Performance of Design-Build and Construction Manager-at-Risk Methods in Water and Wastewater Projects
Journal of Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction, ASCE
A capital investment of about $1.3 trillion is needed over next 25 years to repair or replace the drinking water main breaks that occur each year in the United States. The use of two alternative delivery methods – design-build (DB) and construction manager-at-risk (CMAR) –for buildings, highways, and water and wastewater infrastructures are increasing due to their schedule advantage, cost savings, and use of innovation in a project as opposed to the traditional design-bid-build approach. This study compares and analyzes the differences in the perceptions of DB and CMAR users about various benefits of DB and CMAR for water and wastewater projects. The respondents included utility managers, project staffs, and a few policy makers who have worked on DB and CMAR water and wastewater projects. Results showed no significant differences were found in the satisfaction level between these two groups regarding the benefits. However, CMAR users ranked 'quality' significantly higher than did DB users. Similarly, a significantly higher number of DB users experienced a cost advantage in their projects than did the CMAR users.
Alternative delivery method, Design-build, Construction manager-at-risk, Cost advantage, Schedule advantage, Water and wastewater, Infrastructure projects.
Shrestha, P. P.,
Performance of Design-Build and Construction Manager-at-Risk Methods in Water and Wastewater Projects.
Journal of Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction, ASCE, 24(1),