Carpenter, N and Bausman, D C (2016) Project delivery method performance for public school construction: Design-bid-build versus CM at risk. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 142(10): 05016009, ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
The construction of public schools is a complex endeavor due to the involvement of multiple and diverse parties, funding and budgetary concerns, and statutory limitations imposed by local, state, and federal agencies, all of which serve to increase project risk. Project delivery methods using distinctive procedures to manage the design and construction process have been developed to reduce risk and improve project performance. To increase the probability of successful project outcomes, those responsible for public school construction require conclusive delivery method performance data. Completed in 2014, this two-year study used actual construction documents from 137 southeastern public schools to analyze and determine project delivery method cost, time, quality, and claims performance. The analysis indicated that performance of the Design-Bid-Build (DBB) method was significantly superior across all cost metrics, whereas the Construction Manager at Risk (CM at Risk) method produced higher levels of product and service quality. Essentially, public school administrators were paying a significant premium to obtain perceived improvements in both service and product quality. This research empowers decision-makers and benefits the public by providing evidence of the most efficient and effective means for the construction of new public schools.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction manager at risk; contracting; design-bid-build; project delivery method; project performance factors; project success factors |
| Index terms: | project success, product quality, design-bid-build, project outcome, delivery method, construction manager at risk, project performance, design and construction, funding, project delivery, public school, service quality, evidence, documents, agency |
| Subjects: | contractual arrangements, project delivery, economic analysis, evaluation and assessment methods, project completion, quality assurance, delivery method, sociology, educational institutions, professional development, project management theory and practice, performance measurement |
| Topics: | Business Strategy, Project Management, Research Practice, Information Management, Procurement, Quality Management, Education |
| 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