Organizational Best Practices for Transportation Projects Delivered Using Alternative Contracting Methods
Abstract
The use of Alternative Contracting Methods (ACM) to deliver US transportation projects has reached a point where a definitive set of best practices can be identified to leverage the lessons learned by early ACM adopters. The most pressing need is for guidance on how public agencies organize to implement ACMs in a budget-constrained environment where the possibility of increasing the number of public agency engineers is nil. This paper is based on mining the survey response data from 6 National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) synthesis reports on ACM topics and proposes a framework for analyzing ACM practices deemed effective by peer-reviewed research to determine if each practice can be classified as a best practice. Importance index theory provides the analytical foundation for the framework and provides a ranking of candidate best practices in order of each practice’s importance and effectiveness. Nine effective ACM practices were identified and evaluated with only one, “appointing an agency ACM champion,” meeting the objective criteria for a best practice. The paper’s major contribution is to provide the suite of 1 best and 8 effective practices that can be employed when developing the organization for an agency that has decided to implement ACM project delivery.
Keywords: Alternative contracting methods, best practices, organizational structure, index number theory.
References
[1] Accardo, A. L. (2015). “Research Synthesis: Effective Practices for Improving the Reading Comprehension of Students with Autism Spectrum Disorder.” DADD Online Journal, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 7-20,
[2] Assaf, S. A., and Al-Hejji, S. (2006). “Causes of Delay in Large Construction Projects.” International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 24, No, 4, pp. 349-357.
[3] Associated General Contractors of America (AGC). (2004). Project Delivery Systems for [4] Connecticut Academy for Science and Technology (CASE), (2016). Strategies for Improving Project Delivery Performance. CT-2298-F-16-1, Newington, Connecticut.
[5] Construction, Associated General Contractors of America, Washington, D.C., 2004.
[6] Dodson, J. (2017). “The Global Infrastructure Turn and Urban Practice.” Urban Policy and Research, Vol. 35, No.1, pp. 87-92.
[8] Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) (2006). “Design-Build Effectiveness Study,” Final Report to Congress as Required by TEA-21, http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/reports/designbuild/designbuild0.htm (August 30, 2006).
[8] Gad, G.M, Gransberg, D.D. and Loulakis, M.C. (2015). “Policies and Procedures for Successfully Implementing Alternative Technical Concepts,” Transportation Research Record No. 2504, pp. 78-86.
[9] Gambatese, J., K. Dettwyler, D. Rogge and L. Schroeder. (2002). Oregon Public Contracting Coalition Guide to CM/GC Contracting, Oregon Public Contracting Coalition, Portland Oregon, p. 13.
[10] Gransberg, D.D. and Molenaar, K.R. (2008). “Does Design-Build Project Delivery Affect the Future of the Public Engineer?” Transportation Research Record No. 2081, pp. 3-8
[11] Hsieh, H. F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). “Three Approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis.” Qualitative Health Research, Vol. 15, No. 9, pp. 1277-1288.
[12] Loulakis, M.C., Smith, N.C., Brady, D.L., Rayl, R.E., and Gransberg D.D. (2015). Liability of Design-Builders for Design, Construction, and Acquisition Claims, NCHRP Legal Digest 68, 127pp.
[13] Lownes, N.E., Jackson, E. and Bertolaccini, K. (2012). Benchmarking Connecticut’s Transportation Infrastructure Capital Program with Other States, Connecticut Academy of Science and Engineering.
[14] Michaelson, D., and Stacks, D. W. (2011). “Standardization in Public Relations Measurement and Evaluation.” Public Relations Journal, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 1-22.
[15] Neuendorf, K.A., (2002), The Content Analysis Guidebook, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, California.
[16] Pederson, N.J. (1999), “Multimodal Transportation Planning at the State Level: State of the Practice and Future Issues,” Transportation in the New Millennium, Transportation Research Board, pp. 1-6.
[17] Schierholz, J. D.D. Gransberg, and J. McMinimee, (2012). “Benefits and Challenges of Implementing Construction Manager/General Contractor Project Delivery: The View from the Field,” Compendium 2012 Transportation Research Board, Paper #12-1206, Washington, D.C.
[18] Songer, A.D. and Molenaar, K.R. (1996). ”Selecting Design-Build: Private and Public Sector Owner Attitudes,” Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 12, no. 6, pp. 47-53.
[19] Torres, V. C., Uddin, M. M., Goodrum, P. M., and Molenaar, K. R. (2015). “Mapping of Practices of State Transportation Agencies for Consultant Oversight of Construction Engineering and Inspection Services.” Transportation Research Record, No, 2504, pp. 28-38.
[20] Transportation Research Board (TRB). (2001). Instructions for Consultants Preparing Syntheses, National Academies, Washington, D.C.
[21] Venturato, T. and J. Schroeder (2007). “Owner-Controlled Accelerated Project, Unique Project Delivery Method for Light Rail,” Transportation Research Record, No. 2006, pp. 60–66.
[22] Warne, T. R. (2003). State DOT Outsourcing and Private-Sector Utilization NCHRP Synthesis 313. Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.
[23] Weber, R.P. (1990). Basic Content Analysis (2nd Ed.). Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA.