To read this content please select one of the options below:

A decision-support system for choosing between traditional and alternative project delivery methods for bundled projects

Ghiwa Assaf (New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, New Jersey, USA) (Gedeon GRC Consulting, Newark, New Jersey, USA)
Rayan H. Assaad (New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, New Jersey, USA)

Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management

ISSN: 0969-9988

Article publication date: 17 September 2024

38

Abstract

Purpose

Project bundling is an innovative practice that groups or bundles several infrastructure projects into a single contract. While project bundling has various benefits, agencies are facing some challenges when bundling their projects, including properly assessing the feasibility (or infeasibility) of project delivery methods (PDMs) of interest. More specifically, project owners face the challenge of properly selecting between traditional and alternative PDMs for their bundled projects. Although some research efforts were devoted to providing guidelines in relation to different aspects related to project bundling, no previous study was conducted to help project owners performing PDMs-related feasibility analysis for bundled projects, which differ from normal, singly delivered projects. To fill this knowledge gap, this paper develops a decision-support tool that assists agencies in deciding whether they should select a traditional or alternative PDM (i.e. whether to go with the Design-Bid-Build (DBB) PDM or not) for their bundled projects.

Design/methodology/approach

An analytical methodology comprised of four main steps was followed in this paper. First, an expert survey was developed and distributed to industry experts to quantify the importance of 25 project bundling objectives. Second, principal component analysis was used to determine the weights for the different project bundling objectives. Third, a series of statistical tests was implemented to identify different feasibility tiers. Fourth, a user-friendly decision-support tool was developed, and its capabilities were demonstrated.

Findings

The results showed that six tiers exist to classify the feasibility (or infeasibility) of traditional PDMs (i.e. the DBB method) for bundled projects. The research outcomes have also reflected that the following five project bundling objectives contribute the most to making traditional PDMs (i.e. the DBB method) more feasible for bundled projects: (1) Having well-defined design features; (2) Requiring prior knowledge or experience with similar project size and scope; (3) Completing the overall project on schedule; (4) Keeping rate of expenditures within cash flow plan; and (5) Acquiring specific legislative, regulatory and jurisdictional requirements early on.

Originality/value

This research adds to the body of knowledge by equipping agencies and project owners with a decision-support system that helps them identify whether traditional or alternative PDMs are more appropriate for the specific objectives of their bundling program(s). By making the right PDM decision, project owners can enhance their bundling practices (especially in relation to the PDM proper selection) and ultimately the performance of their bundled projects.

Keywords

Acknowledgements

This manuscript is based upon work supported by the US Department of Transportation, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology (OST-R) under Grant No. 69A3551847102 through the Center for Advanced Infrastructure and Transportation (CAIT) Region 2 UTC Consortium Led by Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (Project No. CAIT-UTC-REG68). Any opinions, findings and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the funding agency.

Citation

Assaf, G. and Assaad, R.H. (2024), "A decision-support system for choosing between traditional and alternative project delivery methods for bundled projects", Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-01-2024-0043

Publisher

:

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2024, Emerald Publishing Limited

Related articles