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

▶
project delivery method performance evaluation for water
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

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

Jun 06, 2023 162 likes •517 views

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.

slide-1
SLIDE 1

Project Delivery Method Performance Evaluation for Water and Wastewater Capital Projects

by Jeffrey Feghaly

A Thesis Presented in Partial Fulfillment

  • f the Requirements for the Degree

Master of Science

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Outline

Conclusion Performance Characteristics

  • Obj. & Method.

Literature Rev. Background

slide-3
SLIDE 3

Background Literature Rev.

  • Obj. & Method.

Characteristics Performance Conclusion

Background

ASCE (2017)

slide-4
SLIDE 4

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)

slide-5
SLIDE 5

APDM are touting benefits such as lower cost, faster schedule, and higher quality

Background Literature Rev.

  • Obj. & Method.

Characteristics Performance Conclusion

slide-6
SLIDE 6

Francom et al. (2016)

Traditional Method: DBB

Background Literature Rev.

  • Obj. & Method.

Characteristics Performance Conclusion

slide-7
SLIDE 7

OWNER DESIGN ENGINEER DESIGN CONSULTANTS CONSTRUCTION MANAGER AT RISK SUBCONTRACTORS Coordination Requirements Preconstruction Construction

CONSTRUCTION MANAGER AT RISK

Francom et al. (2016)

Alternative Project Delivery Methods: CMAR & DB

Background Literature Rev.

  • Obj. & Method.

Characteristics Performance Conclusion

  • n

OWNER DESIGN BUILDER

DESIGN-BUILD

SUBCONTRACTORS AND DESIGN CONSULTANTS

slide-8
SLIDE 8

Background Literature Rev.

  • Obj. & Method.

Characteristics Performance Conclusion

Tradition

  • 1. APDM Performance

Evaluation N = 30 Studies

  • 2. APDM in the Water

and Wastewater Industry N = 18 Studies

  • 3. APDM

Performance Evaluation in the W/WW Industry N = 6 Studies

slide-9
SLIDE 9

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

slide-10
SLIDE 10

Objective

To quantitatively assess the performance impact of APDM on water/wastewater capital projects

Background Literature Rev.

  • Obj. & Method.

Characteristics Performance Conclusion

slide-11
SLIDE 11

Methodology

Background Literature Rev.

  • Obj. & Method.

Characteristics Performance Conclusion

  • 1. Literature Review
  • 2. Survey Development
  • 3. Expert Workshop & Survey Pilot Testing
  • 4. National Data Collection
  • 5. Data Analysis
slide-12
SLIDE 12

Survey Sections

  • General Project Characteristics
  • Project Delivery Method Selection
  • Procurement Types &

Compensation Methods

  • Experience, Involvement, &

Communication

  • Scope Changes, Warranty Issues,

& Latent Defects

slide-13
SLIDE 13

Expert Workshop

Background Literature Rev.

  • Obj. & Method.

Characteristics Performance Conclusion

slide-14
SLIDE 14
  • 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

National Data Collection

Background Literature Rev.

  • Obj. & Method.

Characteristics Performance Conclusion

slide-15
SLIDE 15
  • 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

Data Analysis

Background Literature Rev.

  • Obj. & Method.

Characteristics Performance Conclusion

slide-16
SLIDE 16

33% 36% 31%

Distribution of Projects Based on Delivery Method

DBB (N=25) CMAR (N=27) DB (N=23)

Data Characteristics

  • Total dollar amount of all projects combined was about $4.1 billion

Background Literature Rev.

  • Obj. & Method.

Characteristics Performance Conclusion

slide-17
SLIDE 17

62% 38%

Treatment Plant Type

Water Treatment Plants Wastewater Treatment Plants

Organization Type

Utilities (N=52) Constructors (N=23)

15% 85%

Project Site

Greenfield/Undi sturbed Land Existing Facility/Disturbe d Land

50% 25% 25%

Construction Project Type

New Construction Retrofit/Expansio n Renovation/Reha bilitation

70% 30%

Sample Size (N) = 75 Background Literature Rev.

  • Obj. & Method.

Characteristics Performance Conclusion

slide-18
SLIDE 18

Percent Design Complete Before Constructor Engagement

Sample Size (N) = 75

Delivery Method Median Average DBB 100.00 % 97.92% CMAR 30.00% 38.96% DB 12.50% 22.00%

Background Literature Rev.

  • Obj. & Method.

Characteristics Performance Conclusion

slide-19
SLIDE 19

Procurement Process

Background Literature Rev.

  • Obj. & Method.

Characteristics Performance Conclusion 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

DBB (N=25) CMAR (N=27) DB (N=22)

Total Percentage Delivery Method

Hybrid/Other Best value Qualifications-based Low bid

slide-20
SLIDE 20

Compensation Type

Background Literature Rev.

  • Obj. & Method.

Characteristics Performance Conclusion

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 DBB (N=25) CMAR (N=27) DB (N=22)

Frequency Delivery Method

Other Unit Price Negotiated Cost Plus Guaranteed Max. Price Lump Sum

slide-21
SLIDE 21

Factors for Project Delivery Method Selection

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

E x p e d i t e d s c h e d u l e E x p e r i e n c e w i t h d e l i v e r y m e t h

  • d

C

  • s

t c e r t a i n t y R i s k t r a n s f e r P

  • l

i t i c a l / u p p e r m a n a g e m e n t … I n n

  • v

a t i v e t e c h n

  • l
  • g

i e s P r

  • j

e c t s i z e / c

  • s

t R e g u l a t

  • r

y c

  • m

p l i a n c e S t a f f / r e s

  • u

r c e a v a i l a b i l i t y N e e d f

  • r

e a r l y c

  • s

t i n f

  • r

m a t i

  • n

P h a s e d d e l i v e r y n e e d e d E x p e r i m e n t a l / p i l

  • t

p r

  • j

e c t E x p i r i n g f u n d s O t h e r

Frequency

DBB CMAR DB

Sample Size (N) = 75 Background Literature Rev.

  • Obj. & Method.

Characteristics Performance Conclusion

slide-22
SLIDE 22

Scope Changes

Background Literature Rev.

  • Obj. & Method.

Characteristics Performance Conclusion

p-value = 0.530 N = 52 p-value = 0.014* N = 49

(N=20) (N=9) (N=20) (N=21) (N=11) (N=20)

p-value = 0.413 N = 48 p-value = 0.367 N = 51

(N=21) (N=10) (N=20) (N=21) (N=11) (N=20)
slide-23
SLIDE 23

Cost Performance Metrics

Background Literature Rev.

  • Obj. & Method.

Characteristics Performance Conclusion

p-value = 0.155 N = 44 p-value = 0.465 N = 49 p-value = 0.445 N = 46 p-value = 0.632 N = 21

(N=19) (N=18) (N=13) (N=18) (N=16) (N=12) (N=20) (N=17) (N=16) (N=7) (N=8) (N=6)
slide-24
SLIDE 24

SCHEDULE: Design Schedule Growth

p-value = 0.311 Sample Size (N) = 25

§ Design Schedule Growth: Variance of schedule of the actual design phase to the planned design phase (as a percentage)

Delivery Method Median Average DBB 0.00% 7.52% CMAR 0.00%

  • 1.61%

DB 0.00%

  • 1.43%

Background Literature Rev.

  • Obj. & Method.

Characteristics Performance Conclusion

(N=17) (N=9) (N=7)

slide-25
SLIDE 25

SCHEDULE: Construction Schedule Growth

p-value = 0.651 Sample Size (N) = 41

§ Construction Schedule Growth: Variance of schedule of the actual construction phase to the planned construction phase (as a percentage)

Delivery Method Median Average DBB 10.09% 14.71% CMAR 5.44% 9.43% DB 0.73% 27.75%

Background Literature Rev.

  • Obj. & Method.

Characteristics Performance Conclusion

(N=17) (N=14) (N=14)

slide-26
SLIDE 26

SCHEDULE: Total Schedule Growth

p-value = 0.940 Sample Size (N) = 37

§ Total Schedule Growth: Variance of schedule from design initiation to the actual substantial completion date to design initiation to the planned substantial completion date (as a percentage)

Delivery Method Median Average DBB 0.00% 2.72% CMAR 0.00% 4.96% DB 0.00% 8.05%

Background Literature Rev.

  • Obj. & Method.

Characteristics Performance Conclusion

(N=15) (N=14) (N=14)

slide-27
SLIDE 27

SCHEDULE: Speed

p-value = 0.026* Sample Size (N) = 22

Delivery Method Median Average DBB 0.0097 0.010 CMAR 0.0095 0.013 DB 0.0627 0.102

Background Literature Rev.

  • Obj. & Method.

Characteristics Performance Conclusion

(N=8) (N=6) (N=8)

slide-28
SLIDE 28

Intensity

p-value = 0.008* Sample Size (N) = 43

Delivery Method Median Average DBB 0.50 1.16 CMAR 0.68 1.23 DB 1.45 2.07

Background Literature Rev.

  • Obj. & Method.

Characteristics Performance Conclusion

(N=16) (N=13) (N=14)

slide-29
SLIDE 29

Warranty & Latent Defects

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 DBB CMAR DB Frequency Inadequate materials Under performance Leaks Equipment failure Other Background Literature Rev.

  • Obj. & Method.

Characteristics Performance Conclusion

(N=23) (N=27) (N=25)

slide-30
SLIDE 30

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

slide-31
SLIDE 31

Technical Report

Ariaratnam, S., El Asmar, M., and Feghaly, J. (2018). Analyzing the Current Performance Impacts of Alternative Project Delivery in the Water and Wastewater Industry: Water Research Foundation Research Report. Water Research Foundation. Denver, CO (under review)

Journal Article

Feghaly, J., El Asmar, M., and Ariaratnam, S. (2018). Assessing the Performance Impact of Alternative Project Delivery Methods in the Water and Wastewater Industry. American Society of Civil Engineers Journal of Construction Engineering. Reston, VA (in process of submission)

Conference Presentations

  • DBIA Design-Build for Water and Wastewater 2018 Conference. Portland, OR
  • ASCE Pipelines 2018 Conference. Toronto, Canada

Industry Workshop

  • American Water Works Association ACE 2018 Conference. Las Vegas, NV
  • Industry Experts Workshop: Water Research Foundation Project #4685. Arizona State
  • University. Tempe, AZ
slide-32
SLIDE 32
  • This work is funded by the Water Research Foundation

(WRF) Project #4685 “Project Delivery Performance Evaluation and Decision Support Tool for Water and Wastewater Capital Projects.”

Acknowledgements

slide-33
SLIDE 33

Acknowledgements

slide-34
SLIDE 34

Thank you!

Any Questions?