Comparing Construction Manager–General Contractor and Federal Early Contractor Involvement Project Delivery Methods

2016 ◽  
Vol 2573 (1) ◽  
pp. 18-25 ◽  
Author(s):  
Douglas D. Gransberg
Keyword(s):  
Project Delivery ◽  
Delivery Methods ◽  
General Contractor ◽  
Project Delivery Methods

scholarly journals Critical Comparison of Progressive Design-Build and Construction Manager/General Contractor Project Delivery Methods

2019 ◽  
Vol 2673 (1) ◽  
pp. 261-268 ◽  
Author(s):  
Douglas D. Gransberg ◽  
Keith R. Molenaar
Keyword(s):  
Project Delivery ◽  
Federally Funded ◽  
Delivery Methods ◽  
Highway Projects ◽  
General Contractor ◽  
Traditional Design ◽  
Project Delivery Methods ◽  
Design Build ◽  
Permitting Process ◽  
Environmental Permitting

Progressive design-build (PDB) is an emerging variation of alternative contracting methods (ACMs) in the highway construction industry. It is widely used in water/wastewater and airport projects, but it is new to federally-funded highway projects. A few state department of transportations (DOTs) have begun to experiment with the method, using their experience with qualification-based selection (QBS) and a subsequent negotiated construction price from construction manager/general contractor (CMGC) contracting. There has been little written that provides guidance to public highway agencies who are interested in implementing PDB. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to first describe the mechanics of PDB project delivery to provide consistent foundation information from which DOTs can inform their decision as to when to use it. The paper also provides a comparative analysis of PDB with CMGC and finds that they are nearly identical with regard to format, differing only in whether the owner retains the design responsibility in CMGC or assigns it to the design-builder in PDB. It also finds that PDB is more appropriate than traditional design-build (DB) for projects in which the owner needs to engage the design-builder in the preliminary engineering and environmental permitting process.

scholarly journals Post-Disaster Infrastructure Delivery for Resilience

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (6) ◽  
pp. 3458
Author(s):  
Mikhail Chester ◽  
Mounir El Asmar ◽  
Samantha Hayes ◽  
Cheryl Desha
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effective ◽  
Project Delivery ◽  
Delivery Methods ◽  
Project Delivery Methods ◽  
Alternative Project Delivery Methods ◽  
Resilient Infrastructure ◽  
Alternative Project Delivery ◽  
Innovative Contracting ◽  
Alternative Delivery ◽  
Post Disaster

As climate change increases the frequency and intensity of disasters and associated infrastructure damage, Alternative Project Delivery Methods are well positioned to enable innovative contracting and partnering methods for designing and delivering adaptation solutions that are more time- and cost-effective. However, where conventional “build-back-as-before” post-disaster reconstruction occurs, communities remain vulnerable to future disasters of similar or greater magnitude. In this conceptual paper, we draw on a variety of literature and emergent practices to present how such alternative delivery methods of reconstruction projects can systematically integrate “build-back-better” and introduce more resilient infrastructure outcomes. Considering existing knowledge regarding infrastructure resilience, post-disaster reconstruction and project delivery methods, we consider the resilience regimes of rebound, robustness, graceful extensibility, and sustained adaptability to present the potential for alternative project delivery methods to improve the agility and flexibility of infrastructure against future climate-related and other hazards. We discuss the criticality of continued pursuit of stakeholder engagement to support further improvements to project delivery methods, enabling new opportunities for engaging with a broader set of stakeholders, and for stakeholders to contribute new knowledge and insights to the design process. We conclude the significant potential for such methods to enable resilient infrastructure outcomes, through prioritizing resilience alongside time and cost. We also present a visual schematic in the form of a framework for enabling post-disaster infrastructure delivery for resilience outcomes, across different scales and timeframes of reconstruction. The findings have immediate implications for agencies managing disaster recovery efforts, offering decision-support for improving the adaptive capacity of infrastructure, the services they deliver, and capacities of the communities that rely on them.

scholarly journals Project Delivery Methods in Large Public Road Projects – A Case Study of E6 Jaktøyen - Sentervegen

2017 ◽  
Vol 196 ◽  
pp. 391-398 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anders Haugen ◽  
Paulos Abebe Wondimu ◽  
Jardar Lohne ◽  
Ola Lædre
Keyword(s):  
Project Delivery ◽  
Delivery Methods ◽  
Public Road ◽  
Project Delivery Methods ◽  
Road Projects

Project delivery methods in European social housing energy renovations

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (3) ◽  
pp. 216-232 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tadeo Baldiri Salcedo Rahola ◽  
Ad Straub
Keyword(s):  
Social Housing ◽  
Project Delivery ◽  
Delivery Methods ◽  
Project Delivery Methods

An overview of contemporary project delivery methods for major gas infrastructure

2010 ◽  
Vol 50 (2) ◽  
pp. 692
Author(s):  
Stephen Callaghan
Keyword(s):  
Team Building ◽  
Project Delivery ◽  
Delivery Methods ◽  
Substantial Impact ◽  
High Profile ◽  
Project Delivery Methods ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
Construction Activity ◽  
Common Goals ◽  
And Performance

Recent developments in both relationship contracting and non-traditional project delivery methods have had a substantial impact upon the way organisations within the Australian construction industry carry out their business to achieve successful project delivery. In the late 1980s, following a period of high-profile disputes, there was a trend towards a more co-operative and collaborative approach to contracting. It was during this time that the concept of partnering was introduced to Australia. Partnering in turn led to the development of relationship contracting. Relationship contracting has developed into a wide ranging concept which varies from informal agreements to work co-operatively for the success of the project, to the implementation of a pure alliance arrangement and, most recently, the use of ECI. The concept of relationship contracting brings with it a range of principles and concepts, which include: shared and common goals; pro-active objectives and key performance indicators; issue management and resolution processes; robust risk and opportunity management; probity and accountability; ongoing review and evaluation leading to continuous improvement and team building; plans and strategies for achieving stretched goals and outstanding performance; and, pain/gain or incentivised remuneration based on outcomes and performance. The need for relationship contracting in Australia has increased in recent years due to the substantial growth in construction activity, including a significant increase in the growth of gas sector work. Much of the construction activity has been carried out using a fast track approach in an environment where resources are limited. This presentation will discuss the development of relationship contracting and, in particular, will look at ECI arrangements and alliance delivery models for gas infrastructure delivery.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document