Project Delivery Systems

• Author: Ross J. Altman
• Pages: 57-95

Proje ct D eliv ery  Syste ms 57

4.01 ovEr viE W

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

shaled and coordinated to design, procure, and construct a project. Performance

of the tasks required to deliver even a simple project often demand multiple

design professionals, consultants, specialized contractors, and product and

system vendors. The larger or more complex a project, the greater the number

of persons and entities engaged in the delivery of that project. If performed as

intended, the design, procurement, and construction of a project is a collabora-

tive exercise. Predictably, however, many challenges arise when attempting to

orchestrate ef cient interaction among so many project participants.

The owner determines how to organize the process through which the

project is designed, procured, and constructed. Although many issues must

be considered, the structure of the method used to manage the overall pro-

cess of design, procurement, and construction is driven principally by two fac-

tors. First, how are the responsibilities for design, procurement, and construc-

tion allocated among the project participants? Second, what is the sequence

of major activities that comprise design, procurement, and construction? The

4

Project Delivery Systems

ROS S J. ALTMA N

C H A P T E R

57

58 C ON S T R U C T IO N L AW

answers to those questions largely dene the organizational structure of the

design, procurement, and construction process and describe the fundamental

elements of what is referred to as the “project delivery system.”

4.02 Evolu tion o f Diff ErEnt App roAch Es

Methods of building construction and technology available prior to the mid-

1800s were rather limited by today’s standards. A master mason or carpenter,

sometimes described as a master builder, was commonly appointed in charge

of the entire project. The cathedrals of Renaissance Europe and many other

signicant structures that ll the pages of architectural history books were

delivered by such a methodology.1 Subsequent advances in technology and an

increase in project complexity, however, produced a need for design specializa-

tion. Architecture emerged as a profession, and the design function was sev-

ered from the performance of construction. The Design-Bid-Construct project

delivery system (described in Section 4.04) was fashioned to capitalize on this

bifurcation of design and construction skills.

Throughout most of the 20th century, Design-Bid-Construct remained the

most popular method of delivering a project in the United States. The pub-

lic sector continues to rely heavily upon Design-Bid-Construct, due in part to

requirements dictated by procurement statutes. The private sector is not bound

by such limitations, however, and is free to experiment with and develop proj-

ect delivery systems that respond to the particular desires of an owner. Because

the objectives of owners differ and are subject to market and other forces that

change with time, new methods to deliver a project continue to evolve. No

single project delivery system is suitable for every project, and each project

delivery system has its own advantages and disadvantages.

Unfortunately, the terminology used to dene project delivery systems and

identify various approaches is neither precise nor applied consistently. Some

terms are used interchangeably, while others are used to describe a variety of

different project delivery systems.2 Certain qualities or features are associated

1. See FRANCES GIES & JOSEPH GIES, CATHEDRAL, FORGE AND WATERWHEEL (Harper Collins 1994); RICH-

ARD A. GOLDTHWAITE, THE BUILDING OF RENAISSANCE FLORENCE (John Hopkins University Press 1980);

and ROSS KING, BRUNELLESCHI’S DOME (Walker & Company 2000).

2. 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. At the other end of the

spectrum, a wide range of project delivery systems falls under the umbrella of “Construction

Management.”

Proje ct D eliv ery  Syste ms 59

sometimes with a particular project delivery system, yet there is no uniform

nomenclature. Even among those in the design professions and construction

industry, different criteria are used to dene project delivery systems. Indeed,

the same project delivery system may go by different labels, depending on who

makes the reference.3

Therefore, when referring to a project delivery system by name or descrip-

tive phrase, the contracting parties cannot assume that each party ascribes

the same meaning to such terminology. For contracting parties to reach a

mutual understanding of what is contemplated by such references, they must

distinguish one project delivery system from another. Because the terminol-

ogy surrounding project delivery systems is not uniform, it is often necessary

to describe the underlying and dening characteristics of a particular project

delivery system to achieve that understanding.

Some in the desi gn professions and construction industry distinguis h fur-

ther between project delivery systems and management techniques. According

to those who e spouse this dist inction, a project delivery system is consi d-

ered a metho d to alloc ate responsibilities with resp ect to des ign, procure-

ment, and constructio n, while a management tech nique is viewed as a device

or met hod us ed to coordinate the process of design, procurement, and con-

struction.4 The distinction is interesting, but the terminology commonly

adopted to describe project delivery systems is more uid and simply does

not always recognize such differences. Many arrangements that might be

dened more precis ely as a management technique are often referred to as a

project delivery system.5

Identifying the dening characteristics of the project delivery system is a

bit discretionary, and many conclusions are possible. There are almost endless

variations of project delivery systems, along with the opportunity to customize

3. At-Risk Construction Management is also identied as CMeR, CMc, and CM/GC.

4. 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.

5. 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 4.05(A) in this chapter), which is described routinely as

a project delivery system, perhaps more accurately is a management technique applied to the

Multiple Prime project delivery system.