Presentation on theme: "Sources of Changes in Design- Build Contracts for a Governmental Owner Dr. Robert A. Perkins, PE Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental."— Presentation transcript:
Sources of Changes in Design- Build Contracts for a Governmental Owner Dr. Robert A. Perkins, PE Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Alaska Fairbanks,
William M. Tweed
1858 New York county allocated $250,000 for a new courthouse. Escalated to $13 million Boss Tweed and his gang got a 30% Commission on all contracts Siphoned off $9 million –($135 million in 2007 dollars.)
Government Procurement Virtues Public Confidence – underpinned by attributes of accountability, transparency, equity and fair dealing in relation to procurement processes Efficiency and effectiveness – in use of pubic monies to achieve value for money and efficiency of delivery of procurement outcomes; and Policy compliance and consistency – of both the processes and outcomes of procurement in relation to public welfare objectives and expectation of the public sector such as environmental issues, training and apprenticeships, international obligation and especially business and regional employment impacts
Government Contracting Orville and Wilbur Wright’s contract to build the first military aircraft was three and half pages long. 19 different agencies surveyed 1978 and 1979 – 877 different sets of procurement regulations, including directive, bulletins, and instructions –64,600 pages of regulations, of which –29,900 pages of which were promulgated or revised annually.
Construction A 1970 federal survey found government building projects took 59 months to design and build while equivalent private sector projects took 24 months 1986 through 1988, eight federal entities completed 268 building projects valued at more than 10 million each. 44% of those projects experienced time delays over 6 months and 23% experienced cost increases over 10%
Contracting Strategy for Procurement of Construction Project Delivery System Procurement Method –QBS –Low bidder Contract type –Lump Sum –T&M
Project Delivery Systems Design-Bid-Build Design-Build Construction Manager at Risk Job Order Contracting PPP, Public Private Partnerships –BOT, Build Own Transfer –BOOT, Build, own, operate, transfer –DBFO, design, build, finance, operate
DBB = Traditional Owner hires A/E A/E designs and produces a “bid package” Owner advertises for sealed bids Opened publicly Lowest bid gets the job Must provide bond “Qualified” = bondable
Advantages of DBB A/E designs what owner wants Competition assures lowest price –Sufficient bidders Transparent process Fair process No discretion = no favoritism Bonding can force performance
Disadvantages of DBB Bids may come in over budget Changes, Always changes –Design errors –Differing site conditions –Owner changes –Third party issues –Access, permits –Acts of God
Changes Advantage goes to contractor Essentially non-performance or breach by the owner Contract clauses cover, but asymmetrical negotiations Risks, i.e., schedule Grey Areas
Opportunistic Bidding Bid low just to get the opportunity Contingency Equipment
Design Build Owner develops “design criteria” –Bridging design Advertises for proposals Two envelope proposals Qualifications and Outline of Design Price
Best Value Might have presentations Select best value for government Most building for money
Criteria for a 46.6 Million Bridge Durability 20 Quality of Design 17 Maintenance of Traffic 15 Maintainability 12 Quality of Construction 10 Understanding the Scope of Work 10 Quality of Schedule 5 Community Impacts 5 Aesthetics 5 Navigational Vertical Clearance 1 Total 100
Advantages of DB Can consider contractors past business practices Can compare actual price with outline design Contractor and A/E work together to assure constructability Innovation Faster Changes due to “design errors” reduced or eliminated
Disadvantages of DB Design not entirely under Owners control Can still have changes
Governmental DB Prior to 1990, DBB was the preferred project delivery system Could use DB and others, but needed special permission –often required a finding that DBB “was not practical” Started to change rapidly in the 1990’s
1990, Federal Highway Administration SEP Clinger-Cohen Act, 10 USC §2304, revision of the Model Procurement Code Today about half the states have laws that allow some sort of “best value” procurement and design-build delivery. But
Select Quality Schedule Cost
Quality Pretty Good
Cost Terms: Construction Phase Cost Growth –Actual vs. planning Construction Contract Cost Growth –=changes –AKA “delivery contract cost growth”
A 2002 study by the National Institute of Standards and Technology and CII –Not statistically significant on construction phase –DB significantly better in changes –Not enough public projects A 2003 study of 67 projects, mostly domestic but some overseas, –DBB had less cost growth –DB and DBB had similar changes –Government and non-governmental not distinguished
The 2005 Design-Build Effectiveness Study (USDOT 2006) Paired 11 similar DB and DBB transportation-related projects and compared the cost growth and changes – the average project size was about $50 million. Contract cost growth was 6.0% for DB and 4.3% for DBB. DB projects averaged 16 change orders with a total average cost of $837,000 per project, while DBB had 22 change orders that had an average of $588,000 per project. DB had fewer change orders but they cost more. None of the results statistically significant.
Causes of Changes DB vs. DBB Controllable vs. Non-controllable –Owner Project Manager’s Viewpoint Controllable –Design Errors Should have less Uncontrollable –Differing site conditions Same –User Changes Could have more????
Schedule vs. Contracting
A/E works for Contractor In DBB, the owner/user select the A/E A/E has many design reviews with chances to “sell” features to the owner A/E is trying to please owner, happy to make minor changes In DB, the A/E works for the contractor and is reluctant to change May lead to more changes
Causes of Changes Owners change vs. Design error –65% design review –User notices fixture is not optimum –Contractor says his design conforms to design criteria he bid on –If owner’s PM was in charge of design criteria, he will tend to see this as a user change rather than a design error.
Methods Corps of Engineers Northern and Southern Alaska Area Offices Military Construction Projects Resident Management System
Question Are the causes of change different between the DB and DBB governmental contracts? Specifically, were there more owner/user requested changes in DB than DBB.
No. of DBNo. of DBB Housing24 Barracks/Dormi tory 25 Industrial54 Utilidor34 Other23 Total DB and DBB Combined Average Cost$ 15.9 Million SD$ 11.8 Million
Method RMS, Resident Management System Has all contract changes and causes Type 1, Design Errors Type 4, User Changes Type 7, Differing Site Conditions Others: value engineering, miscellaneous changes, administrative changes, and construction changes, suspension of work, government furnished equipment
Construction Contract Cost Growth, % Average No. of Changes Average Growth Cost, $ DBB6.6%25 1,069,882 DB3.1%14 $480,046 “p” value1.7%1.5%4.6%
Source of Change Type 1, Engineering Changes Type 4, User Changes Type 7, Differing Site Conditions No./avg contract $/avg. contract No./avg. contract $/avg. contract No./avg. contract $/avg. contract DBB 15482,51315, ,020 DB 4195,714571, ,524 “p” value 0.1%5.1%0.4%2.4%27.1%49%
But, from raw data 12 of 14 DB contracts had user changes Only 9 of 20 DBB had any user changes More user changes were work/cost reduction in DBB Average DB change was $48,000 while average DBB change was -$32,000 Absolute value of changes was similar, DB was $53,000 and DBB was $59,000
There were no significant differences between the housing and industrial groups There were no type 4 changes in the first few months of DB contracts.
Answers There is clear advantage in DB in construction/delivery contract cost growth This is primarily in reduced cost of design errors There were statistically significant increase in number of user changes in DB over DBB There were statistically significant increase in cost of user changes in DB over DBB, but Cost difference may be anomaly
Conclusions Construction contact cost growth is less with DB Strong evidence there are more owner/user changes in DB Advantage in design error cost growth outweighs disadvantage in owner/user changes Future work should explore why there are more user changes (they did not occur early in the project).