Search

1 to 9 of 9
Sort by

Library Entry
Design-build best practices and white papers

Progressive Design-Build combines the benefits of design-build (DB), including single-point of accountability, with the benefits of construction-management-at-risk (CMAR), including preconstruction services and owner input throughout the project execution.This delivery method offers many significant benefits to an owner over traditional delivery methods, such as design-bid-build

4 attachments

Focus Search - This delivery method offers many significant benefits to an owner over traditional delivery methods, such as design-bid-build, which include:  A simplified design-build procurement process, saving the owner time and money  Lower practitioner proposal costs resulting in an increased level of industry interest and competition  A procurement process that allows an owner to select the service provider that best supports their community and not just the “low bidder”  Early cost certainty and ability to work to a budget, ensuring appropriate funding is available and not exceeded  Creates a collaborative environment that encourages innovation and produces a thoughtful, tailored, solution to all of the owner’s specific project challenges  Allows for the highest degree of owner interaction and control, ensuring all owner direction and intent is addressed during design and construction  Provides a transparent price development process that includes an off ramp to the owner should they decide not to proceed The one concern owners express concerning the use of Progressive DB is how they can be assured they have not overpaid and have received best value when price is not a selection consideration





Library Entry
2018 Project Delivery Symposium: Delivering the Future

This one day event provided an interesting overview of how project delivery methods have evolved to their current state and how they might evolve into the future

8 attachments

Focus Search - Scope Delivery – DBB, CMR and DB Delivery, procurement, contracting, behaviors and environment Findings  DB was faster than DBB and CMR  Cost and schedule growth were highest for DBB  Combined contracts were faster than split contracts  Cost and quality were driven by procurement and contracting Project Data Characteristics Completed: 2008 - 2013 Public: 127 (62%) Private: 77 (38%) 204 Projects 56 (27%)Educational 41 (20%)Office 32 (16%)Health Care 27 (13%)Lodging 20 (10%)Commercial 11 (5%)Sports & Recreation 11 (5%)Manufacturing 4 (2%) Correctional 2 (1%)Transportation Facility Types Number of Projects 1 32 Facility Sizes (44%) 90 0 - 99,000 ft2 (24%) 49 100,000 - 199,000 ft2 (13%) 26 200,000 - 299,000 ft2 (7%) 15 300,000 - 399,000 ft2 (3%) 6 400,000 - 499,000 ft2 (2%) 3 500,000 - 599,000 ft2 (3%) 7 > 700,000 ft2 600,000 - 699,000 ft2 (4%) 8 Group Cohesion Development into an effective unit Team Integration Bringing together In high-quality interactions Delivery Method Procurement Process Cost Quality Project Performance Schedule Goal: Determine if team processes and behaviors have an impact on project performance Payment Terms Delivery Strategy Plan for structuring design and construction services Framework Group Cohesion Development into an effective unit Team Integration Bringing together In high-quality interactions Team Integration Group Cohesion Integration Team Integratio n Cohesive ness • Participation in • Joint Goal Setting • Cross Disciplinary design charrettes • BIM Execution Planning • Increased sharing of information and analysis through BIM • Increased team interaction through colocation Higher levels of integration led to: • Reduced schedule growth • Enabled more intense schedules • Led to more cohesive teams Team Integration Group Cohesion Integration Team Integration Group Cohesion Group Cohesion • Commitment to shared goals • High levels of team chemistry • Communication is timely and effective Higher group cohesiveness led to: • Reduced cost growth • Higher system quality • Improved turnover experience G ro u p C o h e si o n Team IntegrationTeam Integration G ro u p C o h e s io n G ro u p C o h e si o n Team Integration 70% of projects delivered late had below average levels of Team Integration Team Integration G ro u p C o h e s io n G ro u p C o h e si o n Team Integration 60% of on budget projects had above average levels of Group Cohesion Team Integration G ro u p C o h e s io n G ro u p C o h e si o n Team IntegrationTeam Integration G ro u p C o h e s io n G ro u p C o h e si o n Team Integration DBB Team Integration G ro u p C o h e s io n G ro u p C o h e si o n Team Integration CM@R Team Integration G ro u p C o h e s io n G ro u p C o h e si o n Team Integration DB Team Integration G ro u p C o h e s io n G ro u p C o h e si o n Team Integration IPD Team Integration G ro u p C o h e s io n G ro u p C o h e si o n Team Integration DBB CM@R DB IPD Large variance within each delivery method We need to consider more than just delivery method Team Integration G ro u p C o h e s io n Group Cohesion Development into an effective unit Team Integration Bringing together In high-quality interactions Cost Quality Project Performance Schedule Delivery Strategy Plan for structuring design and construction services Measurements of the project organization that reflect the owner’s delivery strategy Single contract for design and construction Builder was hired at SD or earlier Trades were hired at SD or earlier Builder was prequalified Trades were prequalified Builder was selected based on cost of work Trades were selected based on cost of work Builder had an open book contractDelivery Strategy Plan for structuring design and construction services Delivery Method Payment Terms Procurement Process Class I Class II Class III Class IV Class V 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 0 10 20 30 40 PRE CONC SD DD CD BID P e rc e n ta ge o f C as e s Closed Book Team (n=56) 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 0 10 20 30 40 PRE CONC SD DD CD BID P e rc e n ta ge o f C as e s Timing of Involvement Primary Contractor 2nd Tier Contractors Primary Contractor (%) 2nd Tier Contractors (%) Open Book Team (n=36) Notes: Timing of involvement measured as stage of overall design completion (%); PRE = Pre-design (0%), CONC = Conceptual design (0-15%), SD = Schematic design (15-30%), DD = Design development (30-60%), CD = Construction documents (60-90%), BID = Bidding (100%). 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 0 10 20 30 40 PRE CONC SD DD CD BID N u m b e r o f C as e s Traditional (n=19) 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 0 10 20 30 40 PRE CONC SD DD CD BID N u m b e r o f C as e s Closed Book CM (n=39) 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 0 10 20 30 40 PRE CONC SD DD CD BID P e rc e n ta ge o f C as e s N u m b e r o f C as e s Timing of Involvement Open Book CM (n=54) 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 0 10 20 30 40 PRE CONC SD DD CD BID P e rc e n ta ge o f C as e s Closed Book Team (n=56) 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 0 10 20 30 40 PRE CONC SD DD CD BID P e rc e n ta ge o f C as e s Timing of Involvement Primary Contractor 2nd Tier Contractors Primary Contractor (%) 2nd Tier Contractors (%) Open Book Team (n=36) Notes: Timing of involvement measured as stage of overall design completion (%); PRE = Pre-design (0%), CONC = Conceptual design (0-15%), SD = Schematic design (15-30%), DD = Design development (30-60%), CD = Construction documents (60-90%), BID = Bidding (100%). 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 0 10 20 30 40 PRE CONC SD DD CD BID N u m b e r o f C as e s Traditional (n=19) 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 0 10 20 30 40 PRE CONC SD DD CD BID N u m b e r o f C as e s Closed Book CM (n=39) 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 0 10 20 30 40 PRE CONC SD DD CD BID P e rc e n ta ge o f C as e s N u m b e r o f C as e s Timing of Involvement Open Book CM (n=54) 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 0 10 20 30 40 PRE CONC SD DD CD BID P e rc e n ta ge o f C as e s Closed Book Team (n=56) 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 0 10 20 30 40 PRE CONC SD DD CD BID P e rc e n ta ge o f C as e s Timing of Involvement Primary Contractor 2nd Tier Contractors Primary Contractor (%) 2nd Tier Contractors (%) Open Book Team (n=36) Notes: Timing of involvement measured as stage of overall design completion (%); PRE = Pre-design (0%), CONC = Conceptual design (0-15%), SD = Schematic design (15-30%), DD = Design development (30-60%), CD = Construction documents (60-90%), BID = Bidding (100%). 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 0 10 20 30 40 PRE CONC SD DD CD BID N u m b e r o f C as e s Traditional (n=19) 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 0 10 20 30 40 PRE CONC SD DD CD BID N u m b e r o f C as e s Closed Book CM (n=39) 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 0 10 20 30 40 PRE CONC SD DD CD BID P e rc e n ta ge o f C as e s N u m b e r o f C as e s Timing of Involvement Open Book CM (n=54) P e rc e n ta g e o f P ro je c ts Phase of Design Class I (n=19) Class III (n=54) Class V (n=36) PRE = Pre-Design CONC = Conceptual Design SD = Schematic Design DD = Design Development CD = Construction Documents BID = Bidding Primary Contractor / CM Trade Contractors Early Involvement of the Builder and/or Trades Class I Class II Class III Class IV Class V Project Delivery Strategy Timing of Involvement Early Involvement of the Builder and Trades Underlying Themes Class I Class II Class III Class IV Class V Project Delivery Strategy Open Book Payment Terms Qualification Based Selection G ro u p C o h e si o n Team Integration I II III IV V Team Integration G ro u p C o h e s io n G ro u p C o h e si o n Team Integration I II III IV V Team Integration G ro u p C o h e s io n • Reduced cost growth • Improved turnover experience • Higher system quality • Reduced schedule growth • Enabled more intense schedules • Led to more group cohesion The Owner’s Guide Pulling it all together Sponsored by the Charles Pankow Foundation and the Construction Industry Institute Website: http://bim.psu.edu/delivery http://bim.psu.edu/delivery © LEAN CONSTRUCTION INSTITUTE C A P T U R E A N D L E V E R A G E T H E L E A N A D V A N T A G E LCI CONGRESS PRESENTATION STYLE GUIDEWhy Projects Excel?


Library Entry
IPD: Performance, Expectations, and Future Use

Within that context, this survey takes a snapshot of current perceptions of effectiveness on projects using multiparty agreements, the most formal and contractually binding of the integrated delivery methods

20150925 IPDA IPD Survey Report.pdf


Library Entry
Maximizing Success in Integrated Projects – An Owner’s Guide

The research discovered that there is a blurring between project delivery methods, but that projects with a singular contract (Design Build or IPD) typically outperform projects with multiple, split contracts such as hard bid or CM at Risk

2 attachments

Focus Search - Using a variety of statistical methods to model the relationship between project delivery and project success, the primary finding of the study is that owners should consider an overall project delivery strategy when structuring design and construction services, rather than focus exclusively on the delivery method


Library Entry
A New Concept in Practice: Leading the Delivery Process

Recognizing a need for change to address demands for more efficiency, project complexities and sustainable results, the AEC industry is slowly transitioning to more integrated project delivery methods, fostering more collaboration

2 attachments

Focus Search - The Owner was interested in exploring the possibility of using a single source delivery method because it needed to do a lot of work in a relatively short period of time and, most importantly, wanted single accountability