Risk-based project delivery selection model for highway design and construction

Tran, D Q and Molenaar, K R (2015) Risk-based project delivery selection model for highway design and construction. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 141(12): 04015041, ISSN 0733-9364

Abstract

Project-delivery methods allocate risk for design and construction between contractual parties. State departments of transportation (DOTs) using federal funds employ three primary project-delivery methods: (1) design-bid-build (D-B-B); (2) design-build (D-B); and (3) construction manager/general contractor (CM/GC). Because the choice of a project-delivery method is best made early in the project-development process, it is a complex decision that is fraught with risk and uncertainty. This paper presents a risk-based modeling methodology to evaluate and quantify the potential differences in project cost attributable to the selection of a project-delivery method. The risk-based model consists of (1) an input structure of assessment and evaluation of delivery-risk factors; (2) a computational-modeling structure for calculating costs; and (3) an output structure to communicate model results and implementation. The assessment and evaluation process determines the risks that are incorporated into the delivery decision. It translates static cost and schedule uncertainty from project specifics to input variables (risk factors) and to decision variables (project outcomes). The computational model employs crossimpact analysis techniques and probabilistic inferences to capture uncertainties and interactions among the input and decision variables. The model result provides three approximate cost distributions associated with three project-delivery methods (D-B, D-B-B, and CM/GC) and a sensitivity result (i.e., tornado diagrams) that describes which risk factors have the most significant impact on these costs. The model was successfully tested on three highway projects which are discussed in detail in this paper. The findings from this paper add to the existing body of knowledge by providing a novel method to predict project costs based upon the owner's choice of alternative project-delivery methods. The approach combines multivariate analysis with crossimpact analysis to make the predictions and provide a sensitivity analysis for project risks. The findings also provide a systematic approach to quantitatively selecting an appropriate delivery method that encourages highway agencies to conduct risk analysis early in the project-development process.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: crossimpact analysis; Monte Carlo simulation; project delivery selection process; project planning and design; risk analysis and management
Index terms: delivery method, Monte Carlo simulation, owner, design-bid-build, project outcome, modelling, implementation, interaction, project delivery, highway construction, design and construction, risk factor, general contractor, project cost, computational model, sensitivity analysis, multivariate analysis, risk analysis, agency, body of knowledge, project planning, methodology, construction manager
Subjects: civil engineering, economics, research methods, statistical analysis, behavioral psychology, environmental hazards, delivery method, sociology, practitioner, control systems, profession, project completion, knowledge management, contractual arrangements, analytical methods, project delivery, modelling and simulation
Topics: Digital Applications, Stakeholder Management, Roles and Professions, Sustainability, Procurement, Cost Management, Engineering Principles, Information Management, Research Practice, Project Management
Descriptive scope: 4 PCTA

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