Improving cost performance in design-bid-build road projects by mapping the reasons for cost overruns into the project phases

Design-Build (DB) is an alternative project delivery system that has shown to be better in controlling cost growth than the traditional Design-Bid-Build (DBB) system. However, some road administrations are not legally allowed to implement DB and keep using DBB with consequent disadvantages, such as having high-cost overruns. There is a need, therefore, to provide road administrators delivering DBB projects with research-based mitigation measures that can help them to minimize the main reason for cost overruns. To this end, this study identifies the main reasons for cost overruns in the design, the procurement and the construction phases of DBB road projects and point out to the specific elements of DB project delivery that might help to minimize these reasons. To identify the reasons, an exploratory content analysis was performed on interviews conducted with 41 professionals involved in road project management in Chile. Literature review and document analysis of DB were used to analyze the identified reasons under the framework of the DB practice in the United States. The results showed that four elements based on the DB approach might be used to minimize cost overruns in DBB projects: (1) in the design phase, road administrators should consider the early integration of the constructor&rsquo;s expertise. In the procurement phase, they should establish (2) instances for effective information exchange and (3) a goal-oriented selection process. Overall, road administrators should consider (4) establishing a one-point of high-level accountability for the design, the procurement, and the construction phases. This study will serve DBB road administrators to start the transition from DBB to more collaborative approaches that will help to minimizer cost overruns and, therefore, to improve the project cost performance.</p

Challenges in Engineering Estimates for Best-Value Design-Build Highway Projects

Traditional design&ndash;bid&ndash;build guidelines suggest that engineering estimates should be within +/&minus;10% of the lowest contractor bid and recommend this value as a reference to identify anomalies in the bidding process. This guidance, however, neglects delivery approaches such as design&ndash;build (D&ndash;B). This research examines 305 D&ndash;B highway projects procured using best-value and identifies the underlying reasons for bid dispersion and cost estimates inaccuracies. This study found an average bid dispersion of 27%, suggesting that a larger threshold (i.e., 25%) is needed to account for the inherent variability of D&ndash;B projects. This study also found that engineering estimates are on average 2% more than the awarded price. This result contradicts findings in existing literature and suggests that current practice in D&ndash;B best-value may be more conservative than other procurement methods. The study explores four potential reasons for bid dispersion and engineering estimate inaccuracies and suggests strategies for improvement. By providing a better understanding of bid dispersion and engineering estimate accuracy, this study will ultimately assist in the development of new policies and processes for D&ndash;B best-value projects.</p

Importance of Noncost Criteria Weighing in Best-Value Design–Build US Highway ProjectsE DESIGN-BUILD U.S. HIGHWAY PROJECT

United States highway agencies use best-value procurement with a fixed price to select design-builders.&nbsp; This method enables public agencies to choose the best proposer by assessing several factors in addition to price. Theoretically, considering cost and non-cost factors in the selection enhances the probability of selecting the proposer that provides the best value for each dollar spent.&nbsp; However, bidding results from the last 15 years show that 80% of best-value procurements are awarded the proposer with the lowest bid.&nbsp; The selection seems thus to be biased towards price. This research explores the balance between cost and non-cost components in best-value procurement by identifying how weights and scores influence the selection. The goal of this analysis is to determine the ranges of weights that better balance cost and non-cost factors in the weighted criteria best-value procurement. This study characterized a first-of-a-kind dataset of 882 non-cost scores and 1,158 cost scores from 347 best-value highway projects. The study applied simulation to the weighted criteria award algorithm to explore the balance between cost and non-cost factors and derive recommendations about how to make non-cost factors more influential. The results show that weight of cost higher or equal to 57% will result in a lowest price selection. Highways agencies should be aware of how weights and scores impact the best-value selection so that they can align these elements with their selection objectives.</p

Structured Approach for Best-Value Evaluation Criteria: US Design–Build Highway Procurement

In best-value procurement, current practice shows that cost is frequently more influential than noncost factors, and consequently, the lowest bidder is chosen in most cases; thus, a best-value selection is not achieved. Design-builders cannot offer the best value in their proposals if evaluation criteria do not show precisely what constitutes best value and how best value is scored. Thus, the aim of this research is twofold: first, to identify how highway agencies articulate evaluation criteria and, second, to propose a structured approach that enhances current practice on writing evaluation criteria. Through the lens of decision analysis, the researchers conducted a content analysis on 540 evaluation criteria included in 98 requests for proposal (RFPs) from 21 states across the United States. The study showed that 43% of evaluation criteria were generic, 53% used a generic constructed scale, and 4% assigned points or levels directly. These three groups represent different levels of specificity in writing evaluation criteria. Building upon these levels and on decision analysis theory principles, this research proposes a structured approach to support highway agencies in the process of crafting evaluation criteria. More precise and specific evaluation criteria will enhance the proposals&rsquo; ability to offer the best value, which, in turn, will enhance the best-value selection process as a whole. &nbsp;</p

Common non-synonymous SNPs associated with breast cancer susceptibility: findings from the Breast Cancer Association Consortium.

Candidate variant association studies have been largely unsuccessful in identifying common breast cancer susceptibility variants, although most studies have been underpowered to detect associations of a realistic magnitude. We assessed 41 common non-synonymous single-nucleotide polymorphisms (nsSNPs) for which evidence of association with breast cancer risk had been previously reported. Case-control data were combined from 38 studies of white European women (46 450 cases and 42 600 controls) and analyzed using unconditional logistic regression. Strong evidence of association was observed for three nsSNPs: ATXN7-K264R at 3p21 [rs1053338, per allele OR = 1.07, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.04-1.10, P = 2.9 × 10(-6)], AKAP9-M463I at 7q21 (rs6964587, OR = 1.05, 95% CI = 1.03-1.07, P = 1.7 × 10(-6)) and NEK10-L513S at 3p24 (rs10510592, OR = 1.10, 95% CI = 1.07-1.12, P = 5.1 × 10(-17)). The first two associations reached genome-wide statistical significance in a combined analysis of available data, including independent data from nine genome-wide association studies (GWASs): for ATXN7-K264R, OR = 1.07 (95% CI = 1.05-1.10, P = 1.0 × 10(-8)); for AKAP9-M463I, OR = 1.05 (95% CI = 1.04-1.07, P = 2.0 × 10(-10)). Further analysis of other common variants in these two regions suggested that intronic SNPs nearby are more strongly associated with disease risk. We have thus identified a novel susceptibility locus at 3p21, and confirmed previous suggestive evidence that rs6964587 at 7q21 is associated with risk. The third locus, rs10510592, is located in an established breast cancer susceptibility region; the association was substantially attenuated after adjustment for the known GWAS hit. Thus, each of the associated nsSNPs is likely to be a marker for another, non-coding, variant causally related to breast cancer risk. Further fine-mapping and functional studies are required to identify the underlying risk-modifying variants and the genes through which they act.BCAC is funded by Cancer Research UK (C1287/A10118, C1287/A12014) and by the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme under grant agreement n8 223175 (HEALTH-F2–2009-223175) (COGS). Meetings of the BCAC have been funded by the European Union COST programme (BM0606). Genotyping of the iCOGS array was funded by the European Union (HEALTH-F2-2009-223175), Cancer Research UK (C1287/A10710), the Canadian Institutes of Health Research for the ‘CIHR Team in Familial Risks of Breast Cancer’ program and the Ministry of Economic Development, Innovation and Export Trade of Quebec (PSR-SIIRI-701). Additional support for the iCOGS infrastructure was provided by the National Institutes of Health (CA128978) and Post-Cancer GWAS initiative (1U19 CA148537, 1U19 CA148065 and 1U19 CA148112—the GAME-ON initiative), the Department of Defence (W81XWH-10-1-0341), Komen Foundation for the Cure, the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, and the Ovarian Cancer Research Fund. The ABCFS and OFBCR work was supported by grant UM1 CA164920 from the National Cancer Institute (USA). The content of this manuscript does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the National Cancer Institute or any of the collaborating centers in the Breast Cancer Family Registry (BCFR), nor does mention of trade names, commercial products or organizations imply endorsement t by the US Government or the BCFR. The ABCFS was also supported by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, the New South Wales Cancer Council, the Victorian Health Promotion Foundation (Australia) and the Victorian Breast Cancer Research Consortium. J.L.H. is a National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Senior Principal Research Fellow and M.C.S. is a NHMRC Senior Research Fellow. The OFBCR work was also supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research ‘CIHR Team in Familial Risks of Breast Cancer’ program. The ABCS was funded by the Dutch Cancer Society Grant no. NKI2007-3839 and NKI2009-4363. The ACP study is funded by the Breast Cancer Research Trust, UK. The work of the BBCC was partly funded by ELAN-Programme of the University Hospital of Erlangen. The BBCS is funded by Cancer Research UK and Breakthrough Breast Cancer and acknowledges NHS funding to the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, and the National Cancer Research Network (NCRN). E.S. is supported by NIHR Comprehensive Biomedical Research Centre, Guy’s & St. Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust in partnership with King’s College London, UK. Core funding to the Wellcome Trust Centre for Human Genetics was provided by the Wellcome Trust (090532/Z/09/Z). I.T. is supported by the Oxford Biomedical Research Centre. The BSUCH study was supported by the Dietmar-Hopp Foundation, the Helmholtz Society and the German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ). The CECILE study was funded by the Fondation de France, the French National Institute of Cancer (INCa), The National League against Cancer, the National Agency for Environmental l and Occupational Health and Food Safety (ANSES), the National Agency for Research (ANR), and the Association for Research against Cancer (ARC). The CGPS was supported by the Chief Physician Johan Boserup and Lise Boserup Fund, the Danish Medical Research Council and Herlev Hospital.The CNIO-BCS was supported by the Genome Spain Foundation the Red Temática de Investigación Cooperativa en Cáncer and grants from the Asociación Española Contra el Cáncer and the Fondo de Investigación Sanitario PI11/00923 and PI081120). The Human Genotyping-CEGEN Unit, CNIO is supported by the Instituto de Salud Carlos III. D.A. was supported by a Fellowship from the Michael Manzella Foundation (MMF) and was a participant in the CNIO Summer Training Program. The CTS was initially supported by the California Breast Cancer Act of 1993 and the California Breast Cancer Research Fund (contract 97-10500) and is currently funded through the National Institutes of Health (R01 CA77398). Collection of cancer incidence e data was supported by the California Department of Public Health as part of the statewide cancer reporting program mandated by California Health and Safety Code Section 103885. HAC receives support from the Lon V Smith Foundation (LVS39420). The ESTHER study was supported by a grant from the Baden Württemberg Ministry of Science, Research and Arts. Additional cases were recruited in the context of the VERDI study, which was supported by a grant from the German Cancer Aid (Deutsche Krebshilfe). The GENICA was funded by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) Germany grants 01KW9975/5, 01KW9976/8, 01KW9977/0 and 01KW0114, the Robert Bosch Foundation, Stuttgart, Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum (DKFZ), Heidelberg Institute for Prevention and Occupational Medicine of the German Social Accident Insurance, Institute of the Ruhr University Bochum (IPA), as well as the Department of Internal Medicine , Evangelische Kliniken Bonn gGmbH, Johanniter Krankenhaus Bonn, Germany. The HEBCS was supported by the Helsinki University Central Hospital Research Fund, Academy of Finland (132473), the Finnish Cancer Society, The Nordic Cancer Union and the Sigrid Juselius Foundation. The HERPACC was supported by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research on Priority Areas from the Ministry of Education, Science, Sports, Culture and Technology of Japan, by a Grant-in-Aid for the Third Term Comprehensive 10-Year strategy for Cancer Control from Ministry Health, Labour and Welfare of Japan, by a research grant from Takeda Science Foundation , by Health and Labour Sciences Research Grants for Research on Applying Health Technology from Ministry Health, Labour and Welfare of Japan and by National Cancer Center Research and Development Fund. The HMBCS was supported by short-term fellowships from the German Academic Exchange Program (to N.B), and the Friends of Hannover Medical School (to N.B.). Financial support for KARBAC was provided through the regional agreement on medical training and clinical research (ALF) between Stockholm County Council and Karolinska Institutet, the Stockholm Cancer Foundation and the Swedish Cancer Society. The KBCP was financially supported by the special Government Funding (EVO) of Kuopio University Hospital grants, Cancer Fund of North Savo, the Finnish Cancer Organizations, the Academy of Finland and by the strategic funding of the University of Eastern Finland. kConFab is supported by grants from the National Breast Cancer Foundation , the NHMRC, the Queensland Cancer Fund, the Cancer Councils of New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania and South Australia and the Cancer Foundation of Western Australia. The kConFab Clinical Follow Up Study was funded by the NHMRC (145684, 288704, 454508). Financial support for the AOCS was provided by the United States Army Medical Research and Materiel Command (DAMD17-01-1-0729), the Cancer Council of Tasmania and Cancer Foundation of Western Australia and the NHMRC (199600). G.C.T. and P.W. are supported by the NHMRC. LAABC is supported by grants (1RB-0287, 3PB-0102, 5PB-0018 and 10PB-0098) from the California Breast Cancer Research Program. Incident breast cancer cases were collected by the USC Cancer Surveillance Program (CSP) which is supported under subcontract by the California Department of Health. The CSP is also part of the National Cancer Institute’s Division of Cancer Prevention and Control Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program, under contract number N01CN25403. LMBC is supported by the ‘Stichting tegen Kanker’ (232-2008 and 196-2010). The MARIE study was supported by the Deutsche Krebshilfe e.V. (70-2892-BR I), the Federal Ministry of Education Research (BMBF) Germany (01KH0402), the Hamburg Cancer Society and the German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ). MBCSG is supported by grants from the Italian Association ciation for Cancer Research (AIRC) and by funds from the Italian citizens who allocated a 5/1000 share of their tax payment in support of the Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Tumori, according to Italian laws (INT-Institutional strategic projects ‘5 × 1000’). The MCBCS was supported by the NIH grants (CA122340, CA128978) and a Specialized Program of Research Excellence (SPORE) in Breast Cancer (CA116201), the Breast Cancer Research Foundation and a generous gift from the David F. and Margaret T. Grohne Family Foundation and the Ting Tsung and Wei Fong Chao Foundation. MCCS cohort recruitment was funded by VicHealth and Cancer Council Victoria. The MCCS was further supported by Australian NHMRC grants 209057, 251553 and 504711 and by infrastructure provided by Cancer Council Victoria. The MEC was supported by NIH grants CA63464, CA54281, CA098758 and CA132839. The work of MTLGEBCS was supported by the Quebec Breast Cancer Foundation, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (grant CRN-87521) and the Ministry of Economic Development, Innovation and Export Trade (grant PSR-SIIRI-701). MYBRCA is funded by research grants from the Malaysian Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (MOSTI), Malaysian Ministry of Higher Education (UM.C/HlR/MOHE/06) and Cancer Research Initiatives Foundation (CARIF). Additional controls were recruited by the Singapore Eye Research Institute, which was supported by a grant from the Biomedical Research Council (BMRC08/1/35/19,tel:08/1/35/19./550), Singapore and the National medical Research Council, Singapore (NMRC/CG/SERI/2010). The NBCS was supported by grants from the Norwegian Research council (155218/V40, 175240/S10 to A.L.B.D., FUGE-NFR 181600/ V11 to V.N.K. and a Swizz Bridge Award to A.L.B.D.). The NBHS was supported by NIH grant R01CA100374. Biological sample preparation was conducted the Survey and Biospecimen Shared Resource, which is supported by P30 CA68485. The OBCS was supported by research grants from the Finnish Cancer Foundation, the Sigrid Juselius Foundation, the Academy of Finland, the University of Oulu, and the Oulu University Hospital. The ORIGO study was supported by the Dutch Cancer Society (RUL 1997-1505) and the Biobanking and Biomolecular Resources Research Infrastructure (BBMRI-NLCP16). The PBCS was funded by Intramural Research Funds of the National Cancer Institute, Department of Health and Human Services, USA. pKARMA is a combination of the KARMA and LIBRO-1 studies. KARMA was supported by Ma¨rit and Hans Rausings Initiative Against Breast Cancer. KARMA and LIBRO-1 were supported the Cancer Risk Prediction Center (CRisP; www.crispcenter.org), a Linnaeus Centre (Contract ID 70867902) financed by the Swedish Research Council. The RBCS was funded by the Dutch Cancer Society (DDHK 2004-3124, DDHK 2009-4318). SASBAC was supported by funding from the Agency for Science, Technology and Research of Singapore (A∗STAR), the US National Institute of Health (NIH) and the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation KC was financed by the Swedish Cancer Society (5128-B07-01PAF). The SBCGS was supported primarily by NIH grants R01CA64277, R01CA148667, and R37CA70867. Biological sample preparation was conducted the Survey and Biospecimen Shared Resource, which is supported by P30 CA68485. The SBCS was supported by Yorkshire Cancer Research S305PA, S299 and S295. Funding for the SCCS was provided by NIH grant R01 CA092447. The Arkansas Central Cancer Registry is fully funded by a grant from National Program of Cancer Registries, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Data on SCCS cancer cases from Mississippi were collected by the Mississippi Cancer Registry which participates in the National Program of Cancer Registries (NPCR) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The contents of this publication are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the CDC or the Mississippi Cancer Registry. SEARCH is funded by a programme grant from Cancer Research UK (C490/A10124) and supported by the UK National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre at the University of Cambridge. The SEBCS was supported by the BRL (Basic Research Laboratory) program through the National Research Foundation of Korea funded by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (2012-0000347). SGBCC is funded by the National Medical Research Council Start-up Grant and Centre Grant (NMRC/CG/NCIS /2010). The recruitment of controls by the Singapore Consortium of Cohort Studies-Multi-ethnic cohort (SCCS-MEC) was funded by the Biomedical Research Council (grant number: 05/1/21/19/425). SKKDKFZS is supported by the DKFZ. The SZBCS was supported by Grant PBZ_KBN_122/P05/2004. K. J. is a fellow of International PhD program, Postgraduate School of Molecular Medicine, Warsaw Medical University, supported by the Polish Foundation of Science. The TNBCC was supported by the NIH grant (CA128978), the Breast Cancer Research Foundation , Komen Foundation for the Cure, the Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, the Stefanie Spielman Fund for Breast Cancer Research and a generous gift from the David F. and Margaret T. Grohne Family Foundation and the Ting Tsung and Wei Fong Chao Foundation. Part of the TNBCC (DEMOKRITOS) has been co-financed by the European Union (European Social Fund – ESF) and Greek National Funds through the Operational Program ‘Education and Life-long Learning’ of the National Strategic Reference Framework (NSRF)—Research Funding Program of the General Secretariat for Research & Technology: ARISTEIA. The TWBCS is supported by the Institute of Biomedical Sciences, Academia Sinica and the National Science Council, Taiwan. The UKBGS is funded by Breakthrough Breast Cancer and the Institute of Cancer Research (ICR). ICR acknowledges NHS funding to the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre. Funding to pay the Open Access publication charges for this article was provided by the Wellcome Trust.This is the advanced access published version distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution License 2.0, which can also be viewed on the publisher's webstie at: http://hmg.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2014/07/04/hmg.ddu311.full.pdf+htm

Exploration of Team Integration in Spanish Multifamily Residential Building Construction

Project delivery team integration generally involves early involvement of general contractors and key specialty contractors in the design process. Team integration has been found to improve an owner’s probability of success. However, during difficult economic times, owners can forego early team involvement and move toward low bid procurement to take advantage of competitive markets. This study explores the performance of integrated teams in the Spanish multifamily building construction market in light of the 2007 financial crisis. After conducting structured interviews of 31 residential building projects with the owner and main contractor of each one of them, this study identified eight projects for in-depth case studies. These eight case studies represented the best performing, worst performing, and atypical cases. The results show that Spanish building owners experience higher success by developing integrated teams. This integration begins with how the owner organizes the team for success (i.e., integrated builder services, qualifications-based procurement, and prior experience) and promotes integration throughout the project process (i.e., timeliness of communications, shared commitment to goals, and development of team chemistry). © 2016 American Society of Civil Engineers.The authors are indebted to all the participants in this research. It was partially supported by the Spanish Government (Ministerio de Educacion, Cultura y Deporte) that funded a scholarship for the first author at the University of Colorado-Boulder (reference PRX12/00066).Pellicer Armiñana, E.; Sanz Benlloch, MA.; Esmaeili, B.; Molenaar, KR. (2016). Exploration of Team Integration in Spanish Multifamily Residential Building Construction. Journal of Management in Engineering. 32:05016012-1-05016012-11. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000438S05016012-105016012-113

Organoid Models of Human and Mouse Ductal Pancreatic Cancer

Summary Pancreatic cancer is one of the most lethal malignancies due to its late diagnosis and limited response to treatment. Tractable methods to identify and interrogate pathways involved in pancreatic tumorigenesis are urgently needed. We established organoid models from normal and neoplastic murine and human pancreas tissues. Pancreatic organoids can be rapidly generated from resected tumors and biopsies, survive cryopreservation, and exhibit ductal- and disease-stage-specific characteristics. Orthotopically transplanted neoplastic organoids recapitulate the full spectrum of tumor development by forming early-grade neoplasms that progress to locally invasive and metastatic carcinomas. Due to their ability to be genetically manipulated, organoids are a platform to probe genetic cooperation. Comprehensive transcriptional and proteomic analyses of murine pancreatic organoids revealed genes and pathways altered during disease progression. The confirmation of many of these protein changes in human tissues demonstrates that organoids are a facile model system to discover characteristics of this deadly malignancy