Determining an appropriate delivery method for highway projects is a complex process. This paper presents a decision support approach to assist highway agencies in evaluating and selecting the most suitable delivery method for their projects. The approach uses a matrix to consider three fundamental delivery methods currently in use by the highway industry: design–bid–build, design–build, and construction manager–general contractor. The approach, which is in use by the Colorado Department of Transportation (DOT), includes four primary selection factors (delivery schedule, complexity and innovation, level of design, and initial project risk assessment) and four secondary selection factors (cost, staff experience and availability, level of oversight and control, and competition and contractor experience) in the delivery decision. These eight selection factors, along with opportunities and challenges for each delivery method, were identified through a literature search and were tested by discussions and workshops with innovative contracting leaders from the Colorado DOT, FHWA, the American Council of Engineering Companies, Associated General Contractors of America, and the University of Colorado. The approach enables an initial risk assessment to occur early in the project development process and before the project delivery decision. The project delivery selection matrix promotes a better understanding of project goals, risks, and opportunities and enhances alignment among project participants. The approach has been successfully tested and implemented through eight projects of varying scope throughout Colorado. This paper presents the project delivery selection matrix along with an illustrative case study to demonstrate the results. The research provides a defensible and repeatable process for highway agencies to select an appropriate delivery method for their projects.
[1]
Keith R. Molenaar,et al.
Selecting Design-Build: Public and Private Sector Owner Attitudes
,
1996
.
[2]
Keith R. Molenaar,et al.
Selection of Project Delivery Method in Transit: Drivers and Objectives
,
2011
.
[3]
Douglas D. Gransberg,et al.
Construction Manager-at-Risk Project Delivery for Highway Programs
,
2010
.
[4]
Keith R. Molenaar,et al.
A Guidebook for the Evaluation of Project Delivery Methods
,
2009
.
[5]
윤태영,et al.
Transportation Research Board of the National Academies
,
2015
.
[6]
Peter E.D. Love,et al.
Participatory Action Research Approach to Public Sector Procurement Selection
,
2012
.
[7]
James A. Misener,et al.
Visibility Monitoring Using Conventional Roadside Cameras: 1 Shedding Light on and Solving a Multi-national Road Safety 2 Trb 2011 Annual Meeting Paper Revised from Original Submittal. Trb 2011 Annual Meeting Paper Revised from Original Submittal
,
2010
.
[8]
Y. Danieli.
Guide
,
2005
.
[9]
C. William Ibbs,et al.
Project delivery systems and project change: Quantitative analysis
,
2003
.
[10]
Christopher M. Gordon,et al.
Choosing Appropriate Construction Contracting Method
,
1994
.
[11]
Keith R. Molenaar,et al.
Guidebook on Risk Analysis Tools and Management Practices to Control Transportation Project Costs
,
2010
.