project delivery and contract strategy (pdcs)
DESCRIPTION
Project Delivery and Contract Strategy (PDCS). Project Delivery and Contract Strategy Research Team. Gary Vandiver Solutia. CPl Conference 2001. Project Delivery and Contract Strategy (PDCS). Gary Vandiver Solutia. CPl Conference 2001. PDCS Research Team. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Project Delivery and Contract Strategy
(PDCS)
Project Delivery and Contract Strategy
(PDCS)
Project Deliveryand
Contract Strategy Research Team
Project Deliveryand
Contract Strategy Research Team
Gary VandiverSolutia
Gary VandiverSolutia
CPl Conference 2001
Project Delivery and Contract Strategy
(PDCS)
Project Delivery and Contract Strategy
(PDCS)
Gary VandiverSolutia
Gary VandiverSolutia
CPl Conference 2001
PDCS Research Team
Stuart D. Anderson Texas A&MStanley F. Berger 3MG. Wayne Burchette Eastman Chemical, ChairmanJames R. Greene Abbott LabsRobert P. Kehoe NASALarry Kruse Murphy CompanyAde Oyetunji Texas A&MTim Thury GSAGary Vandiver SolutiaPaul Wicker GM
Past MembersDarrick D. Bowers Texas A&MDavid Combs John GrayRichard De Leon, Jr. UT SystemJerry Kirk FPLJohn Phillips U.S. Steel, former ChairmanJanice White UT System John Wrockloff U.S. Air Force
Stuart D. Anderson Texas A&MStanley F. Berger 3MG. Wayne Burchette Eastman Chemical, ChairmanJames R. Greene Abbott LabsRobert P. Kehoe NASALarry Kruse Murphy CompanyAde Oyetunji Texas A&MTim Thury GSAGary Vandiver SolutiaPaul Wicker GM
Past MembersDarrick D. Bowers Texas A&MDavid Combs John GrayRichard De Leon, Jr. UT SystemJerry Kirk FPLJohn Phillips U.S. Steel, former ChairmanJanice White UT System John Wrockloff U.S. Air Force
Team Mission Statement
To produce a process to
assist in selecting a
contract delivery strategy
to optimize owner's project
objectives.
To produce a process to
assist in selecting a
contract delivery strategy
to optimize owner's project
objectives.
PDCS
Within industry, no existing set of delivery systems applicable
to a wide range of project types.
Within industry, no existing set of delivery systems applicable
to a wide range of project types.
CII commissioned the PDCS Research Team to:
- Identify a larger set of project delivery systems and contract strategies.
- Develop a decision process and tool.
CII commissioned the PDCS Research Team to:
- Identify a larger set of project delivery systems and contract strategies.
- Develop a decision process and tool.
PDCS
The research team developed
a procedure and tool to assist
in selection of Project Delivery
and Contract Strategy.
The research team developed
a procedure and tool to assist
in selection of Project Delivery
and Contract Strategy.
PDCS Procedure
• Focuses on owner’s project objectives.
• Focuses on project execution environment.
• Incorporates quantitative assessment of PDCS alternatives in decision support tool.
• Focuses on owner’s project objectives.
• Focuses on project execution environment.
• Incorporates quantitative assessment of PDCS alternatives in decision support tool.
Research
Research conducted with:
•CII members, non-members
•Owners and contractors
•Public agencies
• Industrial and general building sectors
Research conducted with:
•CII members, non-members
•Owners and contractors
•Public agencies
• Industrial and general building sectors
PDCS Definition
•Defines roles and responsibilities of parties in a project.
•Defines how owner pays for services.
• Establishes framework for organization of project execution.
•Defines roles and responsibilities of parties in a project.
•Defines how owner pays for services.
• Establishes framework for organization of project execution.
PDCS – Typical Representation
Bid
Traditional Design-Bid-Build delivery system, PDCS 01
Phase Sequence: Serial sequence of design and construction (Procurement begins with construction)
Design Procure
Construct
Project Team Relationships
Primary Contractual/Functional Relationships
Owner
Designer Constructor
Compensation ApproachesDesigner: Firm PriceConstructor: Competitive Lump Sum
PDCS – Purpose
Develop a tool that will assist
owners in selecting a project
delivery method and contract
strategy for their projects,
based on their project
objectives.
Develop a tool that will assist
owners in selecting a project
delivery method and contract
strategy for their projects,
based on their project
objectives.
Objectives
•Develop PDCS alternatives and selection factors for industry-wide application.
•Develop procedure and analysis tool to aid PDCS selection.
•Develop procedure to facilitate owner’s objectives.
•Develop PDCS alternatives and selection factors for industry-wide application.
•Develop procedure and analysis tool to aid PDCS selection.
•Develop procedure to facilitate owner’s objectives.
Characteristics
Identify and define:
• Set of common PDCS alternatives currently used in industry
• Set of factors considered in selection process
•Approach for assessing factors leading to appropriate PDCS
Identify and define:
• Set of common PDCS alternatives currently used in industry
• Set of factors considered in selection process
•Approach for assessing factors leading to appropriate PDCS
Data Collection and Validation
Phase I – Questionnaire data from 90 projects:
•Defined PDCS alternatives and selection factors that are used in practice.
• Evaluated decision analysis approaches.
Phase I – Questionnaire data from 90 projects:
•Defined PDCS alternatives and selection factors that are used in practice.
• Evaluated decision analysis approaches.
Data Collection and Validation
Phase II – Workshops involving 32 owner and contractor project managers:
•Developed relative effectiveness scores that are intrinsic to spreadsheet analysis.
Phase II – Workshops involving 32 owner and contractor project managers:
•Developed relative effectiveness scores that are intrinsic to spreadsheet analysis.
Data Collection and Validation
Phase III – Validation of the Tool:
• Identified 20 selection factors and 12 PDCS alternatives.
• Tested and validated on 12 projects from research team member companies.
Owners are using the tool to support PDCS decisions on new
projects.
Phase III – Validation of the Tool:
• Identified 20 selection factors and 12 PDCS alternatives.
• Tested and validated on 12 projects from research team member companies.
Owners are using the tool to support PDCS decisions on new
projects.
Data Collection and Validation
•Result obtained was appropriate.
•Procedure and tool are improvement over current practices.
• Insight into selection of PDCS provided.
•Result obtained was appropriate.
•Procedure and tool are improvement over current practices.
• Insight into selection of PDCS provided.
PDCS Decision Support Tool
• Review project objectives.
• Identify selection factors (related to owner’s project objectives).
• Assign preference rank and preference weights to selected factors to reflect priority.
• Review project objectives.
• Identify selection factors (related to owner’s project objectives).
• Assign preference rank and preference weights to selected factors to reflect priority.
PROCESS FLOWCHARTPROCESS FLOWCHART
Start
End
Review project objectives and profile
Review list of Selection Factors
Identify relevant factors. Go to Analysis Worksheet.
Copy/paste factors into PW Table in
Analysis Worksheet
Compute Preference Weights
Copy/paste Effectiveness Values into Aggregation
Table in Analysis WS
Review aggregate scores.
Select top three.
Review Default Compensation
Approaches
Refine Compensation
Approaches
Yes
No
Default Compensation
Approaches Okay?
Make Decision
PDCS Decision Support Tool(continued)
• Paste effectiveness values into aggregate table.
• Obtain aggregate scores from spreadsheet.
• Review results to make final decision.
• Choose from 20 selection factors, 12 PDCS alternatives.
• Paste effectiveness values into aggregate table.
• Obtain aggregate scores from spreadsheet.
• Review results to make final decision.
• Choose from 20 selection factors, 12 PDCS alternatives.
PROCESS FLOWCHARTPROCESS FLOWCHART
Start
End
Review project objectives and profile
Review list of Selection Factors
Identify relevant factors. Go to Analysis Worksheet.
Copy/paste factors into PW Table in
Analysis Worksheet
Compute Preference Weights
Copy/paste Effectiveness Values into Aggregation
Table in Analysis WS
Review aggregate scores.
Select top three.
Review Default Compensation
Approaches
Refine Compensation
Approaches
Yes
No
Default Compensation
Approaches Okay?
Make Decision
PDCS Decision Support Tool
Factor Selection Factor Description Factor ActionNumber Factor for Comparing Statement
1 Completion within Delivery system Control cost growthoriginal budget is facilitates control ofcritical to project cost growth
success
7 Early completion is Delivery system Ensure shortest critical to project ensures shortest
schedule successreasonable schedule
17 Project features are Delivery system Capitalize on well defined at the capitalizes on well well defined scopeaward of the design defined projectand/or construction scope prior to award
contract of design and/orconstruction
Factor Selection Factor Description Factor ActionNumber Factor for Comparing Statement
1 Completion within Delivery system Control cost growthoriginal budget is facilitates control ofcritical to project cost growth
success
7 Early completion is Delivery system Ensure shortest critical to project ensures shortest
schedule successreasonable schedule
17 Project features are Delivery system Capitalize on well defined at the capitalizes on well well defined scopeaward of the design defined projectand/or construction scope prior to award
contract of design and/orconstruction
Table A-1: Compute Preference WeightsTable A-1: Compute Preference Weights
PDCS Decision Support Tool
Factor Action Statement Preference Preference NormalizedRank Scores Preference
Weight
Control time growth 1 100 0.33
Protect confidentiality 2 80 0.27
Capitalize on familiar 3 60 0.20 project conditions
Maximize owner's involvement 4 40 0.13
Efficiently coordinate project 5 20 0.07 complexity or innovation
300
Factor Action Statement Preference Preference NormalizedRank Scores Preference
Weight
Control time growth 1 100 0.33
Protect confidentiality 2 80 0.27
Capitalize on familiar 3 60 0.20 project conditions
Maximize owner's involvement 4 40 0.13
Efficiently coordinate project 5 20 0.07 complexity or innovation
300
Table A-2: Compute Aggregate ScoresTable A-2: Compute Aggregate Scores
PDCS Decision Support Tool
Factor Control time growth
Protect confidentiality
Capitalize on familiar project
conditions
Maximize owner's
involvement
Coordinate project
complexity or innovation
EMPTY
Preference Weight 0.33 0.27 0.20 0.13 0.07 0.00
PDCS 01 20 90 0 80 70 46.00
PDCS 02 50 90 50 90 60 66.67
PDCS 03 20 70 0 80 50 39.33
PDCS 04 20 70 0 80 40 38.67
PDCS 05 50 70 40 80 40 56.67
PDCS 06 70 70 70 40 70 66.00
PDCS 07 90 0 100 10 100 58.00
PDCS 08 80 40 90 30 80 64.67
PDCS 09 0 100 80 100 0 56.00
PDCS 10 0 60 10 30 0 22.00
PDCS 11 100 0 100 0 90 59.33
PDCS 12 80 80 70 100 80 80.67
PDCS Alternatives
Aggregate Score
Pre
de
term
ined
Eff
ectiv
en
ess
Va
lue
s(T
able
EV
-1)
Benefits of the Tool
•Relates PDCS to project objectives and success parameters.
•Provides a decision support tool to facilitate selection of most suitable PDCS.
• Expands knowledge base with well-defined, documented PDCS alternatives.
•Relates PDCS to project objectives and success parameters.
•Provides a decision support tool to facilitate selection of most suitable PDCS.
• Expands knowledge base with well-defined, documented PDCS alternatives.
Benefits of the Tool
•Provides rationale for selecting PDCS, based on quantification of alternatives.
•Supports CII Best Practices:
- Alignment
- Pre-Project Planning
•Provides rationale for selecting PDCS, based on quantification of alternatives.
•Supports CII Best Practices:
- Alignment
- Pre-Project Planning
LOWESTCOST
SHORTESTSCHEDULE
MAXIMIZECONTROL
LOW LEVELOF
CHANGES
PDCSImplementation Session
PDCS – Implementation Session
Moderator
Wayne Burchette Eastman Chemical
Panel
Stu Anderson Texas A&M University
Stan Berger 3M Company
Robert P. Kehoe NASA
Larry Kruse Murphy Company
Moderator
Wayne Burchette Eastman Chemical
Panel
Stu Anderson Texas A&M University
Stan Berger 3M Company
Robert P. Kehoe NASA
Larry Kruse Murphy Company
Construction Project Improvement Conference
Construction Industry Institute
Austin, Texas
2001: A Construction Odyssey
Trends and Perspectives
2001: A Construction Odyssey
Trends and Perspectives