Constructability Reviews Utilization Practices for Traditional and Alternative Project Delivery Methods Across State Transportation Agencies

Abstract

State Transportation Agencies (STAs) recognized that to enhance the quality of construction documents, a review process must be incorporated into project planning, design, and procurement to evaluate projects for constructability. The benefits promised by constructability reviews (CRs) encouraged STAs to adopt it as part of their operations. This approach soon evolved into a structured process, recognized by researchers and practitioners as, the constructability review process (CRP). A significant component to the CRP success is to involve experienced construction personnel in CRs during the design phase; a major limitation of the traditional design-bid-build (DBB) delivery method. To overcome this limitation, more emphasis is being placed towards alternative project delivery methods (APDMs). As such, design–build (DB) and construction manager/general contractor (CM/GC) are among the APDMs most utilized by STAs to deliver transportation projects. Although extensive research has investigated CRs under DBB projects, research on CRs implementation under APDMs is remarkably absent. This study examines CRs utilization and staffing practices adopted by STAs across DBB, DB, and CM/GC projects. The results of this study were drawn utilizing data collected through a national survey questionnaire and interviews with selected STAs. The study found that CRs are initiated and implemented at proportionally similar phases across DBB, DB, and CM/GC projects. Investigation of staffing needs revealed that although the agency holds the executive role in implementation of CRs on DBB projects, their role shifts on DB projects to become more administrative. The agency continues to be involved in CRs under CM/GC projects, along with their allocated design consultant, in conjunction with the GC. The results of this study are anticipated to provide STAs with guidance for CRs utilization on DBB, DB and CM/GC projects.

Keywords

constructability alternative technical concepts construction manager/general contractor design–build preconstruction project delivery methods quality assurance

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Anderson

Fisher

NCHRP Report 390: Constructability Review Process for Transportation Facilities. Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 1997.

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Constructability Review Best Practices Guide. AASHTO Subcommittee on Construction, AASHTO, 2000.

Stewart

Brink

Hiller

Brink

NCHRP Research Report 850: Applying Risk Analysis, Value Engineering, and Other Innovative Solutions for Project Delivery. Transportation Research Board of the National Academics, Washington, D.C., 2017.

Dunston

Gambatese

McManus

Assessing State Transportation Agency Constructability Implementation. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 131, No. 5, 2005, pp. 569–578.

Anderson

S. D.

Fisher

D. J.

Rahman

S. P.

Integrating Constructability into Project Development: A Process Approach. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 126, No. 2, 2000, pp. 81–88.

Tran

Molenaar

Risk-Based Project Delivery Selection Model for Highway Design and Construction. Journal of Construction Engineering Management, Vol. 141, No. 12, 2015, pp. 1–9.

Tran

Harper

Smadi

Mohamed

Staffing Needs and Utilization for Alternative Contracting Methods in Highway Design and Construction. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 27, No. 9, 2020, pp. 2163–2178.

Gambatese

McManus

Constructability: A Quality Improvement Approach to Transportation Projects. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1997. 1575: 116–120.

Gransberg

D. D.

Douglas

E. E.

Implementing Project Constructability. AACE International Transactions, 2005.

10.

Washington State Department of Transportation. A Manual of Instruction for the Implementation of Constructability Review Process. Transportation Building, Olympia, Washington, 2000.

11.

California Department of Transportation. Project Development Procedures Manual. State of California DOT Division of Design, CA, 2016.

12.

Kifokeris

Xenidis

Constructability: Outline of Past, Present, and Future Research. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 143, No. 8, 2017, pp. 1–13.

13.

Radtke

Russell

Project-Level Model Process for Implementing Constructability. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 119, No. 4, 1993, pp. 813–831.

14.

Gugel

Russell

Model for Constructability Approach Selection. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 120, No. 3, 1994, pp. 509–521.

15.

Connecticut Department of Transportation. Constructability Review Program. Bureau of Engineering and Highway Operations: Office of Quality Assurance, CT, 2009.

16.

Fisher

Anderson

Rahman

Integrating Constructability Tools into Constructability Review Process. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 126, No. 2, 2000, pp. 89–96.

17.

Douglas

Schedule Constructability Review. AACE International Transactions, 2008.

18.

Tran

Harper

C. M.

Molenaar

K. R.

Haddad

N. F.

Scholfield

M. M.

A Project Delivery Selection Matrix for Highway Design and Construction. Transportation Research Record: Transportation Research Board, 2013. 2347: 3–10.

19.

Gransberg

Applying Alternative Technical Concepts to Construction Manager-General Contractor Project Delivery. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2014. 2408: 10–16.