Cost comparison of collaborative and IPD-like project delivery methods versus non-collaborative project delivery methods
Abstract
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.
Subject
CollaborationProject delivery
CM-at-Risk
Competitive Sealed Proposal
Integrated Project Delivery (IPD)
Design-Bid-Build (DBB)
Cost comparison