Performance of Design-Build and Construction Manager-at-Risk Methods in Water and Wastewater Projects

Abstract

A capital investment of about USD 1.3 trillion is needed over the next 25 years to repair or replace the drinking water main breaks that occur each year in the United States. The use of two alternative delivery methods—design-build (DB) and construction manager-at-risk (CMAR)—for buildings, highways, and water and wastewater infrastructures are increasing due to schedule advantages, cost savings, and use of innovation in projects as opposed to the traditional design-bid-build approach. This study compares and analyzes the differences in the perceptions of DB and CMAR users regarding the various benefits of DB and CMAR for water and wastewater projects. The respondents of this survey were utility managers, project staff, and policy makers who have worked on DB and CMAR water and wastewater projects. Results showed no significant differences in the satisfaction level between these two methods regarding the benefits. However, CMAR users ranked “quality” significantly higher than DB users. In addition, a significantly higher number of DB users experienced a cost advantage in their projects when compared with CMAR users.