Project Delivery Systems

• Author: Carol J. Patterson - Ross J. Altman - Stephen A. Hess - Allen Overcash
• Pages: 63-106

CHAPTER

63

4

Project Delivery Systems

ROSS J. ALTMAN

. OVERVIEW

A wide range of physical, human, nancial, and other resources must be mar-

shaled and coordinated to design, procure, and construct a project. The tasks

required to deliver even a simple project often demand multiple design pro-

fessionals, consultants, specialized contractors, and product and system ven-

dors. As the size and complexity of a project increases, so does the quantity of

entities and resources required to deliver that project. Many challenges arise

when attempting to orchestrate the efforts among so many project participants

and activities. If properly organized and performed, however, the delivery of

a project is a collaborative exercise that can achieve the results desired by the

project participants.

The owner determines how to structure the process through which the

project is delivered. Although consideration must be given to many issues,

the methodology used to deliver a project is driven principally by two den-

ing characteristics. First, how the responsibilities for design, procurement, and

construction are allocated among the project participants. Second, whether

pat54645_01_b01_001-282.indd 63 6/28/19 2:04 PM

CONSTruCTiON LAW

64

timing for performance of the major activities that comprise design, procure-

ment, and construction is linear or overlapping. Decisions regarding those two

matters largely determine the organizational structure of the design, procure-

ment, and construction process, and describe the primary elements of what

commonly is referred to as the project delivery system.

. EVOLUTION OF METHODOLOGIES

Prior to the mid-1800s, construction methods and engineering practices were

somewhat limited by today’s standards. A mason or carpenter, often known as

a master builder, was commonly appointed to manage and control the entire

project delivery process. Romanesque and Gothic cathedrals of Europe, and

many other signicant structures that ll the pages of architectural history

books, were delivered through such a methodology.1 Subsequent advances in

construction materials and technology, however, required greater design exper-

tise and specialization. Architecture emerged as a separate profession, and

the design function was severed from the performance of construction. The

Design-Bid-Build project delivery system (described in Section 4.05) was the

result, and remained the predominant method of project delivery in the United

States throughout most of the 20th century.2

Nonetheless, the delivery of every project presents its own unique chal-

lenges. Moreover, because the objectives of the owner and applicable market

conditions vary from project to project, the Design-Bid-Build system is not an

optimal approach for delivery of all projects. Indeed, no single methodology

is suitable for all projects. All project delivery systems have advantages and

disadvantages. As a result, different methodologies have developed and con-

tinue to evolve to address owner preferences, the marketplace, and the almost

endless array of challenges that might arise on any given project. Private sec-

tor owners have the exibility to select and adapt any project delivery system

desired, but public entities also will consider a range of methodologies if war-

ranted and when properly authorized.3

1. See F

rances

G

ies

& J

OsePh

G

ies

, C

athedral

, F

OrGe and

W

aterwheel

(1994); R

ichard

A.

G

Oldthwaite

, T

he

B

uildinG Of

R

enaissance

F

lOrence

(1980); and R

Oss

K

inG

, B

runelleschi’s

D

OMe

(2000).

2. The public sector continues to rely heavily upon Design-Bid-Build, due in part to require-

ments dictated by procurement statutes.

3. Public entities generally may procure design and construction contracts only with project

delivery systems that are authorized by the applicable statutory and regulatory regime. Even proj-

ect delivery systems that are now commonplace, such as forms of Construction Management or

Design-Build, can only be used by a public entity if permitted by law. Also see Chapter 23.

pat54645_01_b01_001-282.indd 64 6/28/19 2:04 PM

Project Delivery Systems 65

The nomenclature used to identify project delivery systems and variations

is neither precise nor used consistently. Sometimes multiple terms are used

interchangeably to describe the same project delivery system, even when dis-

tinctions probably apply to those terms. Such distinctions, however, are often

interpreted differently by those employing the terminology.4 Other terms are

used to describe a variety of different project delivery systems.5 Indeed, the

same project delivery system may be known by different labels, depending on

who makes the reference.6 As a result, the terminology used to describe project

delivery systems often is confusing and, from time to time, misleading.

Further complicating attempts to standardize terminology, some members

of the design professions and construction industry also distinguish between

project delivery systems and management techniques. According to those who

endorse that distinction, a project delivery system is considered a method to

allocate responsibilities with respect to design, procurement, and construction,

whereas a device or method used to coordinate the process of design, pro-

curement, and construction is considered a management technique.7 Although

interesting, the terminology commonly used to describe project delivery sys-

tems generally does not reect such nuances. Many arrangements that might

be dened more precisely as a management technique are often referred to as

a project delivery system.8

Because terminology used to describe project delivery systems is not uni-

form, or at least not uniformly understood, simply referencing a project deliv-

ery system by name or descriptive phrase may not adequately explain the

methodology. To ensure a mutual understanding of what is contemplated by

such references, it often is advisable to describe the dening characteristics

4. The terms “Design-Build,” “Turnkey,” and “Build-to-Suit” often are used interchangeably.

Although differences probably are intended by each term, the distinctions identied by those in

the design professions and construction industry are not consistent.

5. References to “Construction Management” are ambiguous, as that term applies to a variety

of different approaches, all of which fall under the generic category of Construction Management.

6. At-Risk Construction Management is also identied as CM@R, CMAR, CMc, and CM/GC.

7. For example, planning, stafng, budgeting, scheduling, and monitoring programs are all

methods used to manage the process of design, procurement, and construction. Such methods

might be used in connection with any type of project delivery system.

8. Program management (in many ways a surrogate for the owner’s staff, used to analyze

facilities, develop programmatic requirements, and monitor overall project development for an

owner) and partnering (an effort to promote cooperation among all project participants through

education, team-building exercises, and adoption of a “charter” agreement) are examples of man-

agement techniques that occasionally are referred to as types of project delivery systems. Agency

Construction Management (see Section 4.06.A), which is described routinely as a project delivery

system, perhaps more accurately is a management technique applied to the Multiple Prime proj-

ect delivery system.

pat54645_01_b01_001-282.indd 65 6/28/19 2:04 PM