Advantages and Disadvantages of Design Build Project Delivery Method - Research Paper Example

?Running head: ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF DESIGN BUILD PROJECT DELIVERY METHOD Advantages and Disadvantages of Design build project delivery method Insert Name Insert Course Insert Instructor’s Name 10 November 2011 Advantages and Disadvantages of Design build project delivery method Introduction There exist four major methods of construction of project delivery in the modern world. The four include design-bid-build method of project delivery (traditional approach), design-build method (used in modern world), construction management free method, and construction management-at risk method (Goldberg 2). It can be observed that convectional methods of project delivery have given way to more creative methods, and this has been done so to save time, save money, and to provide a more coordinated team approach with objective of reducing litigation. Each project delivery method has benefits as well as its own limitations. Design-built project delivery method constitutes one of the modern popular project construction methods (Darren, Pramen, Fasce & Masce 579). The premise of this method is that the owner hires one entity, which is a design-builder, and this design entity becomes the sole provider of both design and construction services (American Institute of Architects 504-505). Subsequently, the financing of the project remains the responsibility of the owner. More so, this method requires a clearly defined scope of work which in some cases may constitute existing prototype design, while also ensuring cost commitment is made early in the design process. Advantages In a study carried out by Roth (1995) involving six design build (DB) projects for Navy childcare facilities constructed through MILCON process, the author established that use of DB significantly reduced costs specifically those associated with design and construction (Darren, Pramen, Fasce & Masce p.580). This was one of the pioneer works into the suitability of DB although it has been criticized largely due to its inability to use a large sample of projects. Carrying out similar study, Ibbs et al. (2003) observed that DB projects showed excellent results as compared to design-bid build (DBB) when compared on aspects of time although cost issue remain controversial (Darren, Pramen, Fasce & Masce 580). The overall conclusion of the author was that, having critical skills of project management on the part of project managers coupled with experience of contractor led to greater results on the performance of the project than compared to project delivery method. At the same time, studies have been carried out to establish the relative time DB projects take as compared to DBB, and conclusion derived is that time can be saved by using DB project delivery method (Darren, Pramen, Fasce & Masce p.580). Evaluation of studies indicate that numerous methods were used and multivariate models were used with examination of unit cost, construction speed, delivery speed, cost growth and schedule growth, and in all these aspects DB performed better that DBB . Carrying out similar studies Molenaar et al. (1999) used DB project delivery method and analyzed 104 public-sector design/build projects (Darren, Pramen, Fasce & Masce p.580). At the end of the study, the authors ascertained that DB projects performed better in terms of cost, time and quality, although the study did not compare these findings to any other project delivery method. Warne (2005) on the other hand took great effort to research, and published a report concerning performance assessment of DB contracting for highway projects. Carrying out study on 21 projects across the country, the author established that DB projects had better price certainty and also majority of DB projects were completed a head of schedule (Darren, Pramen, Fasce & Masce p.580). Federal Highway Administration (FHwA) in 2006 carried out a comparison project performance of DB highway projects against those of DBB highway projects and results indicated that DB projects possessed higher cost growth but lower schedule growth when compared with DBB. Another great research work was carried out in 1999 by the Penn State University in conjunction with Construction Industry Institute (CSI), which involved 351 construction projects, in 37 states (Goldberg p.4). Three methods of project delivery were utilized; DBB, DB and construction management at risk-CM@R. Projects were categorized into light industrial (28%), heavy industrial (5%), multi-story residential (8%) and commercial office (24%), commercial office (18%), and high technology facilities (17%). After the study was carried out it was identified that DB unit cost was 4.5% and 6% less than DBB (Goldberg p.4). With regard to construction and completion speed, it was found out that DB was 7% faster while 12% faster than DBB (Goldberg p.5). In a related study carried out at University of Reading in UK established that design-build method resulted into 12% improvement in construction speed, 30% improvement in project delivery speed and 13% reduction in unit cost of construction and on-time completion of 5% of original budget as compared to DBB (Goldberg p.5). Disadvantages Given above constitute numerous advantages of DBB which have endeavored the methods as the best mode in modern world. Nevertheless, experience indicates that the method shows weaknesses especially when compared with traditional methods. These weaknesses are manifested in various ways such as, there has been observation that DBB suffers from checks and balances loss. For example, it has been noted that when compared with traditional methods, DB results into project owners to loose project control power during construction hence project may end up being designed contrary to the desire of the owner (Friedlander and Roberts 3). In convectional methods, the contractor owes loyalty to the owner which is opposite in DBB where collusion between contractor and designer may end up being adverse to the project owner. Another disadvantage of DB has to do with owner having little or reduced control over the project. In DBB, the contractor and designer operate together and consult between themselves, a situation that may results into the project owner being kept in darkness most of the time. This may further results into the owner lacking access to critical information that in one way or the other would have been useful in the progress of the project (Friedlander and Roberts 3). This scenario is unlikely to take place in the convectional methods of project delivery since the owner has access to critical information. At the same time, DB is associated with difficulty in obtaining competitive bidding since design builds projects do not lend themselves easily to competitive bidding (Friedlander and Roberts 4). In most cases, the design builder is selected at the time the project commences. Lastly, DB has expressed weakness with regard to institutional obstacles, whereby, in some states and municipals there exists laws and regulations, which operate to the detrimental of design-build projects in USA (Friedlander and Roberts p.4). What is evident in most states is presence of numerous competitive bidding requirements for public projects. Moreover, many DB projects are limited by licensing, insurance and bonding laws, which makes it, complicate for DB projects. Conclusion As the DB become the most preferred method in project construction in modern world, it is important to put in mind that the first step to successful project construction should involve having in place a clear project structure and having the right employees to carry out the project construction (American Institute of Architects pp. 504-505). This will ensure the goals of the project are achieved more smoothly. Nevertheless, adoption of DB should only take place after assessment of multiple factors with regard to project time, cost, quality and the nature of the project. Advantages and disadvantages of the method should also be evaluated in the initial stages of the project. But as DB stands now when compared to other methods, it manifests many advantages as compared to the convectional methods. Works Cited American Institute of Architects. The Architect’s handbook of professional practice. MA: John Wiley and Sons, 2008. Darren, Hale, R., Pramen, Shrestha, P., Fasce, Edward, G & Masce, Giovanni, C. Empirical comparison of design/build and design/bid/build project delivery methods. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 135, No. 7, 2009. 22 October 2011. http://www.mty.itesm.mx/dia/deptos/cv2/cv99-130/Archivos%20Tareas/ComparandoDCCyDC.pdf. Friedlander, Marc, C & Roberts, Kenneth, M. Designer-led design-build advantages and drawbacks. IL: Schiff Hardin LLP, N.d. Goldberg, Richard, P. Design-build project delivery-new challenges for the surety.1999. 22 October 2011. http://www.proconweb.com/pdfs/publications/technical_articles/DESIGN_BUILD_PROJECT_NEW_CHALLENGES_FOR_THE_SURETY.pdf. Read More