Project Delivery Method Performance Evaluation for Water and - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Project Delivery Method Performance Evaluation for Water and Wastewater Capital Projects by Jeffrey Feghaly A Thesis Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science

Outline Background Literature Rev. Obj. & Method. Characteristics Performance Conclusion

Background ASCE (2017) Background Literature Rev. Obj. & Method. Characteristics Performance Conclusion

Background • AWWA Estimated that $1 trillion is necessary to meet demands over the next 25 years • Federal funding for water utilities has fallen from $16 billion in 1967 to $4.4 billion in 2014 AWWA (2016); CBO (2016) Background Literature Rev. Obj. & Method. Characteristics Performance Conclusion

APDM are touting benefits such as lower cost, faster schedule, and higher quality Background Literature Rev. Obj. & Method. Characteristics Performance Conclusion

Traditional Method: DBB Francom et al. (2016) Background Literature Rev. Obj. & Method. Characteristics Performance Conclusion

Alternative Project Delivery Methods: CMAR & DB DESIGN-BUILD CONSTRUCTION MANAGER AT RISK OWNER OWNER Preconstruction on CONSTRUCTION DESIGN ENGINEER MANAGER AT RISK DESIGN BUILDER Coordination Construction Requirements DESIGN SUBCONTRACTORS CONSULTANTS SUBCONTRACTORS AND DESIGN CONSULTANTS Francom et al. (2016) Background Literature Rev. Obj. & Method. Characteristics Performance Conclusion

3. APDM Performance 1. APDM Performance 2. APDM in the Water Evaluation in Evaluation and Wastewater Industry the W/WW Industry N = 30 Studies N = 18 Studies N = 6 Studies Tradition Background Literature Rev. Obj. & Method. Characteristics Performance Conclusion

There is a need to further develop the knowledge of APDM performance impact for water/wastewater capital projects Background Literature Rev. Obj. & Method. Characteristics Performance Conclusion

Objective To quantitatively assess the performance impact of APDM on water/wastewater capital projects Background Literature Rev. Obj. & Method. Characteristics Performance Conclusion

Methodology 1. Literature Review 2. Survey Development 3. Expert Workshop & Survey Pilot Testing 4. National Data Collection 5. Data Analysis Background Literature Rev. Obj. & Method. Characteristics Performance Conclusion

• General Project Characteristics • Project Delivery Method Selection Survey • Procurement Types & Sections Compensation Methods • Experience, Involvement, & Communication • Scope Changes, Warranty Issues, & Latent Defects

Expert Workshop Background Literature Rev. Obj. & Method. Characteristics Performance Conclusion

National Data Collection Consisted of 67 questions (Qualtrics) • Only submit data if they had been intimately involved • Only projects completed after 2005 • Only plant projects, of different sizes and capacities • Sent to about 200 industry professionals (RR≈37%) • Responses were collected from Aug. 2017 to Jun. 2018 • Data was validated using online public information • Background Literature Rev. Obj. & Method. Characteristics Performance Conclusion

Data Analysis • Boxplots • Descriptive statistics • One-way ANOVA or Kruskal-Wallis tests to test for statistically significant differences (α=0.05) • Quantile-to-quantile (Q-Q) plots • Tukey’s outlier detection method Background Literature Rev. Obj. & Method. Characteristics Performance Conclusion

Data Characteristics Distribution of Projects Based on Delivery Method DBB (N=25) CMAR 31% 33% (N=27) DB (N=23) 36% • Total dollar amount of all projects combined was about $4.1 billion Background Literature Rev. Obj. & Method. Characteristics Performance Conclusion

Treatment Plant Type Organization Type Water Utilities Treatment (N=52) Plants Constructors 38% 70% 30% (N=23) Wastewater 62% Treatment Plants Project Site Construction Project Type New Greenfield/Undi Construction 25% sturbed Land Retrofit/Expansio 15% 50% 85% n Existing Renovation/Reha Facility/Disturbe 25% bilitation d Land Sample Size (N) = 75 Background Literature Rev. Obj. & Method. Characteristics Performance Conclusion

Percent Design Complete Before Constructor Engagement Delivery Median Average Method 100.00 DBB 97.92% % CMAR 30.00% 38.96% DB 12.50% 22.00% Sample Size (N) = 75 Background Literature Rev. Obj. & Method. Characteristics Performance Conclusion

Procurement Process 100% 90% 80% Hybrid/Other 70% Best value 60% Total Percentage 50% Qualifications-based 40% 30% Low bid 20% 10% 0% DBB (N=25) CMAR (N=27) DB (N=22) Delivery Method Background Literature Rev. Obj. & Method. Characteristics Performance Conclusion

Compensation Type 40 35 Other 30 Unit Price 25 Negotiated Frequency 20 Cost Plus 15 Guaranteed Max. 10 Price 5 Lump Sum 0 DBB (N=25) CMAR (N=27) DB (N=22) Delivery Method Background Literature Rev. Obj. & Method. Characteristics Performance Conclusion

Factors for Project Delivery Method Selection 40 35 DBB CMAR DB 30 25 Frequency 20 15 10 5 0 … t s e d y r s t e y n d t r n s e e e c d l o c t o t e u o e n f e i i h n d n h i s g c l j d m t i i t t n a e o u a a O o / b e e i e e f t a e m r l l h m r a p z n r g o p l g c e t i m i r a n t n s c s o y a y k o n h v i o f r d r t t l r s a c n e e s c a i i i c e m o e e i v p p v R t t j e i / x C y t i i o l l d e c s l r r e a E e e r o r o e v u d t d P p t c n p i a o t x p d e h a y l s u e m E t v u l e i r s / w o g r l i a a r a n e / f e h e c R e n f P p i a r c I t o x t n i S l f E e o d i P r e Sample Size (N) = e e p N x E 75 Background Literature Rev. Obj. & Method. Characteristics Performance Conclusion

Scope Changes p -value = 0.530 p -value = 0.014* N = 52 N = 49 (N=20) (N=21) (N=11) (N=20) (N=20) (N=9) p -value = 0.413 p -value = 0.367 N = 48 N = 51 (N=21) (N=11) (N=20) (N=20) (N=21) (N=10) Background Literature Rev. Obj. & Method. Characteristics Performance Conclusion

Cost Performance Metrics p -value = 0.155 p -value = 0.445 N = 44 N = 46 (N=19) (N=18) (N=13) (N=18) (N=16) (N=12) p -value = 0.465 p -value = 0.632 N = 49 N = 21 (N=20) (N=17) (N=16) (N=7) (N=8) (N=6) Background Literature Rev. Obj. & Method. Characteristics Performance Conclusion

SCHEDULE: Design Schedule Growth Delivery Median Average Method DBB 0.00% 7.52% CMAR 0.00% -1.61% DB 0.00% -1.43% (N=17) (N=9) (N=7) p -value = 0.311 § Design Schedule Growth: Variance of schedule of the actual Sample Size (N) = 25 design phase to the planned design phase (as a percentage) Background Literature Rev. Obj. & Method. Characteristics Performance Conclusion

SCHEDULE: Construction Schedule Growth Delivery Median Average Method DBB 10.09% 14.71% CMAR 5.44% 9.43% DB 0.73% 27.75% (N=17) (N=14) (N=14) p -value = 0.651 § Construction Schedule Growth: Variance of schedule of the actual Sample Size (N) = 41 construction phase to the planned construction phase (as a percentage) Background Literature Rev. Obj. & Method. Characteristics Performance Conclusion

SCHEDULE: Total Schedule Growth Delivery Median Average Method DBB 0.00% 2.72% CMAR 0.00% 4.96% DB 0.00% 8.05% (N=15) (N=14) (N=14) § Total Schedule Growth: Variance of schedule from design initiation to the p -value = 0.940 actual substantial completion date to design initiation to the planned Sample Size (N) = substantial completion date (as a percentage) 37 Background Literature Rev. Obj. & Method. Characteristics Performance Conclusion

SCHEDULE: Speed Delivery Median Average Method 0.0097 0.010 DBB 0.0095 0.013 CMAR DB 0.0627 0.102 (N=8) (N=6) (N=8) p -value = 0.026* Sample Size (N) = 22 Background Literature Rev. Obj. & Method. Characteristics Performance Conclusion

Intensity Delivery Median Average Method 0.50 1.16 DBB 0.68 1.23 CMAR DB 1.45 2.07 (N=13) (N=14) (N=16) p -value = 0.008* Sample Size (N) = 43 Background Literature Rev. Obj. & Method. Characteristics Performance Conclusion

Warranty & Latent Defects 14 12 10 Inadequate materials Frequency 8 Under performance Leaks 6 Equipment failure 4 Other 2 0 DBB CMAR DB (N=27) (N=25) (N=23) Background Literature Rev. Obj. & Method. Characteristics Performance Conclusion

Conclusions • The data set contained a sample size of 75 plant projects focusing on three delivery methods: DBB, CMAR, and DB • DB statistically outperformed DBB in terms of project speed and intensity • Similar investigations may increase the sample size even further, and measure the performance impact of APDM for water and wastewater pipeline projects • Ongoing research for developing a water and wastewater industry project delivery method decision-support tool Background Literature Rev. Obj. & Method. Characteristics Performance Conclusion