Challenges and Barriers to Establishing Infrastructure Asset Management: A Comparative Study between Libya and the United States

[EN] Purpose - The increased need for, and maintenance of, infrastructure creates challenges for all agencies that manage infrastructure assets. To assist with these challenges, agencies implement asset management systems. The purpose of this paper is to investigate and compare the importance of barriers faced by agencies establishing transportation asset management systems in the USA and Libya to contrast a case of a developed and developing country. Design/methodology/approach - A literature review identified 28 potential barriers for implementing an asset management system. Practitioners who participate in decision-making processes in each country were asked to rate the importance of each barrier in an online survey questionnaire. Descriptive statistics, Kendall Concordance W., and Mann-Whitney are used to analyze the collected data. Findings - Through an analysis of 61 completed questionnaires, 14 barriers were identified as important by both the US and Libyan practitioners. A total of 11 additional barriers, primarily in the areas of political and regulatory obstacles, were determined to be important only for Libya. These 11 barriers provide reasonable insights into asset management systems' barriers for developing countries. Practical implications - The list of barriers identified from this research will assist decision makers to address and overcome these barriers when implementing asset management systems in their specific organizational and country conditions. Originality/value - The research identified standard barriers to implementing asset management systems and identified barriers that were specific to the country context, such as political and regulatory barriers in Libya. When viewed with the asset management literature, the results show broad applicability of some asset management barriers and the need to contextualize to country context (e.g. developing countries) for other barriers.Beitelmal, W.; Molenaar, KR.; Javernick-Will, A.; Pellicer, E. (2017). Challenges and Barriers to Establishing Infrastructure Asset Management: A Comparative Study between Libya and the United States. Engineering Construction & Architectural Management. 24(6):1184-1202. doi:10.1108/ECAM-12-2015-0200S11841202246Acerete, B., Shaoul, J., & Stafford, A. (2009). Taking its toll: The private financing of roads in Spain. Public Money & Management, 29(1), 19-26. doi:10.1080/09540960802617327Alkilani, S., & Jupp, J. (2013). Paving the Road for Sustainable Construction in Developing Countries: A Study of the Jordanian Construction Industry. Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and Building - Conference Series, 1(1), 84. doi:10.5130/ajceb-cs.v1i1.3158Amekudzi, A., Herabat, P., Wang, S., & Lancaster, C. (2002). Multipurpose Asset Valuation for Civil Infrastructure: Aligning Valuation Approaches with Asset Management Objectives and Stakeholder Interests. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1812(1), 211-218. doi:10.3141/1812-26Arif, F., & Bayraktar, M. E. (2012). Theoretical Framework for Transportation Infrastructure Asset Management Based on Review of Best Practices. Construction Research Congress 2012. doi:10.1061/9780784412329.236ARTS, J., & VAN LAMOEN, F. (2005). BEFORE EIA: DEFINING THE SCOPE OF INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS IN THE NETHERLANDS. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 07(01), 51-80. doi:10.1142/s146433320500189xJunaid Ashraf, M., & Uddin, S. (2013). A Consulting Giant; a Disgruntled Client: A ‘Failed’ Attempt to Change Management Controls in a Public Sector Organisation. Financial Accountability & Management, 29(2), 186-205. doi:10.1111/faam.12009Atkinson, R., Crawford, L., & Ward, S. (2006). Fundamental uncertainties in projects and the scope of project management. International Journal of Project Management, 24(8), 687-698. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2006.09.011Bakuli, D. L. (1994). Pitfalls in technology transfer: Kenya’s construction industry. World Development, 22(10), 1609-1612. doi:10.1016/0305-750x(94)90042-6Benito, B., Montesinos, V., & Bastida, F. (2008). An example of creative accounting in public sector: The private financing of infrastructures in Spain. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 19(7), 963-986. doi:10.1016/j.cpa.2007.08.002Brunetto, Y., Xerri, M., & Nelson, S. (2014). Building a Proactive, Engagement Culture in Asset Management Organizations. Journal of Management in Engineering, 30(4), 04014014. doi:10.1061/(asce)me.1943-5479.0000251Burns, P., Hope, D., & Roorda, J. (1999). Managing infrastructure for the next generation. Automation in Construction, 8(6), 689-703. doi:10.1016/s0926-5805(98)00115-0Carnevalli, J. A., & Miguel, P. C. (2008). Review, analysis and classification of the literature on QFD—Types of research, difficulties and benefits. International Journal of Production Economics, 114(2), 737-754. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2008.03.006Chan, A. P. C., Lam, P. T. I., Chan, D. W. M., Cheung, E., & Ke, Y. (2009). Drivers for Adopting Public Private Partnerships—Empirical Comparison between China and Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 135(11), 1115-1124. doi:10.1061/(asce)co.1943-7862.0000088Chan, A. P. C., Lam, P. T. I., Chan, D. W. M., Cheung, E., & Ke, Y. (2010).  Potential Obstacles to Successful Implementation of Public-Private Partnerships in Beijing and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. Journal of Management in Engineering, 26(1), 30-40. doi:10.1061/(asce)0742-597x(2010)26:1(30)Cooksey, S. R., Jeong, «David» Hyung Seok, & Chae, M. J. (2011). Asset Management Assessment Model for State Departments of Transportation. Journal of Management in Engineering, 27(3), 159-169. doi:10.1061/(asce)me.1943-5479.0000055Dainty, A. R. J., Ison, S. G., & Root, D. S. (2004). Bridging the skills gap: a regionally driven strategy for resolving the construction labour market crisis. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 11(4), 275-283. doi:10.1108/09699980410547621Davis, K. A., & Songer, A. D. (2009). Resistance to IT Change in the AEC Industry: Are the Stereotypes True? Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 135(12), 1324-1333. doi:10.1061/(asce)co.1943-7862.0000108DESBORDES, R., & VAUDAY, J. (2007). THE POLITICAL INFLUENCE OF FOREIGN FIRMS IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES. Economics & Politics, 19(3), 421-451. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0343.2007.00317.xElhakeem, A., & Hegazy, T. (2012). Building asset management with deficiency tracking and integrated life cycle optimisation. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 8(8), 729-738. doi:10.1080/15732471003777071Flyvbjerg, B. (2007). Policy and Planning for Large-Infrastructure Projects: Problems, Causes, Cures. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 34(4), 578-597. doi:10.1068/b32111Garande, T., & Dagg, S. (2005). Public Participation and Effective Water Governance at the Local Level: A Case Study from a Small Under-Developed Area in Chile. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 7(4), 417-431. doi:10.1007/s10668-004-3323-9Garvin, M. J. (2010). Enabling Development of the Transportation Public-Private Partnership Market in the United States. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 136(4), 402-411. doi:10.1061/(asce)co.1943-7862.0000122Grussing, M. N. (2014). Life Cycle Asset Management Methodologies for Buildings. Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 20(1), 04013007. doi:10.1061/(asce)is.1943-555x.0000157Gwilliam, K. (2003). Urban transport in developing countries. Transport Reviews, 23(2), 197-216. doi:10.1080/01441640309893Halfawy, M. R. (2008). Integration of Municipal Infrastructure Asset Management Processes: Challenges and Solutions. Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering, 22(3), 216-229. doi:10.1061/(asce)0887-3801(2008)22:3(216)Hassanain, M. A., Froese, T. M., & Vanier, D. J. (2003). Framework Model for Asset Maintenance Management. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, 17(1), 51-64. doi:10.1061/(asce)0887-3828(2003)17:1(51)Heravi, G., & Hajihosseini, Z. (2012). Risk Allocation in Public–Private Partnership Infrastructure Projects in Developing Countries: Case Study of the Tehran–Chalus Toll Road. Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 18(3), 210-217. doi:10.1061/(asce)is.1943-555x.0000090Ika, L. A., Diallo, A., & Thuillier, D. (2012). Critical success factors for World Bank projects: An empirical investigation. International Journal of Project Management, 30(1), 105-116. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2011.03.005Javernick‐Will, A. N. (2009). Organizational learning during internationalization: acquiring local institutional knowledge. Construction Management and Economics, 27(8), 783-797. doi:10.1080/01446190903117801Javernick-Will, A., & Levitt, R. E. (2010). Mobilizing Institutional Knowledge for International Projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 136(4), 430-441. doi:10.1061/(asce)co.1943-7862.0000110Javernick-Will, A. N., & Scott, W. R. (2010). Who Needs to Know What? Institutional Knowledge and Global Projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 136(5), 546-557. doi:10.1061/(asce)co.1943-7862.0000035Kenny, C. (2009). Transport Construction, Corruption and Developing Countries. Transport Reviews, 29(1), 21-41. doi:10.1080/01441640802075760Kulkarni, R. B., & Miller, R. W. (2003). Pavement Management Systems: Past, Present, and Future. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1853(1), 65-71. doi:10.3141/1853-08Kumaraswamy, M. M., Rahman, M. M., Ling, F. Y., & Phng, S. T. (2005). Reconstructing Cultures for Relational Contracting. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 131(10), 1065-1075. doi:10.1061/(asce)0733-9364(2005)131:10(1065)Lewis, T. M. (2007). Impact of globalization on the construction sector in developing countries. Construction Management and Economics, 25(1), 7-23. doi:10.1080/01446190600601248Lizarralde, G., Tomiyoshi, S., Bourgault, M., Malo, J., & Cardosi, G. (2013). Understanding differences in construction project governance between developed and developing countries. Construction Management and Economics, 31(7), 711-730. doi:10.1080/01446193.2013.825044Lobo, Y. B., & Wilkinson, S. (2008). New approaches to solving the skills shortages in the New Zealand construction industry. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 15(1), 42-53. doi:10.1108/09699980810842052McNeil, S., Tischer, M. L., & DeBlasio, A. J. (2000). Asset Management: What Is the Fuss? Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1729(1), 21-25. doi:10.3141/1729-03Mollaoglu-Korkmaz, S., Swarup, L., & Riley, D. (2013). Delivering Sustainable, High-Performance Buildings: Influence of Project Delivery Methods on Integration and Project Outcomes. Journal of Management in Engineering, 29(1), 71-78. doi:10.1061/(asce)me.1943-5479.0000114Moon, F. L., Aktan, A. E., Furuta, H., & Dogaki, M. (2009). Governing issues and alternate resolutions for a highway transportation agency’s transition to asset management. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 5(1), 25-39. doi:10.1080/15732470701322768Mushule, N. K., & Kerali, H. R. (2001). Implementation of New Highway Management Tools in Developing Countries: A Case Study of Tanzania. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1769(1), 51-60. doi:10.3141/1769-07OFORI, G. (1994). Construction technology development: role of an appropriate policy. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 1(2), 147-168. doi:10.1108/eb020998Oreg, S., Michel, A., & By, R. T. (Eds.). (2013). The Psychology of Organizational Change. doi:10.1017/cbo9781139096690Osei – Kyei, R., & Chan, A. P. C. (2015). Developing Transport Infrastructure in Sub-Saharan Africa through Public–Private Partnerships: Policy Practice and Implications. Transport Reviews, 36(2), 170-186. doi:10.1080/01441647.2015.1077288Pocock, D., Shetty, N., Hayes, A., & Watts, J. (2014). Leveraging the relationship between BIM and asset management. Infrastructure Asset Management, 1(1), 5-7. doi:10.1680/iasma.13.00013Poister, T. H., Thomas, J. C., & Berryman, A. F. (2013). Reaching Out to Stakeholders. Public Performance & Management Review, 37(2), 302-328. doi:10.2753/pmr1530-9576370206Rasolonjatovo, H., Lande, E., & Harison, V. (2015). Active asset management: feasibility in Malagasy municipalities. Public Money & Management, 35(6), 417-422. doi:10.1080/09540962.2015.1083686Saaty, T. L., & Vargas, L. G. (1991). Prediction, Projection and Forecasting. doi:10.1007/978-94-015-7952-0Schraven, D., Hartmann, A., & Dewulf, G. (2011). Effectiveness of infrastructure asset management: challenges for public agencies. Built Environment Project and Asset Management, 1(1), 61-74. doi:10.1108/20441241111143786Sharaf, E., Abo-Hashema, M., & El-Din El-Hawwary, M. (2008). A framework for pavement RL prediction using KDD. Efficient Transportation and Pavement Systems. doi:10.1201/9780203881200.ch74Shiferaw, A. T., Klakegg, O. J., & Haavaldsen, T. (2012). Governance of Public Investment Projects in Ethiopia. Project Management Journal, 43(4), 52-69. doi:10.1002/pmj.21280Short, J., & Kopp, A. (2005). Transport infrastructure: Investment and planning. Policy and research aspects. Transport Policy, 12(4), 360-367. doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2005.04.003Smadi, O., & Akili, W. (2006). Infrastructure Asset Management Education: Active Learning and Engagement-Based Practices. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1957, 16-18. doi:10.3141/1957-03Sohail, M., & Cavill, S. (2008). Accountability to Prevent Corruption in Construction Projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 134(9), 729-738. doi:10.1061/(asce)0733-9364(2008)134:9(729)Sohail, M., Maunder, D. A. C., & Miles, D. W. J. (2004). Managing public transport in developing countries: Stakeholder perspectives in Dar es Salaam and Faisalabad. International Journal of Transport Management, 2(3-4), 149-160. doi:10.1016/j.ijtm.2005.06.001Sohail, M., Miles, D. W. J., & Cotton, A. P. (2002). Developing monitoring indicators for urban micro contracts in South Asia. International Journal of Project Management, 20(8), 583-591. doi:10.1016/s0263-7863(01)00081-3Trader‐Leigh, K. E. (2002). Case study: identifying resistance in managing change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 15(2), 138-155. doi:10.1108/09534810210423044Ugarelli, R., Venkatesh, G., Brattebø, H., Di Federico, V., & Sægrov, S. (2010). Asset Management for Urban Wastewater Pipeline Networks. Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 16(2), 112-121. doi:10.1061/(asce)is.1943-555x.0000011Vanier, D. J. «Dana». (2001). Why Industry Needs Asset Management Tools. Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering, 15(1), 35-43. doi:10.1061/(asce)0887-3801(2001)15:1(35)Walker, R. G., & Jones, S. (2011). Reporting on Infrastructure in Australia: Practices and Management Preferences. Abacus, 48(3), 387-413. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6281.2011.00351.xWall, D. M. (1993). Building maintenance in the context of developing countries. Construction Management and Economics, 11(3), 186-193. doi:10.1080/01446199300000018Wijnia, Y. C. (2009). Asset management for infrastructures in fast developing countries. 2009 Second International Conference on Infrastructure Systems and Services: Developing 21st Century Infrastructure Networks (INFRA). doi:10.1109/infra.2009.5397873Wooldridge, S. C., Garvin, M. J., & Miller, J. B. (2001). Effects of Accounting and Budgeting on Capital Allocation for Infrastructure Projects. Journal of Management in Engineering, 17(2), 86-94. doi:10.1061/(asce)0742-597x(2001)17:2(86)Yankov, L., & Kleiner, B. H. (2001). Human resources issues in the construction industry. Management Research News, 24(3/4), 101-105. doi:10.1108/01409170110782711Ziara, M., Nigim, K., Enshassi, A., & Ayyub, B. M. (2002). Strategic Implementation of Infrastructure Priority Projects: Case Study in Palestine. Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 8(1), 2-11. doi:10.1061/(asce)1076-0342(2002)8:1(2

A Comparison of Qualifications Based-Selection and Best Value Procurement for Construction Manager/General Contractor Highway Construction

Faster project delivery and the infusion of contractor knowledge into design are the primary drivers for choosing construction manager/general contractor (CM/GC) project delivery. This paper focuses on the use of qualifications-based (QBS) and best-value (BV) procurement approaches, how and why agencies use each, and their associated opportunities and obstacles. Data for this study were obtained from a majority of federally funded CM/GC projects completed between 2005 to 2015. The findings are that BV and QBS projects characteristics and performance have no statistically significant difference. The choice of BV or QBS coincides with the agency’s CM/GC stage of organizational development and influences of non-agency stakeholders on the CM/GC process. When agencies and the local industry are new to CM/GC, they were found to use BV as it is closer to the traditional procurement culture and it is perceived to result in a fair market project price. Alternatively, agencies and local industry partners with an established history of using CM/GC were found to choose QBS. The low level of design at the time of procurement, means that assumptions relating to risk, production rates, materials sources, etc. may be too preliminary to secure a reliable price. The use of BV procurement was found to pose a risk to innovation and increase negotiation efforts. Qualitative trends from the project data, interviews and literature point to agencies using QBS for the majority of CM/GC project and BV on CM/GC projects with lesser complexity or more highly developed designs at the time of selection

Investigating Project Bundling Practices for Transportation Construction Projects

Project Bundling is an innovative contract procurement strategy that is being widely used in bridge and highway projects to save project delivery time and costs. The guidebook developed by FHWA on project bundling also provides a wealth of information on project bundling. However, the guidebook is primarily focused on the project bundling practices that STAs adopted for bridge projects. Thus, a knowledge gap in project bundling for roadway projects (such as added travel lanes, resurfacing, intersection improvement, interchange work, shoulder rehabilitation and repair, etc.), might exist

Determining Contingencies in the Management of Construction Projects

[EN] This research describes the managerial approaches that contractors follow to determine different types of contingencies in construction project management. Two large Spanish general contractors were selected for an in-depth analysis. Interviews and surveys were conducted with six additional companies to explore the external validity of the findings. Managers constrain time and cost buffers through project objectives, applying heuristics to determine inventory buffers. The management of capacity buffers is entrusted to subcontractors. The contractors take advantage of scope and quality buffers to meet project objectives but rarely share these buffers with the owner, unless the owner is an internal client.Ortiz-González, JI.; Pellicer, E.; Molenaar, KR. (2019). Determining Contingencies in the Management of Construction Projects. Project Management Journal. 50(2):226-242. https://doi.org/10.1177/8756972819827389S226242502Adafin, J., Wilkinson, S., Rotimi, J. O. B., & Odeyinka, H. (2014). Accuracy in Design Stage Cost Estimating through Risk-contingency Analysis: A Theoretical Exploration. Construction Research Congress 2014. doi:10.1061/9780784413517.151Ballard, G., & Howell, G. (1998). Shielding Production: Essential Step in Production Control. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 124(1), 11-17. doi:10.1061/(asce)0733-9364(1998)124:1(11)Barraza, G. A. (2011). Probabilistic Estimation and Allocation of Project Time Contingency. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 137(4), 259-265. doi:10.1061/(asce)co.1943-7862.0000280Blomquist, T., Hällgren, M., Nilsson, A., & Söderholm, A. (2010). Project-as-Practice: In Search of Project Management Research that Matters. Project Management Journal, 41(1), 5-16. doi:10.1002/pmj.20141Chan, E. H., & Au, M. C. (2009). Factors Influencing Building Contractors’ Pricing for Time-Related Risks in Tenders. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 135(3), 135-145. doi:10.1061/(asce)0733-9364(2009)135:3(135)De la Cruz, M. P., del Caño, A., & de la Cruz, E. (2006). Downside Risks in Construction Projects Developed by the Civil Service: The Case of Spain. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 132(8), 844-852. doi:10.1061/(asce)0733-9364(2006)132:8(844)Ford, D. N. (2002). Achieving Multiple Project Objectives through Contingency Management. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 128(1), 30-39. doi:10.1061/(asce)0733-9364(2002)128:1(30)González, V., Alarcón, L. F., & Molenaar, K. (2009). Multiobjective design of Work-In-Process buffer for scheduling repetitive building projects. Automation in Construction, 18(2), 95-108. doi:10.1016/j.autcon.2008.05.005Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How Many Interviews Are Enough? Field Methods, 18(1), 59-82. doi:10.1177/1525822x05279903Günhan, S., & Arditi, D. (2007). Budgeting Owner’s Construction Contingency. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 133(7), 492-497. doi:10.1061/(asce)0733-9364(2007)133:7(492)Hällgren, M., & Wilson, T. L. (2008). The nature and management of crises in construction projects: Projects-as-practice observations. International Journal of Project Management, 26(8), 830-838. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2007.10.005Harbuck R. H. (2004). Competitive bidding for highway construction projects (pp. ES91–ES94). Morgantown, WV: AACE International Transactions.HORMAN, M., & KENLEY, R. (1998). Process Dynamics: Identifying a Strategy for the Deployment of Buffers in Building Projects. International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications, 1(3), 221-237. doi:10.1080/13675569808962049Horman, M. J., & Thomas, H. R. (2005). Role of Inventory Buffers in Construction Labor Performance. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 131(7), 834-843. doi:10.1061/(asce)0733-9364(2005)131:7(834)Howell, G., Laufer, A., & Ballard, G. (1993). Interaction between Subcycles: One Key to Improved Methods. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 119(4), 714-728. doi:10.1061/(asce)0733-9364(1993)119:4(714)Howell, G., Laufer, A., & Ballard, G. (1993). Uncertainty and project objectives. Project Appraisal, 8(1), 37-43. doi:10.1080/02688867.1993.9726884Idrus, A., Fadhil Nuruddin, M., & Rohman, M. A. (2011). Development of project cost contingency estimation model using risk analysis and fuzzy expert system. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(3), 1501-1508. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2010.07.061Laryea, S., & Hughes, W. (2011). Risk and Price in the Bidding Process of Contractors. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 137(4), 248-258. doi:10.1061/(asce)co.1943-7862.0000293Leach, L. (2003). Schedule and Cost Buffer Sizing: How to Account for the Bias between Project Performance and Your Model. Project Management Journal, 34(2), 34-47. doi:10.1177/875697280303400205Lee, S., Peña-Mora, F., & Park, M. (2006). Reliability and Stability Buffering Approach: Focusing on the Issues of Errors and Changes in Concurrent Design and Construction Projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 132(5), 452-464. doi:10.1061/(asce)0733-9364(2006)132:5(452)Oviedo-Haito, R. J., Jiménez, J., Cardoso, F. F., & Pellicer, E. (2014). Survival Factors for Subcontractors in Economic Downturns. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 140(3), 04013056. doi:10.1061/(asce)co.1943-7862.0000811Pellicer, E., Sanz, M. A., Esmaeili, B., & Molenaar, K. R. (2016). Exploration of Team Integration in Spanish Multifamily Residential Building Construction. Journal of Management in Engineering, 32(5), 05016012. doi:10.1061/(asce)me.1943-5479.0000438Pellicer, E., & Victory, R. (2006). IMPLEMENTATION OF PROJECT MANAGEMENT PRINCIPLES IN SPANISH RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS. International Journal of Strategic Property Management, 10(4), 233-248. doi:10.3846/1648715x.2006.9637555Rooke, J., Seymour, D., & Fellows, R. (2004). Planning for claims: an ethnography of industry culture. Construction Management and Economics, 22(6), 655-662. doi:10.1080/014461904200026324Slauson N. P. (2005). The effectiveness of the construction contract (pp. PM121–PM127). Morgantown, WV: AACE International Transactions.Tah, J. H. M., Thorpe, A., & McCaffer, R. (1993). Contractor project risks contingency allocation using linguistic approximation. Computing Systems in Engineering, 4(2-3), 281-293. doi:10.1016/0956-0521(93)90052-xTaylor, J. E., Dossick, C. S., & Garvin, M. (2011). Meeting the Burden of Proof with Case-Study Research. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 137(4), 303-311. doi:10.1061/(asce)co.1943-7862.0000283Thal, A. E., Cook, J. J., & White, E. D. (2010). Estimation of Cost Contingency for Air Force Construction Projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 136(11), 1181-1188. doi:10.1061/(asce)co.1943-7862.0000227Thamhain, H. (2013). Managing Risks in Complex Projects. Project Management Journal, 44(2), 20-35. doi:10.1002/pmj.21325Yeo, K. T. (1990). Risks, Classification of Estimates, and Contingency Management. Journal of Management in Engineering, 6(4), 458-470. doi:10.1061/(asce)9742-597x(1990)6:4(458

Modelo de aprendizaje para la selección de un proyecto diseño-construcción (llave en mano) en el sector público A learning model for design-build project selection in the public sector

El método primario de ejecución de proyectos en el sector público en los Estados Unidos (U.S.), tradicionalmente ha sido la ejecución diseño-licitación-construcción. El sector público históricamente ha separado los contratos de diseño y construcción. En la década de los 90, el sector público norteamericano comenzó a experimentar con la ejecución de proyectos diseño-construcción (llave en mano), que combina el diseño y la construcción en un solo contrato. En 1997 se estableció un sistema de apoyo a la toma de decisiones, con el fin de entregar un modelo se selección formal para la ejecución de proyectos en el sector público. El modelo apoya a los propietarios del sector público a determinar cuáles son los proyectos adecuados para la ejecución diseño-construcción (llave en mano). Este modelo inicial por naturaleza era estático y estaba basado en un análisis de regresión de 104 proyectos. El análisis produjo un modelo predictivo con cinco criterios de rendimiento: satisfacción general, carga administrativa, cumplimiento de expectativas, variación del programa, y variación del presupuesto. Desde 1997, el número de proyectos diseño-construcción ha aumentado dramáticamente y los métodos diseño-construcción del sector público han evolucionado. El modelo original puede ser mejorado con nuevos datos y una estructura que se traduce en un modelo adaptativo, mientras la industria continúa evolucionando. Este documento presenta una aplicación formal y el uso de capacidades para complementar el modelo estático original. Este modelo se ajusta a parámetros y funciones a través del empleo de inteligencia artificial, como principal motor de conocimiento. Este enfoque puede ser adaptado a muchas aplicaciones de apoyo a la toma de decisiones en la industria del diseño y construcción.The primary method of public sector project delivery in the United States (U.S.) has traditionally been design-bid-build delivery. The public sector has historically separated design and construction contracts. In the 1990s, the U.S. public sector began to experiment with design-build project delivery, which combines design and construction in one contract. In 1997, a decision support system was developed to provide a formal selection model for public sector design-build projects. The model supports public owners in determining which projects are appropriate for design-build delivery. This initial model was static in nature and was based on a regression analysis of 104 projects. The analysis resulted in a predictive model with five performance criteria: overall satisfaction; administrative burden; conformance to expectations; schedule variance; and budget variance. Since 1997, the number of design-build projects has increased dramatically and public sector design-build methods have evolved. The original model can be improved with new data and a new framework to provide for an adaptive model as the industry continues to evolve. This paper presents a formalized application and use of learning capabilities to supplement the original static model. This model adjusts parameters and functions using artificial intelligence as the main knowledge engine. This approach can be adapted to many applications of decision support in the design and construction industry

Management of time and cost contingencies in construction projects: a contractor perspective

The management of threats and opportunities plays a key-role in enhancing project performance. However, there is a gap in literature concerning how general contractors manage threats and opportunities in construction projects, in particular in the use of time and cost contingencies. This research partially addresses this gap through a case study of two large Spanish construction companies. The research presented two key factors determining how the contractors analyzed manage time and cost contingencies: project objectives and existing mistrust among the contractor’s team members. The research also found that managers use time and cost contingencies not only to manage threats, but also as tools for managing opportunities, thereby providing insight into a previously undescribed form of contingency: the negative contingency. The research results enable a better understanding of the actual behavior of general contractors, which contributes to paving the way for developing enhanced methods for contingencies management

The influence of P3s on design flexibility and downstream design feedback in the Presidio Parkway

Public-Private Partnerships (P3s) offer the opportunity to improve integration among project stakeholders throughout a project’s life cycle. Stakeholder integration, in turn, can enhance design decision-making process by focusing on the project’s life cycle cost. The objective of this paper is to compare and contrast design decision-making in a P3 and design-bid-build (DBB) process to explore if life cycle considerations are better optimized under a P3 delivery method. To do this, we analyzed a project that included both P3 and DBB project delivery strategies—the Presidio Parkway. We collected data through 16 open-ended, semi-structured interviews with key project participants. We analyzed the data for design decision-making processes and found mixed evidence supporting the proposition that life cycle considerations can be better optimized under a P3 delivery method. Specifically, we found that the ability of the P3 contractor to influence project outcomes depends on the timing of the integration of the designer in a P3 and the degree of design criteria and flexibility allowed. In the case study analyzed, the P3 designer was able to influence downstream life cycle considerations, such as the operations and maintenance of the project; however, given the degree of definition of the design and the timing of integration of the P3 designer, it was not possible to influence the upstream design decisions. These findings allow researchers to better understand how P3s are being integrated from a design perspective and allow the public sector to realize how the timing and degree of definition of the design in P3s influences a concessionaire’s ability to make life cycle design choices.Non UBCUnreviewedFacultyOthe

Comparing Contract Administration Functions for Alternative and Traditional Delivery of Highway Projects

Agency roles and responsibilities for contract administration depend on the contracting method. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has encouraged agencies to consider alternative contracting methods (ACMs) like design-build (DB) and construction manager/general contractor (CM/GC). There is a lack of information available to transportation agencies regarding the details of agency-performed contract administration functions between ACMs and traditional design-bid-build (DBB) delivery. This paper contributes to the existing body of knowledge of highway contract administration by revealing similarities and differences between agency-performed contract administration functions across contracting methods through the development of integrated definition function models (IDEF0). These IDEF0 models depict the hierarchy of contract administration functions for DBB, CM/GC, and DB highway projects and reveal differences such as developing alignment, administering preconstruction services, managing work packages, and creating risk pools for additional scope. The findings can help agencies make more informed decisions about selecting and administering contracting methods, especially as they relate to establishing the level of effort and skills needed for administering projects under various contracting methods. In addition, these IDEF0 models provide a novel framework for future research on highway contract administration.National Cooperative Highway Research Program [NCHRP 08-104]This item from the UA Faculty Publications collection is made available by the University of Arizona with support from the University of Arizona Libraries. If you have questions, please contact us at [email protected]

Decision Support System for Selection of Project Delivery Method in Transit

A decision support system was developed to help transit agencies evaluate and choose the most appropriate project delivery method for their capital projects. The system considers the traditional design–bid–build, construction manager-at-risk, design–build, and design–build–operate–maintain delivery methods. A set of 24 pertinent issues that can affect the choice of project delivery method are identified and described. The described decision support system consists of two distinct tiers. The first tier is a qualitative assessment in which the decision maker evaluates the effectiveness of each delivery method for dealing with the relevant pertinent issues. This tier will help agencies determine if there is a dominant or obvious choice of project delivery method. If at the end of this stage a clear choice is not evident, the user will move to the second tier, where a weighted matrix is used to score competing alternatives. The system will also provide a structure for documenting the project delivery decision in the form of a project delivery decision report. A validation process for the system is described, and a brief example is provided to show the application of the decision support system

Characteristics of Stipends and Their Value-Adding Potential in Design-Build US Highway Construction

A best practice tool to enhance design-build best-value procurements is stipends, yet there is very little literature dedicated to this topic. Cited benefits of stipends include incentivizing the level of effort put forth by proposers in preparing their technical proposal, encouraging the number of proposers and thereby increasing competition, and mitigating risk. This paper presents cross-validated findings from the literature, agency policies, a survey of 53 US design-build projects, six agency representative interviews, and 13 design-build industry professional interviews. This paper investigates four aspects of stipends: (1) stipend value and calculation processes; (2) impact on a contractor's decision to propose; (3) impact of stipend amount on an offeror's proposal development, and (4) stipends' ability to aid agencies in achieving best value for highway construction projects. Stipends were found to be a necessary process to achieve best value because they increase competition and often can increase the quality of a proposal based on the stipend amount. Stipends typically cover one-third to one-half of a contractor's proposal costs. Agencies should use stipends when proposal costs are expected to be high and should estimate the stipend amount on a project-by-project basis. Properly valued stipends demonstrate that an agency is serious about going forward with the project, and understands both the work required and the design-build process. Finally, stipends were found to promote a fair procurement process, building trust with contractors leading to a more collaborative and innovative project execution.This item from the UA Faculty Publications collection is made available by the University of Arizona with support from the University of Arizona Libraries. If you have questions, please contact us at [email protected]