TY  - CONF
TI  - Cost Comparison of Collaborative and IPD-Like Project Delivery Methods Versus Competetive Non-collaborative Project Delivery Methods
C1  - San Diego, California, USA
C3  - 20th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction
PY  - 2012
AU  - Kulkarni, Aditi
AU  - Rybkowski, Zofia K.
AU  - Smith, James
AD  - Graduate Student, Department of Construction Science, School of Architecture, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA, Phone +1 (979) 571-5846, aditi_kulkarni@tamu.edu
AD  - Assistant Professor, Department of Construction Science, School of Architecture, Fellow, Center for Health Systems and Design, 434 Langford A, 3137, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA, Phone +1 (979) 845-4354, zrybkowski@tamu.edu
AD  - PhD Student, Department of Construction Science, School of Architecture, Texas A&M  University, College Station, TX, USA, Phone +1 (801) 885-0422, jameskun7@gmail.com
ED  - Tommelein, Iris D.
ED  - Pasquire, Chrisitne L.
AB  - PURPOSE: Collaborative project delivery methods are believed to contribute to faster completion times, lower overall project costs and higher quality. Contracts are expected to influence the degree of collaboration on a given project since they allow or restrict certain lines of communication in the decision-making process. Various delivery systems rank differently on the spectrum of collaboration. The purpose of this study is to test if collaborative project delivery methods impart value. Ideally the most extreme forms of project delivery methods, that is, Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) and Design-Bid-Build (DBB), should be compared to test the effects of collaboration on benefits to the owner. Due to difficulty in obtaining data on IPD and similarly scaled DBB projects, for this study, their close cousins, CM-at-Risk (CMR) and Competitive Sealed Proposal (CSP) were compared. 
METHODOLOGY: The study compared cost performance and reducible change orders of 17 CMR and 13 CSP projects by the same owner. FINDINGS: The overall cost performance is more reliable for CMR than for CSP projects. The cost of reducible change orders for all three categories (errors, omissions and design modifications) are lower for CMR than for CSP projects 
IMPLICATIONS: This study is expected to help boost confidence in the benefits of collaborative project delivery methods. It is also likely that the results will encourage acceptance of IPD for public projects.
KW  - Collaboration
KW  - Project Delivery
KW  - CM-at-Risk (CMR; CMAR)
KW  - Competitive Sealed Proposal (CSP)
KW  - Integrated Project Delivery (IPD)
KW  - Design-Bid-Build (DBB)
KW  - Cost Comparison
PB  - 
T2  - 20th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction
DA  - 2012/07/18
CY  - San Diego, California, USA
L1  - http://iglc.net/Papers/Details/797/pdf
L2  - http://iglc.net/Papers/Details/797
N1  - Export Date: 19 April 2024
DB  - IGLC.net
DP  - IGLC
LA  - English
ER  -