Log in

Revisiting Project Delivery Performance

CPF-RGA 02-18 Topic Summary
CPF RGA 02 18

Overview

In 2018, CII and the Charles Pankow Foundation co-funded a research team that examined project delivery performance by comparing the cost, schedule, and quality performance of design-bid-build (DBB), construction manager at risk (CMR), and design-build (DB) projects. This project updated a CII study published in the mid-1990s that showed that DB project outperformed both CMR and DBB projects in terms of unit cost, cost and schedule growth, and all metrics relating to the speed of delivery.

CPF-RGA 02-18 examined data from over 200 projects of varying size, sector, complexity, and location. Then the team compared its results with the original CII study, which included data from over 350 projects. The results of the comparison show that the delivery speed for DB projects has increased over the past 20 years, while still providing a lower cost per square foot and greater reliability in cost and schedule performance.

The research summary and report are available free of charge through the Charles Pankow Foundation site, or CII members can download them from Related Resources (below):

  • Research Summary: Revisiting Project Delivery Performance: 1998–2018
  • Report: Revisiting Project Delivery Performance


The original CII report is available on the CII website:

 

Key Findings and Implementation Tools

1 : Project Performance Comparison, 1998 vs. 2018

The team compared median performance benchmarks for project delivery systems, then contrasted a modern comparison with the parallel work RT-133 did in the 1990s. Design-Build (DB) projects are still delivered faster and with greater reliability in cost and schedule performance than projects that use design-bid-build (DBB) or construction manager at risk (CMR).

Reference: (in Related Resources)

2 : Cost Performance Comparison

DB projects have the best performance with respect to unit cost and cost growth. The findings are consistent with previous findings, although the performance gap between project delivery systems has narrowed.

Reference: (in Related Resources)

3 : Factors Impacting Cost Performance

Reference: (in Related Resources)

4 : Schedule Performance Comparison

Reference: (in Related Resources)

5 : Factors Impacting Schedule Performance

Reference: (in Related Resources)
CPF-RGA 02-18

Key Performance Indicators

Improved cost, Improved schedule, Improved quality (reduced errors & omissions)

Presentations from CII Events

Session - Revisiting Project Delivery Performance: 1998–2019

Publication Date: 08/2019 Presenter: Number of Slides: 27 Event Code: AC2019

Related Resources

Revisiting Project Performance Research Summary

Publication Date: 04/2019 Resource Type: Member-only Resource Source: CPF-RGA 02-18

Revisiting Project Performance Final Report

Publication Date: 12/2018 Resource Type: Member-only Resource Source: CPF-RGA 02-18

Tags

Knowledge Areas:
Procurement & Contracts
Project Phase:
Construction, Detailed Design (Engineering), Procurement
Project Function/Role:
Architects & Engineering, Construction, Procurement & Contracts, Project Management
Industry Group:
Buildings, Light Industrial
Regions:
Africa – South Africa, Asia – China, India, Southeast Asia, Australia, Europe – Scandinavia, Russia, Middle East, North America – USA, Canada, Mexico, South America – Central America, Brazil
10-10 input Metrics:
Design Efficiency, Planning, Quality, Supply Chain

Keywords

Design-build, Design-bid-build, CM At Risk, Project Delivery Method, Contracting, Construction Management, CPF-RGA 02-18

Back To Knowledge Summary

Print
Advanced Keyword Search