1

Stephen R. ThomasCandace L. Macken

Tae Hwan ChungInho Kim

Construction Industry InstituteFunded by NIST

2

Founded in 1901 Non-regulatory federal agency within

the U.S Department of Commerce. Mission to promote U.S. innovation and

industrial competitiveness by advancing measurement science, standards, and technology in ways that enhance economic security and improve our quality of life.

3

NIST employs about 2,900 scientists, engineers, technicians, and support and administrative personnel.

Hosts about 2,600 associates and facility users from academia, industry, and other government agencies.

Partners with 1,600 manufacturing specialists and staff at about 400 locations around the country.

4

CII is based at The University of Texas at Austin

Consortium of more than 100 leading owner, engineering-contractor, and supplier firms from both the public and private arenas.

Purpose: to enhance the business effectiveness and sustainability of the capital facility life cycle through research, related initiatives, and industry alliances.

5

Since the establishment of CII in 1983, its members and academia have collaborated to produce Best Practices to improve the cost effectiveness of capital facility project execution. The mission of CII Benchmarking & Metrics is to quantify this value and to provide assessment to participants.

6

Participants receive benchmarking training. Input project performance into secure

benchmarking site. Real-time project performance may be

assessed in both graphical and tabular format against a large sample of projects from some of the industry’s most reputable firms.

Over 1,882 owner and contractor projects valued at more than $98 billion in total installed costs.

7

In 2009, CII began to take steps to enable the secure collection of project performance data from around the world by investing in sector‐specific metrics and a next‐generation (NextGen) Benchmarking System.

Partnering with universities and research organizations across the globe to allow companies to have access to CII Benchmarking through a dedicated network of servers.

The key will be transparency in giving these companies an unlimited ability to mine project data.

8

CII has assessed 1,931 projects representing over $98 Billion

Involved 133 companies submitting at least one project

Produced over 40 Benchmarking reports and publications

Today, the program employs eight staff members to advance project performance through benchmarking research.

9

1) Pharmaceutical and Biotechnology Projects North America, Europe, Asia

2) Upstream Oil and Gas Projects Worldwide (7 locations)

3) Downstream Oil and Gas Projects Worldwide (6 locations)

4) Oil Sands Projects North America5) Healthcare Projects North America6) Power Generation and Transmission Projects

Worldwide7) Aviation Projects North America8) Metals and Mining Projects Worldwide

10

Fortune 500 and ENR 400 organizations Substantial contributions by executive

personnel working on CII core processes is expected in addition to the annual dues. Active participation and in-kind contributions are critical to CII’s success.

Annual Dues: $36,000 Core Process Participation: 4 people

minimum11

Benchmarking and Metrics questionnaire.

All U.S. and international projects submitted to CII by owners and contractors between 1997 and 2000.

1,000 Projects as of 2000 326 Owner reported projects were

used; 291 contractor projects were used. (617 distinct projects)

12

Owner reported projects 25% Design–Build

Contractor reported projects 44% Design-Build

13

Cost Owner Reported

Contractor Reported

<$15 million 18% D-B 23% D-B

$15-$50 mill. 25% D-B 51% D-B

>$50 million 47% D-B 79% D-B

14

15

1. Cost2. Schedule3. Safety4. Changes5. Rework

16

There was a statistically significant difference only in the construction phase cost factor.

Formula: Actual Construction Phase Cost Actual Total Project Cost

[Exception: Start up costs savings of 9% in DBB (compared to budget) vs. 5% in DB]

17

There are no square foot comparisons. Only comparing construction phase

costs as percentage of total project costs. › .527 for Design Build Projects› .626 for Design-Bid-Build

Could this simply reflect design-build contractors front loading project costs in the design?

18

D-B D-B-B Difference

P-Value

Project Schedule Growth 0.010 0.098 0.088 .0000

Construction Schedule Growth

0.065 0.078 0.013 0.597

Actual Project Duration 88 weeks

97 weeks

Construction Phase Duration 60 weeks

57 weeks

19

No significant difference reported

20

Design Build projects reported fewer changes and rework.

[Uncertain whether due to the fact that when the same company performs both design and construction functions, there may be a disincentive to report or record certain changes, or whether due to increased efficiency]

21

Contractors reported that Design-Bid-Build Project generally performed better, but performance outcomes were not significantly different. P. 17.

22

Contractors reported scheduling information that favored Design-Bid-Build.

D-B D-B-B Diff. P-Value

Project Schedule Growth 0.030 0.028 0.002 0.904

Construction Schedule Growth

0.051 0.012 0.039 0.050

Construction Phase Duration

64 weeks

50 weeks

23

Comparing DBB building projects and DBB industrial projects, there were generally better outcomes for industrial projects than for buildings.

In four of five cost categories for which comparable data was available, DBB industrial projects outperformed DBB buildings.

DBB industrial projects also outperformed DBB Building projects on most schedule metrics.

24

Average DB project was $80.5 million Average DBB project was $22.7 million DB delivery tended to yield better

performance outcomes for Owner reported projects.

Less clear advantage for Contractor reported projects.

25

26

Roland NiklesRogers Joseph O’Donnell

San Franciscornikles@rjo.com