Rojas, E M and Kell, I (2008) Comparative analysis of project delivery systems cost performance in Pacific Northwest public schools. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 134(6), pp. 387-397. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Alternative project delivery systems such as construction management at risk (CMR) are increasingly used in public school construction in the United States. CMR is expected to benefit owners with a guaranteed maximum price (GMP), decreased change order cost, and increased cost "certainty." This paper empirically compares cost growth performance of the CMR and design-bid-build (DBB) methods in Pacific Northwest public school projects. Data were collected from state records and previous studies on 297 completed schools in Oregon and Washington. The analysis of the data shows no statistically significant difference between CMR and DBB in construction change order costs, school project costs exceeding the GMP in 75% of the cases, and a statistically significant difference in cost growth between CMR and DBB projects during buy out, making CMR projects less efficient at controlling cost growth at buy out. These results counter some of the traditional expectations of the CMR delivery method.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | buildings; public; comparative studies; construction costs; delivery; schools |
| Index terms: | cost performance, United States, project cost, comparative analysis, comparative study, project delivery, public school, construction cost, delivery method, owner, design-bid-build, change order |
| Subjects: | economics, contractual condition, Geography, delivery method, sociology, educational institutions, research design and methodology, contractual arrangements, data analysis and analytics, project delivery, financial and cost management |
| Topics: | Cost Management, Geographical Context, Research Practice, Stakeholder Management, Procurement, Contract Administration, Education |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here