Sei sulla pagina 1di 44



Environmental Project Management
Copyright © Momentum Press®, LLC, 2019.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored

in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means—­
electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording, or any other—except for
brief quotations, not to exceed 250 words, without the prior permission
of the publisher.

First published in 2019 by Momentum Press®, LLC

222 East 46th Street, New York, NY 10017

ISBN-13: 978-1-94708-350-9 (print)

ISBN-13: 978-1-94708-351-6 (e-book)

Momentum Press Environmental Engineering Collection

Cover and interior design by S4Carlisle Publishing Services Private Ltd.,

Chennai, India

First edition: 2019

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Printed in the United States of America


Project management is an evolving profession. Originally considered part

and parcel of the design function, the practice of project management has
evolved into a separate classification of professional practice. Professional
project managers of today use sophisticated computer programs to achieve
in seconds what took days to accomplish and evaluate in the past. Cost
estimating and project scheduling have become key elements in assur-
ing on-budget and on-time delivery of final projects. Key to those is how
well the project manager addresses environmental issues that arise. Those
issues need to be considered from the planning stages of a project to the
end-of-life stages of the project and the disposal of the remnants of the
project decades in the future. This book describes, in concise terms, using
easy to follow examples, the various aspects and considerations r­ equired
in effective project management and the tools that can be used by a non-
professional project manager to appropriately evaluate how well the pro-
fessional is doing or to effectively manage smaller projects without the
need for a professional project manager.


cost estimating, environmental management, environmental project

­management, project management, scheduling

List of Figures xi
List of Tables xiii
Chapter 1 Introduction 1
1.1 Introduction 1
1.2 Types of Projects and Project Life Cycle 2
1.3  Contractual Agreements 3
1.3.1  Design/Bid/Build Arrangements (DBB
Contracts) 3
1.3.2  Design/Build Arrangements (DB Contracts) 4
1.3.3 Project Manager at Risk Arrangements
(PMAR Contracts) 4
1.3.4 Integrated Project Delivery Arrangements
(IPD Contracts) 5
1.3.5 Design/Build/Finance/Operate/Maintain
Arrangements (DBFOM Contracts) 6
1.3.6  Highway Construction Variations 7  Incentive/Disincentive Contracts
(I/D Contracts) 8  Lane Rental Contracts 8  Cost and Time Arrangements
(A+B Contracting) 9  Public/Private Partnerships
(PPP, 3P, or P3 Contracting) 9
1.4  Project Procurement Procedures 10
1.4.1 Qualification-Based Procurement versus
Cost-Based Procurement 11  Qualification-Based Procurement 12  Cost-Based Procurement 13
1.4.2  Planning Projects 14
1.4.3  Design Projects 14
1.4.4  Construction Projects 15
viii  •  Contents

1.4.5  Public Project Procurement 15  OPM Contracts 17  Engineer/Architect Contracts 18  Prime Contractor Contracts 19  Filed Sub-bid Contracts 19
1.5 Roles and Responsibilities of Project Participants 20
1.6  Conflict Resolution on Projects 20
Chapter 2 Project Estimating 25
2.1 Construction Project Estimating Background 25
2.2  Types of Construction Estimates 27
2.3  Design Estimates 27
2.4  Bid Estimates 30
2.5 Labor Rates and Work Crew Development 35
2.6  CSI MasterFormat 36
2.7  Cost Engineering 39
2.8  Earned Value 40
2.9 S-Curves 42
2.10  Automated Cost Estimation 42
2.10.1  Sage 300 Construction and Real Estate 44
2.10.2  On-Screen Takeoff (OST) 44
2.10.3  R.S. Means Online 44
2.10.4  Bluebeam Revu 47
2.10.5  HCSS HeavyBid 47
2.10.6  Integrated Estimating Software 47
2.11  Cost Management in Construction 49
Chapter 3 Project Scheduling 51
3.1  Scheduling Fundamentals 51
3.1.1  Introduction 51
3.1.2  Scheduling Responsibilities 51
3.1.3  Schedule Development 53
3.1.4  Schedule Logic 54
3.2  Scheduling Terminology 55
3.2.1  Activity 55
3.2.2  Network 56
3.2.3  Critical Path 56
3.2.4  Float 56
3.2.5  Predecessors/Successors 57
3.2.6  Leads/Lags 58
3.3  Scheduling Methods 59
3.3.1  Matrix Scheduling 59
3.3.2  Graphic Scheduling 60
Contents  •   ix

3.3.3  Milestone Scheduling 61

3.3.4  Line-of-Balance 62
3.3.5  Gantt Charts 64
3.3.6  Network Scheduling 65
3.3.7  Last Planner System 67
3.4  Schedule Mechanics 67
3.4.1  Forward Pass 67
3.4.2  Backward Pass 69
3.4.3  Float Calculations 69
3.5  Scheduling Software 70
3.5.1  Microsoft Project 71
3.5.2  Oracle Primavera 74
3.5.3  Schedule Planner (Trimble Vico Office) 74
3.5.4  Asta Powerproject 74
3.5.5  Smartsheet 76
3.5.6  TILOS 77
3.6  Building Information Modeling (BIM) Systems 77
3.6.1  BIM Overview 77
3.6.2  4D BIM (BIM +Schedule) 78
3.6.3  5D BIM (BIM + Schedule +Costs) 82
3.6.4  6D BIM (BIM + Schedule +Costs + Facility
Life-Cycle Costs) 82

Chapter 4 Project Risks 83

4.1  Types of Project Risks 83
4.2  Risk Identification 84
4.3  Risk Analysis 85
4.4  Risk Mitigation 85
4.5  Risk Monitoring 86

Chapter 5 Project Value Engineering 89

5.1  History of Value Engineering 89
5.2 Definition 89
5.3 Procedures 90
5.4  VE Plan 90
5.4.1  Information Stage 90  Defining Function 91  Defining Worth 91  Defining Cost 92
5.4.2  Speculation Stage 92 Brainstorming 92
x  •  Contents

5.4.3  Analytical Stage 93

5.4.4  Proposal Stage 94
5.5  Life-Cycle Cost Impacts 94
5.6  Ethics of VE 95
Chapter 6 Environmental Considerations 97
6.1 The Need for Environmental Considerations 97
6.2  Types of Environmental Impacts 97
6.2.1  Terrestrial Impacts 97
6.2.2  Surface and Groundwater Impacts 101
6.2.3  Air Impacts 104
6.3 The Place for Environmental Considerations 105
6.4  Impact Mitigation 105
Chapter 7 Sustainability and Project Management 109
7.1 The Meaning of Sustainable Construction 109
7.2 Concepts of Sustainability 109
7.3 The LEED Process in Projects 110
7.4 RELi Resilience Standard for Projects 112
7.5 Long-Term Sustainability Concepts 113
7.5.1 Ecodesign 113
Appendix A Bid Form 117
Appendix B General Conditions Example 121
Appendix C Construction Estimating Software
(by Capterra) 123
Bibliography 127
About the Authors 131
Index 133
List of Figures

Figure 2.1. Factors that influence estimate accuracy 27

Figure 2.2. Preliminary cost estimate 30
Figure 2.3. Typical flow of a detailed estimate 30
Figure 2.4. Detailed cost estimate 31
Figure 2.5. Bid breakdown example 34
Figure 2.6. R.S. Means unit price database 36
Figure 2.7. Cost engineering 39
Figure 2.8. Project performance interpretation 41
Figure 2.9. S-Curve in Primavera P6 43
Figure 2.10. Sage Timberline estimate screenshot 45
Figure 2.11. On-Screen takeoff 46
Figure 2.12. HCSS HeavyBid screenshot 48
Figure 2.13. Cost management steps (PMBOK) 49
Figure 3.1. WBS example 54
Figure 3.2. Network diagram example 56
Figure 3.3. (a) Matrix scheduling and (b) cell information 60
Figure 3.4. Graphic scheduling 60
Figure 3.5. Milestone schedule as a list 62
Figure 3.6. Milestone schedule in Microsoft Project 62
Figure 3.7. LOB schedule 63
Figure 3.8. Gantt chart schedule 64
Figure 3.9. Forward pass calculations 68
Figure 3.10. Backward pass calculations 70
Figure 3.11. Construction schedule in MS Project 72
xii  •   List of Figures

Figure 3.12. WBS in MS Project 73

Figure 3.13. WBS in Primavera P6 75
Figure 3.14. 4D BIM/VDC by Synchro Software 81
List of Tables

Table 1.1. Roles and responsibilities of project participants 21

Table 2.1. Types of construction estimates based on function 28
Table 2.2. Typical bidding documents (CSI) 32
Table 2.3. 2004 CSI MasterFormat outline 37
Table 2.4. Earned Value factors 40
Table 3.1. Types of schedules and their usage 52
Table 3.2. Types of logical relationships 54
Table 3.3. Types of activities 55
Table 3.4. Examples of Leads and Lags 58
Table 3.5. Milestones classification and examples 61
Table 3.6. Types of network scheduling techniques 65
Table 3.7. BIM Tools 79
Table 6.1. Terrestrial construction impacts 98
Table 6.2. Surface and groundwater construction impacts 101
Table 6.3. Air quality construction impacts 104
Table 6.4. Environmental impact mitigation options 106



When the last tree is cut down, the last fish eaten, and the last
stream poisoned, we will realize that we cannot eat money.

—Paraphrased from Obomsawin, 1972

Environmental project management can be described as nothing more than

regular project management, but with an environmental twist. In one sense
that simplicity is good, but in another, it misses the whole point of the con-
cept. A distinction is also often made between the general management of
an environmental project and the environmental management of a general
project. The difference is not entirely semantic, but is sufficiently close
to being so that the rules and concepts applicable to the first are equally
applicable to the second.
In this book, the discussion is focused on the environmental manage-
ment of any project and any project that directly impacts the environment
requires effective environmental management. The environment includes
the physical space around, under, over, and adjacent to the project foot-
print. It is not only endangered species of flora and fauna that may be
impacted, positively or negatively, but also the social (community infra-
structure, resources, and recreation areas) and human (health, financial,
and similar) environments impacted by the project. Shading and shadows
cast over large areas by tall structures can create temperature islands within
the shadow zones. Tall towers of open grid design can become homes for
raptors, or traps for migrating birds. Marine structures can vibrate in the
wind at frequencies not heard by people, but incredibly disruptive to ma-
rine life for miles around the site. And pathways of movement used by
various migrating land animals can be so severely disrupted by a single

road that a species is eliminated from a local environment, and sometimes,

from the world.
In short, all projects impact environments of one kind or another in
some way, most often negatively. Effective environmental management of
a project can mitigate or eliminate negative environmental impacts, and
in some cases, provide positive impacts that can help to offset decades of
negative impacts from prior projects.



There are many ways to classify project types. For purposes of discussion
within this book, there are two types of projects: those that are environ-
mental and those that are not. Environmental projects involve direct at-
tempts to alter, control, or disrupt an existing environmental condition.
Examples include, among many others, the rerouting of a stream or river;
the construction of flood control structures; the construction of created
wetlands for pollution control; the elimination of pollutant discharges
to land, water, or air; the construction or removal of dams on rivers and
streams; and the re-creation of fish passage along historic stream beds.
Regardless of the type of project, however, no project lasts forever. To
be sure, there are examples of projects built in antiquity that have survived
for centuries, and may even still be in regular use today. The vast majority
of projects, however, have a much shorter and more finite life. At some
point, they cease to function as designed and are either destroyed to make
room for new projects or allowed to degrade and disintegrate into the lo-
cal environment. If left alone long enough, all man-made structures and
artifacts would eventually degrade to their elemental forms and return to
the earth from which they arose. The time it takes for that to happen, the
life cycle of the structure or artifact, can be highly variable but inevitable.
When considering the impacts of an anthropogenic project, the ex-
pected life cycle needs to be considered. The importance of that concept
is that various materials used, or potentially used, in any construction proj-
ect, will have different life cycles. Various types of wood, for example,
will rot in different climates at different rates. Concrete is not a universal
material, and it will decompose at rates that can vary widely depending on
the local environment, the initial design strength of the concrete, the struc-
tural loads placed on it, and the effects of local flora on the integrity of
the concrete element. Similar degradation rates can be defined for earth-
works, such as dams and levees, bricks, stone, glass, plastics, and most
other material used in construction. What that degradation will look like,
Introduction  •   3

how it will be managed, and how the degraded materials can be effectively
handled at the end of their life cycle are all important considerations in the
environmental management of projects.


Almost every project of significant size or scope involves a contract be-

tween the owner (the person or entity paying for the work) and the de-
signer, and a separate contract between the owner and the builder of the
project. There is also often an owner’s project manager (OPM) involved
to act in the stead of the owner during design and construction. Those
contracts require coordination between the three or four parties so that the
owner ends up with a product as designed by the designer. Subcontractors
may also be involved, with contracts directly between the general contrac-
tor and the subcontractor. Material suppliers may have contracts directly
with any of the parties, depending on the terms of the various construction
contracts, but those contracts are usually between the contractor and the
vendor or the subcontractor and the vendor. Service contracts, such as for
material testing, may be between the laboratory and either the owner, the
owner’s project manager, the designer, or the contractor.
On very large or complex projects, such as remediation of a military
base with several areas of contamination involving solvents, fuels, ordinance,
and other materials, there may be a project management firm retained to
coordinate all the general contractors and subcontractors working at various
locations on different aspects of the remediation work at the same time.


Most projects, public and private, have for many years traditionally been
built using the design/bid/build, or DBB, process. Under this process, a
project is fully designed before it is put out to bid, and the contractors
bidding on the process are all bidding on exactly the same scope of work.
The lowest bidder will earn that distinction by finding ways to do the con-
struction project most efficiently or by finding a source of materials that
reduces his costs significantly. Once the bidding process is complete, a
contract is signed and the contractor builds the project essentially as de-
signed. This is a clean, simple process that is fully transparent from the
beginning; which is why it is usually favored for most, but not all, public
projects. It can also be time consuming, and in many cases, more expen-
sive that optional procedures.


On very large projects, with very tight timelines, it is common to use a

variation of the DBB process called the design/build, or DB, process. With
a DB project, the design and construction are usually carried out by a sin-
gle integrated entity with both capabilities. The owner designates a project
outcome, and the designers sketch out the basic concepts. Immediately
following the conceptual design phase, the foundations are designed and
the contractor begins construction on that piece of the project before the
superstructure is designed. As construction progresses with the founda-
tion work, the first floors of the superstructure are designed to mate with
the new foundation and construction continues with those elements as the
upper sections of the superstructure are designed. The process is intended
to function such that the design work stays just one step ahead of the con-
struction work, and the final project is completed in much less time than it
would take to do the project as a DBB project.
There are some risks associated with this type of project that should
not be overlooked. Specifically, foundations and lower stories of tall struc-
tures are often overdesigned to make sure that whatever happens above
will be supported. That can lead to excessive construction costs. In addi-
tion, the upper stories are often constrained in design by the work done
previously. That can lead to frustration on the part of the owner, or exces-
sive costs and delays to redo some of the previous work to accommodate
owner changes in design.



Project manager at risk (PMAR) contracts, sometimes called construction

manager at risk (CMAR) contracts, are a unique way of stabilizing costs
for an owner. The owner develops the project and then retains a project
management (PM) firm to oversee and manage the design and construc-
tion phases. The owner may retain a designer to design the project with
the assistance of the PM to avoid future clashes between the PM and the
designer, but that is not universal. In many cases, the PMAR retains the
designer directly.
With a PMAR contract, the project manager (PM) is different from an
owner’s project manager (OPM). Part of that difference is in who hires the
PM firm. If the owner does that directly, it is a true PMAR arrangement.
If the designer hires the PM, it may still be a PMAR arrangement, but the
duty of the PM is to the designer and that of the designer to the owner.
Introduction  •   5

Similarly, if the PMAR is retained by the owner and the PMAR retains the
designer, the duty of the designer is to the PMAR and that of the PMAR
is to the owner. In all cases, the terms PM, OPM and PMAR generally
refer to a firm, rather than to a specific individual, although that firm may
consist of only one person on small projects. Once the PMAR concept is
accepted for use, the terms PM and PMAR become interchangeable for
that contract.
Once the final design documents are finished, but before the project
is bid, the PM or PMAR and the owner negotiate a guaranteed maximum
price (GMP) that the project will cost to build. That price includes a de-
tailed cost estimate prepared by the PM plus a reasonable contingency fac-
tor. If the project then costs more than that GMP, the PM is responsible for
paying the overage. There are also often incentives built in to help reduce
costs, but those have inherent risks associated with them due to reductions
in quality of materials to save dollars of initial cost that later result in
higher maintenance or more frequent replacement costs.
It is also commonly misunderstood that the GMP cannot be exceeded
with the owner being responsible for the overages. All projects end up
with change orders. Having the PMAR select the designer and manage
the design process helps minimize future change orders, and those change
orders that then result from foreseeable design errors or oversights are the
responsibility of the PMAR. However, if the owner makes an adjustment
to the design that results in higher costs, the owner is responsible for those
costs, regardless of who hired the designer.
This type of contract can reduce the burden of oversight for the de-
sign and construction phases and limit the overall cost of a project. It can
also create problems for the owner who does not understand the overall
risk that the ultimate design may be different from what was originally
intended, and change orders resulting from design changes can increase
the owner’s costs beyond what was expected.



Integrated project delivery (IPD) is a project design and construction con-

cept that integrates the needs, the project objectives, and the way the vari-
ous professionals involved work into a single, team-based effort. It is often
realized through a multiparty contract that spells out the roles and respon-
sibilities of each of the parties involved to get the end product delivered
as quickly and effectively as possible. The primary team members would
include the owner, the designer, the engineers or architects, the contractor,

and the major subcontractors, all working together to get to the final solu-
tion. The idea is to eliminate the silo effect of independent contractors
working on a project and to increase the efficiency and productivity of the
team members.
Some common forms of these multiparty agreements include (a) sim-
ple project alliances, which create a project structure in which the owner
guarantees to pay the direct costs of nonowner parties, but payment of
profit, overhead, and bonuses depends on project outcome; (b) the creation
of a temporary (for the duration of a single project), single purpose entity,
typically a corporation of some form, which is a formal, legal corporate
structure created to deliver a specific project; or (c) a form of project alli-
ance that is virtual in nature, created from the individual entities, but dif-
fers in the way the parties are compensated, share risks, and share decision
One of the key issues with this approach has been difficulty in deal-
ing with information transfer technology. Large files and variability in
software types have created some concerns in the past. Newer software
packages have been developed over the past decade or so to minimize
these difficulties, but older firms, or those using older software packages
with which the architects and engineers are comfortable, but which are not
mutually compatible, may have continuing problems with this approach.
When developed and used properly, it can save significant time and im-
prove overall team productivity, particularly on large or complex projects
with multiple stakeholders and participants.


The design/build/finance/operate/maintain (DBFOM) concept is a rela-

tively new refinement of the P3 concepts (see Section It involves a
municipality or other governmental agency contracting with a consortium
of designers, builders, and contract facility operators to design the new or
additional facilities and to finance the design, construction, and long-term
(life cycle or set period of time) operation and maintenance of the facility.
A recent example in Saskatchewan, Canada, exemplifies the way the
concept can work. As reported by Jay Landers in the December 2017 edi-
tion of Civil Engineering magazine (pp. 54–59), the city of Regina, Sas-
katchewan, was faced with a failing and very old wastewater treatment
facility. Estimates of cost to replace the facility in 2014, while keeping
the existing facility operating, were in the order of CAD$224.3  million
and a 30-year project life cycle cost of CAD$471.8 million. Neither the
Introduction  •   7

community nor the local residents could afford those costs. Grant funding
from the Canadian government could reduce the operating costs by about
9 percent or 10 percent, but the capital costs would still be an issue.
By contracting with a consortium of engineers, designers, contractors,
and contract operations companies, the facility was reconstructed at a cost
savings of approximately 19 percent in capital cost and 29 percent (after
grant funding) in life cycle costs, while maintaining full service from the ex-
isting facility, for which the consortium also agreed to take over operational
control at the outset. By combining the DBFOM concept with an incentive/
disincentive rider, the community was able to get the new project on line
about two weeks ahead of schedule and under budget. To minimize the over-
all costs to the community, and to provide appropriate cash flow planning
for both the community and the consortium, the consortium financed the en-
tire project, with the community making a CAD$30 million payment during
construction at an agreed upon milestone, and an additional CAD$49 million
(50 percent of the capital cost) upon substantial completion. The remaining
CAD$49 million was paid out in the form of monthly payments over the
contracted 30-year life of the project. Under the incentive/disincentive con-
cept, the consortium would have forfeited one monthly operating payment
for every month it was late achieving substantial completion.
The concept of DBFOM provides incentives for the consortium to
optimize the design and construction costs while minimizing the expected
operating costs of the finished facility. Where operational cost savings
can be achieved, it is often worthwhile to expend extra dollars during con-
struction that are offset by a lower present worth value of the operating
costs. This kind of value engineering is inherently in the best interest of
the consortium and the community.


Highway projects tend to be unique types of construction projects that

create or encompass myriad special operational needs while the project
is ongoing. Major highway rebuilds are generally done because the old
highway is outdated and can no longer efficiently accommodate the traffic
volumes using it. Long commuter delays, difficulty with public safety ve-
hicles traveling these roads, and other concerns drive the need to replace
them. At the same time, these roads need to be kept operational during the
rebuild and the loss of travel lanes along the edges exacerbates the traf-
fic delays and headaches of the outdated roadway. The following creative
solutions have been developed over the past few years to minimize these
delays and to expedite the rebuild activities.
8  •   ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECT MANAGEMENT  Incentive/Disincentive Contracts (I/D Contracts)

Incentive/disincentive (I/D) contracts are designed to encourage rapid

completion of projects that, by their very nature, are disruptive to commut-
ers or that close entire roadways for long periods of time. They are com-
monly used when bridges fail on major commuter routes and the traffic
needs to be completely diverted around the site during reconstruction, or
a highway widening project requires rebuilding several bridges that carry
huge volumes of vehicles every day.
The projects are designed and bid in the usual way, but the bid docu-
ments include an incentive for completion of specific, time-critical activ-
ities earlier than a preset schedule calls for. If the contractor can complete
those elements early, and thereby provide relief to the commuting public
earlier than anticipated, it is considered a win for everyone and the public
agency will offer significant daily dollar rewards for that early completion.
Similarly, these contracts will also include disincentives so that if the
contractor is late delivering specified, time-critical elements, the contrac-
tor is assessed a daily penalty for each day of delay. In both cases, the
dollar amount is set on the basis of an imputed value of the delays and
inconvenience caused to the users of the roadway. If the specified tasks are
finished early, the commuters no longer suffer those costs and the contrac-
tor is rewarded by earning the bonus. If the contract is delayed, the users
suffer the losses longer and the contractor pays for that suffering.
The principal issues with this type of arrangement come from estab-
lishing the date before which early completion is paid or after which late
completion penalties are assessed, and establishing a fair value for the in-
centive/disincentive amounts. Courts have often held that late completion
penalties must reflect actual costs of the delay and establishing that value
for such ill-defined things as user inconvenience can be a difficult task.
The number needs to be high enough to incentivize and disincentivize,
but not so high as to be unreasonable in the event of unforeseeable events
causing delays. No matter what number is used, there is a high potential
for lawsuits if the disincentives are invoked.  Lane Rental Contracts

Under a lane rental agreement, the contractor pays a fixed fee per day per
road mile of lane closure to the awarding authority. The fee is specified in
the contract by the awarding authority and is the same for all bidders. The
rental fee is calculated from an imputed cost of delay and inconvenience
to the roadway users. The fee is set at a rate that is sufficient to allow the
Introduction  •   9

contractor with the best approach to minimization of lane closures during

construction to be the lowest bidder. If the contractor runs into difficulty
and has to extend closures beyond his anticipated amount, the contractor
will rapidly begin to lose money on the project, which incentivizes the
addition of extra workers and equipment to get the project finished and
back in service. The fee is intended to be high enough that the cost of extra
workers, overtime, and extra equipment is less than the lane closure fee.  Cost and Time Arrangements (A+ B Contracting)

Cost plus time arrangements (A+B Contracts) are designed to minimize

lane closures and construction time. In these arrangements, the determi-
nation of the low bidder is based on a combination of the fixed fee to be
paid and the fixed time to complete the project. The bidder specifies both.
The days to complete the project are then converted to a dollar cost by
multiplication of the days the contractor estimates to complete the job by a
set fee established from an imputed cost of delay and inconvenience to the
roadway users, similar to a lane rental arrangement. A typical formula for
determining the lowest bid would be as follows:

A + B (lane closure fee) = total bid value

where A is the construction cost bid and B is the days required to complete
the project.
Clearly, there need to be some disincentives built in so that a contrac-
tor does not grossly underestimate the days to complete the job in order to
win the bid, and then take significantly longer to do the job. Those disin-
centives typically are equal to the lane closure fee multiplied by the num-
ber of days beyond the original contract amount. If the lane closure fee is
set high enough, that amount can become very significant very quickly,
but would not bankrupt a contractor who was 1 or 2 days late on a year-
long project.  Public/Private Partnerships (PPP, 3P, or P3 Contracting)

The concept of using a public/private partnership (PPP, P3, or 3P con-

tract) to share costs and revenues, thereby reducing cost overrun risks to
the public sector and long-term maintenance costs borne by the public
sector, has a certain appeal to public agencies and officials. The concept
embodies the notion that the private sector has the financial, management,

and construction skills to construct megaprojects, such as large highway

or bridge projects, and that the public sector often does not. Therefore,
the argument goes, in order to reduce the huge backlog of outmoded and
failing parts of the national transportation infrastructure, use of PPP ar-
rangements may be the only way to achieve success.
It is noted that these kinds of arrangements must necessarily be com-
plex in nature because they involve very large sums of money, typically in
the tens or hundreds of millions of dollars at the low end and potentially
billions of dollars at the high end, and because they involve so many par-
ticipants with widely diverse long-term goals and interests. In general, the
PPP arrangement requires a public agency to provide low-interest loan
guarantees to a consortium of private sector participants that includes fi-
nancial institutions, designers, contractors, and project management per-
sonnel. The agreement will call for the public entity to define the project
end goals and needs, and for the consortium to finance, design, build, and
then operate the system for a fixed period of time.
With respect to bridges or highways, the return on investment for the
consortium partners comes from toll revenues to be charged to the users
of the project after it is built. Problems arise when the toll revenues are
less than anticipated, the construction costs are more than anticipated, or
the time of construction is longer than anticipated. The consortium that
anticipated some or all of these potential problems will have built-in con-
tingency funds to cover them and anticipated that the revenues may need
to pay for those additional costs, even if the actual revenues are less than
originally anticipated. The consortium that fails to foresee those potential
problems will undervalue the project, end up losing money, and poten-
tially go bankrupt, leaving the public entity to finish the project, pay off
the original loans, and then be responsible for long-term maintenance of
the project. That scenario inevitably ends up costing the public agency far
more than doing the project alone would have cost from the beginning.
There have been a lot of successful projects done using a PPP con-
tract. There have also been a significant number of financial disasters,
from the public point of view, using the same approach. In almost all
cases, the consortium partners get reimbursed regardless of the outcome
and the public agency ends up holding the bag for the full costs when
things do not go as anticipated.


The way that designers, owner’s project managers, contractors, and sub-
contractors are hired is highly dependent upon the type of owner involved,
Introduction  •   11

who is paying for the work, the type of entity with which the contract is to
be made, and the nature of the project. An overview of the various types
of projects and their associated contracting arrangements is provided here.
Public and private owners necessarily have different contractor se-
lection processes and procedures. Private owners may generally use any
process or procedure they desire to select consultants and contractors,
while public agencies require a much higher standard of transparency and
protections against the use of firms with conflicts of interest. Public pro-
curement also usually requires the use of prevailing wage rates or com-
mon local union contract rates, for employees of firms working for the
public agency, which tends to cause some contracts to be more expensive
in a public forum than in a private one. Those entities still must select the
lowest qualified (“responsive and responsible”) bidder, in most cases, but
those lowest bids can often be higher for the same work on a public project
compared with a private one.



In general, there are two ways to procure consulting and construction work,
including planning, design, project management, and construction activi-
ties. Most professional work, which is generally understood to include the
work of planning consultants, design consultants, and project management
consultants, is done through a qualification-based procurement process.
The actual construction work is generally done through a competitive bid
process. The reason for the differences is that the planning, design, and
management services require specialized talents and the scope of work is
not well defined at the outset. The scope will be broadly stated to indicate
the general nature of the work to be concluded, but the details are not avail-
able, since they will not have been generated at those stages, and therefore,
a bid cannot be realistically calculated.
The outcome of the planning and design stages is a clear, concise
statement of the construction work to be done. The contractor can care-
fully calculate how much time it will take to do the work, how much mate-
rials will be needed, and what the total cost will be on the basis of getting
specific quotes for materials from a supplier. The contractor, then, is able
to provide a very good cost bid that includes all the work, provides a profit
for the bidder, and includes sufficient insurance to ensure that the project
can be completed as designed.
In both cases, a change in the scope of work will result in a change in
the fee. With a consulting contract, that adjustment is usually calculated

on the basis of time and materials spent. A contractor will need to add a
markup to any materials or supplies purchased and also add the cost per
hour of labor needed. Both types of contracts provide for negotiation of
the change order costs.  Qualification-Based Procurement

To retain a consultant or other professional using a qualification-based

procurement procedure, a request for qualifications (RFQ) is issued by
the awarding authority. That may be done privately or publicly by a private
owner, but must be done publicly by a public owner. With a public owner,
the advertisement will specify the general nature of the project so that
prospective respondents can quickly determine whether they are qualified
or interested, and then refer to a more detailed scope of work that includes
some additional language regarding the procedures that will be followed
to select a firm, the requirements of the firm with respect to professional
registrations, any requirements for use of locally based, veteran, minority,
or woman-owned enterprises, and any other restrictions or requirements
that may apply.
Following the date of the advertisement, a walk-through of the project
is generally provided where interested consultants can view the current
site of the proposed work, discuss details with the owner, and ask ques-
tions that may influence the specific specialties that may be needed to do
the job properly.
Approximately 1 to 2 weeks after the walk-through, the qualification
packages are received, in sealed envelopes, and opened at a prescribed
time. Late qualification packages are not accepted in the name of fairness.
The qualifications received are then reviewed by the owner, or a subcom-
mittee of the owner, to rank the submittals on the basis of their respon-
siveness to the requirements specified in the RFQ. If there are a lot of
respondents, a short list of the top three to five respondents is developed
and those short listed are asked to return for an interview with the selec-
tion committee.
Following the interviews, the selection committee will select the firm
best suited for the project and invite that firm to submit a cost proposal.
Although the actual effort to be completed is not always known at that
stage, it is possible to reasonably estimate the degree of effort required,
the nature of the professionals to be involved, and the cost to provide the
work. Those are often estimated costs, not fixed or not-to-exceed costs.
The selection committee then negotiates with the selected firm to reduce
costs that may not be seen as necessary, to limit costs in certain areas,
Introduction  •   13

or to establish not-to-exceed totals for budgeting and funding purposes.

Not-to-exceed values are usually higher than the actual expected costs to
allow for funding levels that provide money for contingencies and changes
that almost always occur during the work.
Once the fees have been agreed upon, the owner contracts with the
consultant and the work begins.
This process may also be used by a private owner, but that happens
much less often. The private owner almost always uses a direct cost-based
procurement involving general bidding or seeking quotes from specific
contractors or vendors. In some cases, where the dollar amounts involved
are small (as determined by state or local laws or regulations), public own-
ers are also able to go directly to the procurement of three or more quota-
tions from selected vendors and provide a contract for the lowest quoted
price.  Cost-Based Procurement

Cost-based procurement is fundamentally a bidding process. The project

details are described in written documents and those contractors interested
in the work will bid to do the work specified for a fixed fee. The owner
then selects the lowest fee offered and proceeds to contracting with that
offeror. Bidders who do not provide a fixed fee for every element of the
work described are disqualified. Often, where certain elements of a project
are not known, such as the amount of rock to be excavated, for example,
or the extent of hazardous material removal required, the bidder will be
required to provide a unit cost for those elements and to include a fee for
an owner-provided estimate of the actual volume in their bid. Changes
from the estimated volume to the actual volume are made as conditions
dictate, and the total cost or fee is adjusted up or down to reflect the actual
units used, rather than the estimated units, on the basis of the unit price
provided in the bid.
Private owners use this method most frequently and select the firms
from which they will request bids on the basis of any number of factors,
including firms that have done good work of a similar nature for the owner
in the past, firms recommended by a selection committee, or firms rec-
ommended by friends and relatives of the procurement officer within the
private owner firm. Typically, at least three quotes are solicited during this
process, on the basis of a specified scope of work.
It is noted, however, that the scope of work using this process with
a private owner may not be as well defined as would be expected from
a public owner. Often the scope is rather general in nature, and the RFB

requests that the contractor provide a plan for accomplishing the desired
outcome. In this case, the request is called a request for proposals, or RFP,
in which the owner specifies the general nature of the work and requests
proposals that spell out how the work would be done, as well as an esti-
mated cost for completing it. RFPs for construction work are rarely done
by public owners, except for large-scale development work, such as de-
signing a new aircraft or ship for military purposes.
Public procurement processes almost universally require a bid-based
procurement process for construction work. This provides assurances that
funding made available for a project will be adequate, absent some unfore-
seeable, but major, change in scope, and that the process will be as fully
transparent as possible throughout the construction effort.


Planning projects provides the owner an opportunity to develop a planned

construction project in a manner that can optimize the environmental pro-
tection and sustainability characteristics of the planned project while min-
imizing overall costs. It turns out, in many cases, to be the most important
part of the overall development. A project that is well planned at the outset
can minimize surprises later, get early buy-in from stakeholders and oppo-
nents, and minimize permitting time and costs later in the process.
Planning projects are usually done with the help of consultants, who
can take a less emotional view of the proposed work and advise an owner
of potential traps and pitfalls going forward. The consultant can evaluate
options more critically than the owner who first developed the concept,
and the consultant will know how to manage the various aspects and next
steps most efficiently.
Since planning projects are done by professionals, they are usually
contracted using a qualification-based procurement process, such as that
described in Section


Once a plan has been developed and buy-in obtained from all appropriate
stakeholders, design of the project can begin. Often, the same consultant
who did the planning studies will also be contracted to do the design work.
That is not universally true for public sector work; in fact, some public sec-
tor regulations prohibit the planning consultant from proposing on the de-
sign stage at all. This restriction is intended to reduce any potential unfair
Introduction  •   15

advantage the planner might have over other potential designers. It is our
view that such concerns are vastly overrated and that use of the planner to
do the design work, when the planner is also qualified to do the design,
can reduce costs significantly. Where allowed by public procurement reg-
ulations, the planning contract can also include the design stage, usually
following a separate fee negotiation, since the design fee cannot be known
before the studies are done, and a second notice to proceed.
Design projects are done by professionals, so they are usually con-
tracted using a qualification-based procurement process, such as that de-
scribed in Section


Private owners contract with firms to build their projects using a variety
of contractor selection processes. The private owner is not constrained by
regulatory considerations, except to the extent that the owner is a corpora-
tion or charity that has a clear fiduciary responsibility to shareholders or
donors. Normally, the private owner will contract directly with a firm that
has done good work for it in the past or that has received a high recom-
mendation from a friend of a selection committee member. The owner may
request three or more quotes from contractors selected by the selection
committee or identified through a modified (not as widely advertised as a
public project) public bidding process. A fixed cost bid process is almost
always used in any case, similar to the cost-based procedures described
in Section These processes may be modified when a design-build
contract is used wherein the construction of the foundation, for example,
is begun before the upper floors and superstructure have been fully devel-
oped and designed. In those cases, the actual costs of the entire structure
cannot be known until the project is completed.
With public owners, a fully transparent and widely advertised public
bidding process is used, very much like that described in Section
There is little room in most public procurement regulations for any devia-
tion from a strict use of open and fair competition for all project elements.
Section 1.4.5 further discusses the nuances of public procurement, while
private procurement is much more flexible and the rules are set by the
owner, not regulators.


Public project procurement is driven by a whole set of rules that are sig-
nificantly different from those used by private individuals or firms. Where

private owners can use any form of procurement they wish (subject to
any internal constraints within corporations), a public owner must follow
a series of regulatory steps, which will vary depending upon location of
the project, to ensure open and fair competition among all potential con-
sultants and bidders. Those procedures usually require public notice of
the upcoming availability of documents and the opportunity to submit a
proposal or bid, easy accessibility to the bid or proposal submittal docu-
ments, a set date for a meeting or walk-through of the proposed project to
ensure that all prospective respondents fully understand the project, and a
fixed time for opening the responses received. Late responses are gener-
ally not allowed and nonresponsive submittals are not accepted, even when
the lack of responsiveness is procedural, but not necessarily material to the
conduct of the work. In some cases, minor variances may be waived by the
public owner, but not all.
The review of submittals to a public owner must be done in an open
public meeting of the awarding authority. Many municipalities are now
using local cable TV to televise these meetings to further enhance the
openness of the process. All decisions must be made in a public meeting.
Public meetings for these purposes generally must be advertised a certain
number of days in advance, three is common, and they may not start until
the appointed hour. Unless there is a reason specifically allowed by statute
or regulation, all deliberations and discussions regarding the responses
and the proposals or bids received must also be done only during the pub-
lic meetings. Side meetings of members, even groups of members that do
not constitute a quorum, outside the public meeting to discuss details are
discouraged, and often prohibited.
With public procurement, qualification-based selections are often
required to be made on the basis of firm rankings with respect to qual-
ifications, and then rankings of the same firms based on proposed costs,
which are submitted in separate sealed envelopes and not opened until the
firms are ranked on qualifications. If the lowest cost proposal is submitted
from the firm ranked highest on qualifications, that firm is selected. If
the highest ranked firm does not submit the lowest cost proposal, then the
awarding authority must determine whether the higher cost is justified to
retain the highest ranked firm or whether a lower cost justifies retaining a
lower ranked firm. In either case, a written justification of the decision is
often required before an awarding authority can move forward.
When awarding a cost-based contract, the public owner must gen-
erally select the lowest bid from among all responsive and responsible
bidders. Those terms imply that the firm has complied with all the bidding
requirements and conditions and is qualified to do the work. A firm that
meets these conditions but has a poor record of performance on similar
Introduction  •   17

projects may be rejected, but otherwise, that firm with the lowest cost bid
is accepted for the project.  OPM Contracts

An owner’s project manager (OPM) is retained by an owner to do the

day-to-day oversight work on a project that the Owner has neither the
time nor the expertise to do internally. Private owners often have staff
who are fully capable of managing small projects, but have insufficient
time available to properly manage the work and the paperwork associated
with larger projects. Public owners are often required by regulation to
obtain an OPM for projects that have an estimated cost greater than a
prescribed threshold. In Massachusetts, for example, public projects that
exceed an estimated cost of $1,500,000 require an independent OPM.
Public owners also often select an OPM for smaller projects to ensure
proper bookkeeping and adequate project oversight.
The role of the OPM can vary. When one is used, it is generally
­accepted, and sometimes required by regulation, that the OPM be selected
before the project designer is selected so that the OPM can assist with
background and reference checks of those submitting designer propos-
als. The OPM then works with the designer and the owner to ensure that
appropriate value engineering is done during design, that appropriate in-
vestigations of existing conditions are conducted, and that the final design
documents reflect the best possible mix of wants and needs expressed by
the owner, within the constraints of the owner’s budget.
During bidding, the OPM reviews the bids received and assists with
evaluation of the bids to minimize the acceptance of unbalanced bids,
which appear low but contain unit prices that will significantly skew the
results if unforeseen conditions are encountered, and to verify compliance
of the bids with the Request for Bids (RFB) and applicable regulations.
During construction, the OPM often provides a clerk of the works for
a specified number of hours per week to continuously inspect the work of
the contractor to ensure compliance with the design documents, evaluate
options and recommend solutions to the owner for dealing with unfore-
seen conditions encountered, review proposed change orders and negoti-
ate change order costs for the owner, then recommend approval or denial
of change proposals to the owner. The OPM reviews the draft payment
­requests (pencil reqs) from the contractor, sorts out variances in percep-
tions of the amount of work done, materials purchased and on hand, and
other elements of the requisition. A final requisition is then prepared and
approved by the OPM before the owner approves the payment. The OPM

is responsible for maintaining all appropriate backup data and paperwork

to document the entire project and all decisions made along the way so that
the owner can properly defend any future claims made against it.
Postconstruction, the OPM is the lead entity, working with counsel,
in preparing any defense against lawsuits or false claims levied against the
owner. Thus, selection of an OPM is a very important part of the project
and requires very careful attention of the owner, whether private or public.
OPM contracts are generally developed through a qualification-based
procurement process such as that described in Section  Engineer/Architect Contracts

Engineers and architects do very different things with respect to designing

projects. However, neither works in a vacuum and both are needed for
most significant projects. The procurement processes for their services are
also identical. Both act as professionals and both are, therefore, generally
procured through a qualification-based procurement process, such as that
described in Section
The differences in the work done by the engineer and the architect are
subtle. It has been said that engineers are good at substance but not so good
at form, while architects are good at form but not always so good with sub-
stance. That is a greatly oversimplified definition, of course, but it does
lead to some of the concepts that can separate the two design professions.
Designing the look of a structure to fit in with the existing architec-
ture of an area, to fit into a specific landscape, or to achieve a bold new
look that sets a trend, generally requires the eye of an architect. Good
architectural design is a mix of art and craft, combining an eye for art with
the expertise to craft the ideas into a suitable structure that also serves its
intended purpose.
The engineer, however, is far more concerned, in most cases, with the
structural integrity of the final product than with the outward appearance.
If a structure cannot stand the test of time, it does not much matter what it
looked like for the short time it survived. Consequently, a structural engi-
neer is utilized by most architects to design the structural components of
the edifices the architect envisions. Electrical and mechanical engineers
design the electrical, mechanical, heating and air conditioning systems,
and any LEED elements, such as solar panels, self-regulating windows,
and motion detecting heat and light systems, that the architectural plans
call for within the overall building. As a result, it is usually the architect
who is hired by the owner and the architect selects the engineers. Where a
project does not require significant architectural elements, such as a small
Introduction  •   19

mill dam, a roadway, or a small outbuilding, an engineer may be retained

directly by the owner.  Prime Contractor Contracts

In very large, or megaprojects, an owner may retain a prime contractor

to assist with the selection and hiring of various general contractors to
conduct multiple activities on a large site simultaneously. For example,
a former military base may have been contaminated by several different
solvents in various locations and even some unexploded ordinance in an-
other place and require the removal of fortified structures in yet another
location. If the government wants all those things done at once, it is not
realistic to retain a single contractor to do them because the operational
requirements are very different for each of those contaminants. In that
case, the government would retain a prime contractor to hire three to five
separate general contractors to do the various jobs. Those general con-
tractors would then retain subcontractors to assist with specific activities.
The prime contractor would be retained by the owner through a
qualification-based procurement similar to that described in Section Acting as the agent of the owner, the prime contractor would nor-
mally be required, on public projects, to procure general contractors using
a similar qualification-based process. Where subcontractors were needed,
the general contractor may be required, based on the dollar value of the
proposed subcontract, to use a public bidding procedure that is qualifica-
tion based for professional work and cost based for general construction
work. In all cases, the prime contractor would need to approve the procure-
ment procedures being used and the dollar costs negotiated for qualifica-
tion-based procurements.  Filed Sub-bid Contracts

On most public projects, any trade, as defined by the American Institute

of Architects (AIA), for which the estimated cost of the work on a specific
project exceeds specified dollar amounts, requires a filed sub-bid to be
submitted. This sub-bid allows the owner to ensure that the lowest reason-
able cost for that trade, and therefore, for the entire project, is obtained.
The lowest responsive, responsible bidder will be awarded the subcontract,
and the general contractor is required to carry that sub-bid, and to utilize
that sub-bidder, in the general contractor’s bid. Filed sub-bids are gener-
ally submitted and opened a week or more before the general bids are due
so that the general contractor can properly carry those dollar costs.

Filed sub-bids are fixed cost bids procured using a cost-based pro-
curement similar to that described in Section Filed sub-bidders are
allowed in their bid to specify that their bid is only good for work with spe-
cific general contractors or that they will work with any general contractor
or that they will not work with specific general contractors. Where the
lowest filed sub-bid is restricted against a specific general contractor, that
contractor may use the next higher bid from a filed sub-bidder that will
work with him and submit a general contract bid using the higher sub-bid
cost. That higher sub-bid cost may cause the general contractor bid to be
higher than others, of course, but that is a risk the general contractor must



A lot of participants are involved in most projects. These participants are

collectively referred to as the stakeholders in the project. Some stake-
holders have money or time invested; others have peripheral involvement,
such as abutters to a project site or residents of an affected neighborhood.
The role each stakeholder plays in the project is very different. Table 1.1
provides some guidance on those roles, but there are no absolutes in any
of the stated roles.


It is difficult to imagine any project of any size anywhere in the world at

any time that has not encountered at least one dispute. How those disputes
get resolved is a key contributor to the ultimate success of the project.
Most conflicts arise from differences of opinion during the planning
or design stage of a project. The various stakeholders usually do not all see
eye to eye on every issue because the decision will affect each stakeholder
differently. In those cases, it is necessary to work to a common consensus
of how to proceed. It is noted that a common consensus does not require
complete agreement among all the stakeholders. Instead, it requires agree-
ment from those who oppose a particular action or direction to accept the
decision of the majority to go in that direction. Those stakeholders will not
be happy, but they will not obstruct the progress. It is axiomatic, however,
that gaining those kinds of agreements usually requires compromises to be
made by everyone. In one sense, if nobody is completely happy with the
Introduction  •   21

Table 1.1.  Roles and responsibilities of project participants

Stakeholder Role
Owner The owner establishes the vision for the project,
defines the outcomes, and controls the budget.
Financing The financing entity puts up the money (usually as
entity (Bank) a mortgage) and limits the amount spent on the
project, if the project is externally financed.
Municipality Regulates land use, building type and use,
construction codes and wetlands permitting through
planning department, conservation commission,
zoning regulations, building inspectors, and
building codes
State regulators Require permits for wetland intrusions, runoff control,
building code compliance, procurement regulations
for public projects, environmental permits for
surface and subsurface discharge of wastes
Federal Require permits for waterway intrusions or impacts,
regulators environmental impacts, waste discharges, and
procurement regulations for federally funded projects
Abutters Abutters express concerns regarding shadows to be
cast, intrusions of noise, increased traffic, light
impacts, surface water runoff, and property value
impacts. Abutters can stop projects with appropriate
lobbying of local, state, and federal regulators if
their concerns are not adequately addressed.
Neighbors Neighbors have similar concerns to abutters, but
are generally more focused on traffic impacts and
runoff impacts, although large housing projects
also lead to issues of added school pressures, added
municipal services, tax increases, and property
value declines.
Future users Projects are built for a reason and the future users
often have significant say in how a floor plan is laid
out, how ventilation and light are addressed, and
how indoor environmental issues will be handled
and personal safety going to or from the building.
Future users include those who will maintain
the building, and their concerns also need to be
addressed early.
(continued )

Table 1.1. (Continued )

Planner Generally, professional reputations are on the line

whenever a project is developed. The planner is the
initial face of the owner and usually is responsible
for selling the conceptual plans to the rest of the
Designer The designer is responsible for ensuring that the final
design of the structure satisfies the concerns of the
stakeholders as agreed upon during the planning
stage. Changes to the concept by the designer
require additional review by the stakeholders and
additional negotiation with those adversely affected
by the changes.
Constructor The constructor builds what the designer designs.
The constructor has the responsibility for making
the design work within the constraints of the
project site, noise, dust, and light controls agreed
to by the owner and regulatory requirements of the
municipality, state and federal governments. In the
end, a project that satisfies all stakeholders is a big
plus for the constructor, while a poorly managed
project, even when the outcome is satisfactory in the
end, is seen as a black eye for the constructor.

outcome, but everybody has agreed not to further obstruct the project, the
end result is a good outcome.
Additional disputes occur during the design of the project when the
designer strongly urges the owner to do one thing but the owner wants to
do another. The resolution of those disputes requires diplomatic discus-
sions between the two entities. Unless there is a safety or regulatory issue
involved, the preference of the owner will usually control the resolution of
these disputes.
During construction, disputes are more difficult to resolve. They usu-
ally involve issues of unforeseen conditions and whether those conditions
should have been foreseeable by the contractor. Diplomatic discussion will
often result in a change order being issued to pay the contractor for deal-
ing with the changed condition unless it can be argued that the contractor
clearly did know of the condition, or clearly should have known of the
condition. If such a dispute continues, either arbitration or legal action
may be needed to resolve it. The resolution often involves only the amount
Introduction  •   23

of money to be paid to the contractor for doing the work because most
construction contracts require the contractor to do disputed work while the
dispute is being resolved.
Arbitration is often preferred by contractors to lawsuits because they
cost less, in most cases, to litigate and because most arbitrations end up
favoring the contractor. Municipalities and other public entities almost
never allow arbitration in their contracts for that same reason. Therefore,
negotiation of a settlement at the end of the contract, which settles all out-
standing claims, is usually the resolution mechanism that is used. When
that fails, the contractor sues the owner and a court, usually several years
later, ultimately decides the issue.
The very presence of change orders and claims is always a sore spot
in any contract. Some owners believe that all contractors look for ways to
bid a project low, then score larger fees by insisting on change orders for
various reasons. While that may be a trait of some contractors, it is cer-
tainly not a universal trait. Nevertheless, when legitimate differences do
arise, they need to be handled and managed professionally for a project to
end up as a successful one.

Note: Page numbers followed by f denotes figures; those followed by

t denotes tables.
5D BIM (BIM + schedule +
A costs), 82
Activity-on-Arrow (AOA), 65 6D BIM (BIM + schedule +
Activity-on-node (AON), 65 costs + facility life-cycle
Analytical stage, in value costs), 82
engineering, 93–94 overview of, 77–78
Arrow Diagram Method (ADM). tools of, 79–80t
See Activity-on-Arrow
Asta Powerproject, 74, 76 Conflict resolution, on projects,
Augmented Reality (AR), 49 20, 22–23
Automated cost estimation Construction estimates, types of,
Bluebeam Revu, 47 27, 28t
HCSS HeavyBid, 47, 48f Construction manager at risk
integrated estimating software, (CMAR) contracts. See
47, 49 Project manager at risk
on-screen takeoff (OST), 44, 46f (PMAR) contracts
R.S. Means online, 44, 47 Contractual agreements
Sage 300 construction and real design/bid/build (DBB) con-
estate, 44, 45f tracts, 3
design/build (DB) contracts, 4
B design/build/finance/operate/
Bar charts. See Gantt charts maintain (DBFOM) contracts,
Bid estimates, 30–35, 31f, 32t 6–7
Bluebeam Revu, 47 highway construction variations,
Brainstorming, 92–93 7–10
Building information modeling integrated project delivery (IPD)
(BIM) systems, 38 contracts, 5–6
4D BIM (BIM + schedule), 78, project manager at risk (PMAR)
81, 81f contracts, 4–5
134  •   Index

Contractual risk, 84 planning/feasibility study

Cost and time arrangements ­estimates, 28
(A+B contracting), 9
Cost-based procurement, 13–14 E
Cost/benefit ratio. See Cost/worth Earned value, 40–42, 40t
ratio Earned value management
Cost engineering, 39–40, 39f (EVM), 25
Cost estimation Ecodesign, 113–115
automated cost estimation, Ecosystem, 113
42–49 Engineer/architect contracts,
bid estimates, 30–35 18–19
construction background, 25–27 Environmental considerations
construction estimates, types of, air impacts, 104, 104–105t
27, 28t impact mitigation, 105, 106–108t
cost engineering, 39–40 need for, 97
cost management in place for, 105
­construction, 49 surface and groundwater
CSI MasterFormat, 36–39 ­impacts, 101, 101–103t
definition of, 25 terrestrial impacts, 97–98, 98–100t
design estimates, 27–30 Environmental project
earned value, 40–42 management
estimate accuracy, factors conflict resolution on projects,
­influencing, 27f 20, 22–23
labor rates and work crew contractual agreements, 3–10
­development, 35–36 introduction to, 1–2
preliminary, 30f project participants, roles and
S-curves, 42 ­responsibilities of, 20, 21–22t
stages requiring, 26 project procurement procedures,
Cost management, 49, 49f 10–20
Cost/worth ratio, 92 projects and project life cycle,
Critical Path Method (CPM) types of, 2–3
schedule, 56 Ethics, of value engineering, 95
CSI MasterFormat, 36–39, 38t
D Filed sub-bid contracts, 19–20
DBFOM concept, 111 Financial risk, 84
Design/bid/build (DBB)
contracts, 3 G
Design/build (DB) contracts, 4 Gantt charts, 64, 64f
Design/build/finance/operate/ Graphic Evaluation and Review
maintain (DBFOM) concept, Technique (GERT), 65
6–7 Graphic scheduling, 60–61, 60f
Design estimates, 27–30
conceptual estimates, 28–29 H
detailed estimates, 29–30, Hard costs, 35
30f, 31f HCSS HeavyBid, 47, 48f
INDEX  •   135

Highway construction variations Network scheduling, 65–67,

cost and time arrangements 65–66t
(A+B contracting), 9
incentive/disincentive contracts O
(I/D contracts), 8 Occupational risk, 84
lane rental contracts, 8–9 On-screen takeoff (OST), 44, 46f
public/private partnerships (PPP, Oracle Primavera, 74, 75f
3P, or P3 contracting), 9–10 Owner’s project manager (OPM)
contracts, 17–18
Incentive/disincentive (I/D) P
contracts, 8 Precedence Diagram Method
Information stage (PDM). See Activity-on-node
cost, defining, 92 (AON)
function, defining, 91 Prime contractor contracts, 19
in value engineering, 90–92 Program Evaluation and Review
worth, defining, 91–92 Technique (PERT), 65
Integrated BIM (iBIM), 82 Project manager at risk (PMAR)
Integrated estimating software, contracts, 4–5
47, 49 Project procurement procedures
Integrated project delivery (IPD) construction projects, 15
contracts, 5–6 cost-based procurement, 13–14
design projects, 14–15
L planning projects, 14
Lane rental contracts, 8–9 public project procurement, 15–20
Last planner system (LPS), 67 qualification-based procurement,
Leadership in Energy and 12–13
Environmental Design Project risk, 84
(LEED) program, 110–112 Project scheduling
Linear Scheduling Method (LSM), building information modeling
62 (BIM) systems, 77–82
Line-of-balance (LOB), 62–64, 63f development of, 53
Location Based Scheduling (LBS), fundamentals of, 51–54
64 introduction to, 51
logical relationships, 54, 54t
M mechanics, 67–70
Matrix scheduling, 59–60, 60f methods of, 59–67
Microsoft (MS) Project, 71 responsibilities of, 51–53
construction schedule in, 72f schedules, types of, 52t
WBS in, 73f software, 70–77
Milestone scheduling, 61–62, 61t, 62f terminology of, 55–59
Model-based estimating, 47, 49 Proposal stage, in value
engineering, 94
N Public/private partnerships (PPP,
Natural risks, 84 3P, or P3 contracting), 9–10
136  •   INDEX

Public project procurement Scheduling methods

engineer/architect contracts, Gantt charts, 64, 64f
18–19 graphic scheduling, 60–61, 60f
filed sub-bid contracts, 19–20 last planner system (LPS), 67
owner’s project manager (OPM) line-of-balance (LOB), 62–64,
contracts, 17–18 63f
prime contractor contracts, 19 matrix scheduling, 59–60, 60f
Pull Planning technique, 67 milestone scheduling, 61–62,
61t, 62f
Q network scheduling, 65–67,
Qualification-based procurement, 65–66t
12–13 Scheduling software
Asta Powerproject, 74, 76
R Microsoft (MS) Project, 71,
RELi Resilience Standard, 72–73f
112–113 Oracle Primavera, 74, 75f
Request for qualifications (RFQ), Schedule Planner (Trimble Vico
12 Office), 74
Return on investment (ROI), 26 Smartsheet, 76
Risk TILOS, 77
acceptance, 86 Scheduling terminology
analysis, 85 activity, 55, 55t
avoidance, 86 critical path, 56
contractual, 84 float, 56–57
definition of, 83 leads/lags, 58–59, 58–59t
financial, 84 network, 56, 56f
identification, 84–85 predecessors/successors, 57
mitigation, 85–86 S-curves, 42, 43f
monitoring, 86–87 Smartsheet, 76
natural, 84 Soft costs, 33, 35
occupational, 84 Speculation stage, in value
project, 84 engineering, 92–93
stakeholder, 84 Stakeholder risk, 84
transfer, 86 Sustainability
types of, 83–84 concepts of, 109–110
R.S. Means online, 44, 47 definition of, 109
ecodesign, 113–115
S LEED program in projects,
Sage 300 construction and real 110–112
estate, 44, 45f long-term concepts, 113–115
Schedule mechanics RELi Resilience Standard for
backward pass, 69, 70f projects, 112–113
float calculations, 69–70 Sustainability principles
forward pass, 67–69, 68f Ahwahnee principles, 115
Schedule Planner, 74 Bellagio principles, 115
INDEX  •   137

Ceres principles, 115 Unit quantity method, of detailed

Daly principles, 115 estimation, 30
earth charter principles, 114 V
natural step system Value engineering (VE)
conditions, 114 analytical stage, 93–94
precautionary principles, 114 definition of, 89
ethics of, 95
T history of, 89
TILOS, 77 information stage, 90–92
Total quantity method, of detailed life-cycle cost impacts, 94–95
estimation, 30 procedures, 90
Trimble Vico Office, 74 proposal stage, 94
speculation stage, 92–93
U Virtual Reality (VR), 49
United States Green Building
Council (USGBC), 110, 111 W
Unit method, of conceptual Work breakdown structure (WBS),
estimation, 29 29–30, 53, 54f
Francis J. Hopcroft, Wentworth Institute of Technology, Editor
• Environmental Engineering Dictionary of Technical Terms and Phrases: English to
Italian and Italian to English by Francis J. Hopcroft and Irena Stojkov
• Environmental Engineering Dictionary of Technical Terms and Phrases: English to
Vietnamese and Vietnamese to English by Francis J. Hopcroft and Minh N. Nguyen
• Environmental Engineering Dictionary of Technical Terms and Phrases: English to
Hungarian and Hungarian to English by Francis J. Hopcroft and Gergely Sirokman
• Management of Environmental Impacts by Alandra Kahl
• Protecting Clean Air: Preventing Pollution by Sarah J. Simon
• Environmental Engineering Dictionary of Technical Terms and Phrases: English to Greek
and Greek to English by Francis Hopcroft and Michos Georgios
• Cell and Molecular Biology for Environmental Engineers by Ryan Rogers
• Hazardous Waste Management, Volume I by Sukalyan Sengupta
• Technical Writing for Environmental Engineers by Joan Giblin and Emily Coolidge Toker
• Geology for Environmental Engineers by David Woodhouse and James Lambrechts

Momentum Press offers over 30 collections including Aerospace, Biomedical, Civil,

Environmental, Nanomaterials, Geotechnical, and many others. We are a leading book
publisher in the field of engineering, mathematics, health, and applied sciences.

Momentum Press is actively seeking collection editors as well as authors. For more
information about becoming an MP author or collection editor, please visit

Announcing Digital Content Crafted by Librarians

Concise e-books business students need for classroom and research

Momentum Press offers digital content as authoritative treatments of advanced engineering

topics by leaders in their field. Hosted on ebrary, MP provides practitioners, researchers, faculty,
and students in engineering, science, and industry with innovative electronic content in sensors
and controls engineering, advanced energy engineering, manufacturing, and materials science.

Momentum Press offers library-friendly terms:

• perpetual access for a one-time fee
• no subscriptions or access fees required
• unlimited concurrent usage permitted
• downloadable PDFs provided
• free MARC records included
• free trials

The Momentum Press digital library is very affordable, with no obligation to buy in future years.

For more information, please visit or to set up a trial in the

US, please contact