TY - GEN
T1 - The need for integrated project delivery in the public sector
AU - Collins, Wesley
AU - Parrish, Kristen
PY - 2014/1/1
Y1 - 2014/1/1
N2 - Integrated project delivery (IPD) has proven an effective delivery system in the private sector as evidenced in recently completed case study projects. Despite this success, case study researchers assert IPD currently is not being used in the public sector because of state laws limiting the delivery systems available for public owners and the difficulty of changing these laws. This paper examines a set of building construction projects undertaken by one public owner over a 12-year period, specifically the change orders associated with these design-bid-build projects. The authors analyze these change orders to determine whether this owner could have realized the same benefit as private owners if IPD had been available as a delivery method. The authors hypothesize that owners often use change orders to ensure their own satisfaction postdesign because the design intent does not match their specific requirements (i.e., owner requested changes), and the collaborative nature of IPD would lower the need for such changes significantly, providing added value to the owner because of a more complete project scope being determined earlier and with contractor input during the design phase. This paper presents data to support these hypotheses illustrating the benefits of IPD for public owners, and in turn, building a compelling case for adopting IPD in the public sector.
AB - Integrated project delivery (IPD) has proven an effective delivery system in the private sector as evidenced in recently completed case study projects. Despite this success, case study researchers assert IPD currently is not being used in the public sector because of state laws limiting the delivery systems available for public owners and the difficulty of changing these laws. This paper examines a set of building construction projects undertaken by one public owner over a 12-year period, specifically the change orders associated with these design-bid-build projects. The authors analyze these change orders to determine whether this owner could have realized the same benefit as private owners if IPD had been available as a delivery method. The authors hypothesize that owners often use change orders to ensure their own satisfaction postdesign because the design intent does not match their specific requirements (i.e., owner requested changes), and the collaborative nature of IPD would lower the need for such changes significantly, providing added value to the owner because of a more complete project scope being determined earlier and with contractor input during the design phase. This paper presents data to support these hypotheses illustrating the benefits of IPD for public owners, and in turn, building a compelling case for adopting IPD in the public sector.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84904704214&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84904704214&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1061/9780784413517.0074
DO - 10.1061/9780784413517.0074
M3 - Conference contribution
AN - SCOPUS:84904704214
SN - 9780784413517
T3 - Construction Research Congress 2014: Construction in a Global Network - Proceedings of the 2014 Construction Research Congress
SP - 719
EP - 728
BT - Construction Research Congress 2014
PB - American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)
T2 - 2014 Construction Research Congress: Construction in a Global Network, CRC 2014
Y2 - 19 May 2014 through 21 May 2014
ER -