M. R., K. R. Molenaar, and B. R. Fortunato. 2012. “Enterprise risk management strategies for state departments of transportation.” J. Manage. Eng. 29 (2): 114–121. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000136.
Jeong, D. 2016. “Barriers to right-of-way acquisition and recommendations for change.” Accessed August 27, 2022. https://www.dot.state.mn.us/research/TS/2016/201628.pdf.
Jschneidawind, A. 2021. “Federal investment helped advance 22,000 highway improvement projects in 2020, New Data reveals. The American Road & Transportation Builders Association (ARTBA).” Accessed August 27, 2022. https://www.artba.org/2021/03/16/federal-investment-helped-advance-22000-highway-improvement-projects-in-2020-new-data-reveals/.
Lingard, H., L. Saunders, P. Pirzadeh, N. Blismas, B. Kleiner, and R. Wakefield. 2015. “The relationship between pre-construction decision-making and the effectiveness of risk control testing the time-safety influence curve.” Eng. Constr. Archit. Manage. 22 (1): 108–124. https://doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-08-2013-0074.
Loosemore, M., J. Raftery, C. Reilly, and D. Higgon. 2012. Risk management in projects. London: Routledge.
McWhirt, D. D. 2009. “A comparison of design-bid-build and design-build project delivery methods on military construction projects.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 135 (7): 22–29. https://doi.org/10.31274/rtd-180813-15741.
Sprunt, B., C. Kim, and D. Shivaram. 2021. “Biden says final passage of $1 Trillion infrastructure plan is a big step forward. NPR.” Accessed August 27, 2022. https://www.npr.org/2021/11/05/1050012853/the-house-has-passed-the-1-trillion-infrastructure-plan-sending-it-to-bidens-des.
The United States Government. 2021. “Fact sheet: The Bipartisan infrastructure deal. The White House.” Accessed November 6, 2021. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/11/06/fact-sheet-the-bipartisan-infrastructure-deal/.
USA. 2022. “US Transportation & Infrastructure Stats: 2022 state of the union.” Accessed August 27, 2022. https://usafacts.org/state-of-the-union/transportation-infrastructure/.
USDOT. 2022. “Raise discretionary grants.” Accessed August 27, 2022. https://www.transportation.gov/RAISEgrants.
Vasconcelos, V. S., F. Q. Silva, R. L. Rovai, M. de Mello Costa De Liberal, and C. D. A. Rached. 2019. Identification of the main risk factors in infrastructure projects of transporting people on rail by public-private partnerships.” Accessed August 27, 2022. https://www.abacademies.org/articles/identification-of-the-main-risk-factors-in-infrastructure-projects-of-transporting-people-on-rail-by-publicprivate-partnerships-7873.html.
Wang, T., W. Tang, F. Colin, L. D. Duffield, and Y. Wei. 2016. “Relationships among risk management, partnering, and contractor Capability in International EPC Project Delivery.” J. Manage. Eng. 32 (6): 04016017. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.000045.
White House. 2021. “President Biden’s Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.” Accessed August 27, 2022. https://www.whitehouse.gov/bipartisan-infrastructure-law/.
Yang, Z., and S. Wu. 2018. “Land acquisition outcome, developer risk attitude and land development timing.” J. Real Estate Finance Econ. 59 (2): 233–271. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11146-018-9663-2.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Legal Affairs and Dispute Resolution in Engineering and Construction
Volume 16 • Issue 4 • November 2024
Copyright
© 2024 American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Received: Jul 9, 2023
Accepted: Feb 13, 2024
Published online: Jul 18, 2024
Published in print: Nov 1, 2024
Discussion open until: Dec 18, 2024
ASCE Technical Topics:
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.