Comparison of the design-bid-build and construction manager at risk project delivery methods utilized for the construction of public schools

According to Fails Management Institute (FMI) and the Construction Management Association of America (CMAA), the most widely utilized and accepted project delivery method is the Design-Bid-Build method (FMI/CMAA, 2010). However, proponents of alternative methods, such as Construction Manager at Risk (CM at-Risk), believe that these methods offer the promise of better performance when utilized on certain types of projects (AIA-AGC, 2011; Konchar & Sanvido, 1998). Furthermore, it is said that modern projects are subject to increased risk due to complex designs and technology, involvement of multiple and diverse parties, and increased budgetary and schedule pressure, and that “choosing an appropriate delivery (method) is often the key to success—or the source of failure” (Demkin & AIA, 2009, p. 492). In order to empower decision makers responsible for constructing new public schools (K-12), this study sought to determine how the CM at-Risk project delivery method performed in comparison to the Design-Bid-Build method on school projects utilizing the performance metrics of construction cost, time, quality, and claims. The research was carried out over a two year period from 2012 to 2014 and included a twostage data collection effort consisting of a historical document review and assemblage and a survey of district managers regarding the performance of 137 Elementary, Middle, and High school projects constructed in Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina. Data analysis was completed utilizing two group t-tests and chi-square (x 2) distributions based on a 95% confidence interval. The analysis indicated that public school projects constructed utilizing the CM at- Risk method did not produce the purported cost, schedule, productivity, or risk reduction benefits. The mean values of all cost performance metrics for CM at-Risk projects were significantly higher than those of their Design-Bid-Build counterparts. Analysis of schedule performance metrics provided no statistically significant differences with regard to school project durations. Similarly, statistically significant results were not obtained through examination of risk, productivity, cost growth, and schedule growth metrics. Conversely, the analysis indicated that CM at-Risk school projects produced significantly higher levels of product and service quality as reported by district construction managers in almost every category examined. However, it must be noted that almost all managers were relatively satisfied with their particular delivery method selections, and differences observed were only indications of the managers’ degree of satisfaction with the quality of the products and services rendered. Possible reasons that the purported CM at-Risk benefits of cost, schedule, productivity, and risk reduction were not manifested in the results of this study could be attributable in part to many issues including: improper selection of the most appropriate delivery method, utilization of value added designs and equipment, contingency management, collaborative influence on scheduling process, lack of respect and appreciation for the differing factors related to each method, and unrealistic expectations of the decision makers. Based on these issues and the mixed results of the empirical findings as noted above, it is recommended that decision makers should consider utilizing iv project delivery method selection as part of an overall value assessment strategy for the construction of their public school projects. The greatest limitation of this study and others conducting research in the field of public school construction is the lack of an existing cohesive dataset. There are many intervening factors involved with this concern including local control of school funding and construction and disparate policy issues. This issue would be listed as a target for future research along with a study designed to develop a systematic approach to determining levels of public school construction complexity. In conclusion, it is of primary importance fo those in project delivery method decision making capacities that careful considerations are given to all aspects of the design and construction scenario. Additionally, a variety of delivery methods must be made available in order to facilitate the appropriate selection and thus, proper management of the project scenario in order to obtain superior performance when constructing public schools.