Comparison Of Delivery Contract Models For Laboratory Construction

Design-Bid-Build

According to the laboratory facilities requirement that GovMed, the Government Research Organization has right now, there are two delivery contract models that can be put into use for the construction of the laboratories they need. These can be listed with their contract models as below:

Design-Bid-Build: The delivery contact model of design with belt are commonly termed as the conventional method or heartbeat is a process in which the owner, which in this case is GovMed, contracts with the different entities for acquiring the actual design and the construction that is required for the project which is the designing and developing of the Laboratories. In this process there are three phases applied to the entire construction delivery contract(Nicholas and Steyn 2017). These are the design phase, the tendering phase, and the construction phase. In the design phase GovMed would like to retain the architect who is skilled in Consulting for the Engineering infrastructural Works to design and producer documents for bidding. This bidding documents would also include the drawings and technical specifications for the Constructions which can be referred by different general constructors for the progression of the project. The next phase is the bid or tender phase, in which anybody who is qualified me participate and select the general contractors bidding. Once these bids are received, the main architect reviews them and clarifies any inconsistencies that define from the end of the bidders. Further the architect indulges in ensuring that all the documents and order and investigate the qualifications of the contractor. If any inconsistencies are found the key architect in abandon the project completely(Maharjan and Shrestha 2017). The final phase of this delivery contract is the construction of the project that the contractor gets after having approval of the construction drawing and all the technical specification which are not allowed to be altered. The architect also accesses the Agent of the owner while the construction phase is going on to evaluation if the progress of the word recounts to the request from the outworker that has been presented to him or her. If any issue is found in the construction process that may seem to be not synchronizing with initial documents, the project can be halted.

                                                 

CM Multi Prime: There are several project delivery methods within the field of construction management that happened to deal with contractual obligations. Although a construction manager or a CM of multiple Prime is similar to a construction manager at risk both of them are very separate project delivery systems(Kristensenet al. 2015). The multi Prime CM is adopted by the owners of construction that are not staffed with too much work force to support and manage the construction work all by themselves and has to hire an agency CM for performing all the management of construction work for the form(Carpenter and Bausman 2016). However it is find that probably most of the organizations that use this project delivery method are mostly the public sectors. Therefore in this case where GovMed is a public government organization it is a probable choice for the construction work to follow this delivery method. This project delivery method ensure the providers are the owner of the organization are assured with the flexibility to select any contractor that suits several factors of the construction project rather than only depending on the price. Videos of this agency CM during the design development and the transition from design to construction this project delivery method appears more seamless which is why it becomes much more appropriate.

CM Multi Prime

                                                               

Design-Bid-Build:The advantages of this Project Delivery Method can be as listed as follows:

• Better interest of the owner is paid heed to the most.
• Bids are placed on the documents that are prepared by the design team. These bids are placed by different contractor aiming for the project. This is done with the ‘cheaper is better deal’ in mind (Nikou, Asmar and Bingham 2014). It is often found that the addenda placed during the bid is often consisting of missed items, are incomplete or incorrect.
• This process provides the owners a huge variety of suitable options to choose from and identify the potential contractors, which is also fair to the potential bidders.
• The owners are realized to establish reasonable prices for their project.
• Selection of the architect and the contractor to uses effective competition improve the efficiency and quality for owners (Naoum and Egbu 2015).

The disadvantages of this Project Delivery Method can be as listed as follows:

• If the entire project is made to redo for reducing the budget and similar purposes, the entire design team can be disintegrated and any probable cost during the design phase can increase.
• The project redesign model can have a disputed expense if the key architect do not pay much attention to the revamped model after cost revision redesign process(Reynolds et al.2018).
• Since this project development method suggests the tagline of “the cheaper the better”, there is a high chance that lowest bidding sub-contractors may be taken into consideration without looking at their design models or feasibility of plan (Sanzet al.2017).
• Very little effort is put to find the alternatives at such low bidding post design process by the general contractors.
• Maintaining cost and quality product at the same time becomes much more complicated during the construction is in progress, which has often seen to raise conflicts between the architect and the contractor.

CM Multi Prime:The advantages of this Project Delivery Method can be as listed as follows:

• This process retains the control of design to the owners.
• The contractors are involved much earlier in this project delivery method process(Chen et al.2015).
• This project delivery method amalgamates faster delivery process with the lowest bidding.

The disadvantages of this Project Delivery Method can be as listed as follows:

• The owner becomes the sole responsible person for the gaps, changes or overlaps in the scope of the project.
• Sub-contractor involvement is very low in this project delivery method.
• The CM’s lack of proper oversight can be exposed in this project delivery method.

Therefore, analyzing both the Project Delivery Methods, it can be concluded that the CM Multi Prime is a better option between the two, since it has better options of maintaining quality at lower prices which is pretty underrated process of the former project delivery method.

The clauses that should be tightened to ensure the requirements for project cost, timeline and delivery performance for GovMeds laboratories are as listed as below:

• Payment and related documents to be submitted for the payment procedure
• Frequency of the contractor’s payment
• Proper and clearly defined terms within the contract
• Scope of work description in the planning documents(Ogunsanmi 2016)
• Defining “reasonably inferable” within the scope of work
• Convenience clause should be terminated
• Change orders and payment hold clauses
• Liquidation damages clauses
• Proper discrimination of time and cost

Risk	Effect of Risk	Level of Risk	Mitigation in Contract
Lack of acceptance of investors of the design for the GovMed Laboratory	Increased cost due to suspension of work	Low	Market observation, alternative design solution
Delays and difficulties in having opinions and permits	Distributed designing process	Medium	Earlier diagnosis of the situation
Conflict amongst designing team members	Distributed designing process	Low	Team leader to mediate in all sorts of conflicts
Too optimistic assessment of employee workload	Delay in designing process	Low	Proposing employees to work overtime or ordering part of work to another design team
Incorrect information from investor or lack of clear guidelines	Verifications of errors increases cost and time due to design revision	High	Application to investor for extension of time to complete designing
Staff having less knowledge about designing a laboratory	Verifications of errors increases cost and time due to design revision	Medium	Designing team leader strengthens control over work with providing the employees consultation with and expert
Acceptance of unrealistic deadlines in contract	Deterioration of design quality and failure of deadline	High	Employment of new employees or ordering part of work to another party during a contract
Understanding of design budget	Deterioration of design quality	High	Limiting scope of design to necessary minimum

                                                              Table 1: Risk Register and Risk Mitigation

                                                                         (Source: Created by Author)

A contracting approach should start with planning the entire project of construction. But before proceeding math anything else it is needed to be kept in mind that all the work that has to be done in the project should be there in the contract(Scott and Dunne 2018). In addition to that the plan for any extra purchase and acquisitions also be mentioned in the contracting approach. It is necessary to put focus on the managing of the contract the metrics that will be needed to make in order to be successful picking up of a seller and administration of the contract while the work is in progress.

The procurement, the scheduling and the management however follows a logical order. The schedule plan details on the procurement process in which it will be managed (Meloet al. 2016). For GovMed laboratory construction the project procurement schedule is to be listed as below:

• Delivery date for the work under contract is the top priority list
• The standard documents that the company uses
• All the vendors and contractors that are involved in the project and the management for each of them is utmost necessary
• Assumptions made during the project plan and the purchasing of items have an impact on the project
• Purchasing lead times and the coordination of this constraint with the development of the project schedule
• Prequalified sellers and the modes of their identification

References:

Carpenter, N. and Bausman, D.C., 2016. Project delivery method performance for public school construction: Design-bid-build versus CM at risk. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 142(10), p.05016009.

Chen, Q., Jin, Z., Xia, B., Wu, P. and Skitmore, M., 2015. Time and cost performance of design–build projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 142(2), p.04015074.

deMelo, R.S.S., Do, D., Tillmann, P., Ballard, G. and Granja, A.D., 2016. Target value design in the public sector: evidence from a hospital project in San Francisco, CA. Architectural Engineering and Design Management, 12(2), pp.125-137.

Kristensen, K., Lædre, O., Svalestuen, F. and Lohne, J., 2015. Contract models and compensation formats in the design process. In Proc. 23rd Ann. Conf. of the Int’l. Group for Lean Construction. Perth, Australia, July (pp. 29-31).

Maharjan, R. and Shrestha, P.P., 2017, December. Relationship between Project Performance and Contract Procurement Factors for Design-Bid-Build Texas Highway Projects. In Construction Research Congress 2018 (pp. 150-160).

Naoum, S. and Egbu, C., 2015. Critical review of procurement method research in construction journals. Procedia Economics and Finance, 21, pp.6-13.

Nicholas, J.M. and Steyn, H., 2017. Project management for engineering, business and technology. Routledge.

Nikou Goftar, V., El Asmar, M. and Bingham, E., 2014. A meta-analysis of literature comparing project performance between design-build (DB) and design-bid-build (DBB) delivery systems. In Construction Research Congress 2014: Construction in a Global Network (pp. 1389-1398).

Ogunsanmi, O.E., 2016. Risk classification model for design and build projects. Covenant Journal of Research in the Built Environment, 3(1).

Reynolds, C., Stair, M., Miller, B. and Stryzinski, T., 2018. Design Bid Build vs. Design Build Best Value.

Sanz, M.A., Franz, B., Molenaar, K., Esmaeili, B. and Pellicer, E., 2017. Anexplorationof team integration in design-bid-build projects. In 9th International Structural Engineering and Construction Conference: Resilient Structures and Sustainable Construction, ISEC 2017. ISEC Press.

Scott, L. and Dunne, J.E., 2018. Analyzing the Restoration of the Oklahoma State Capitol from the Perspective of the Design Build Process: a Descriptive Case Study.