Combined Market Study June 2018 - DBIA

2y ago
18 Views
2 Downloads
1.19 MB
71 Pages
Last View : 24d ago
Last Download : 9m ago
Upload by : Jewel Payne
Transcription

Design-Build UtilizationCombined Market StudyJune 2018

FMI forecast methodologyTo derive a market forecast, FMIuses a triangulation method thatutilizes multiple sources to developand validate the market’s size anddirection. The following diagramrepresents the methodology usedfor developing construction put inplace estimates.Quantitative Market Model:Utilizing multiple sources, both historical and forwardlooking, FMI generates a baseline forecast forconstruction put in place spending at a local level foreach of the various segments examined in this study.For example, historical construction spending put inplace is reported by the U.S. Census and is thenforecast at a local level using local economicindicators, such as population growth, GDP,unemployment rate, etc.Anticipated Project Examination:Utilizing FMI’s proprietary project databases,CMD Reed, Industrial Info Resources, Dodgeand other secondary sources, FMI adjuststhe baseline, quantitative market model toreflect planned projects over the term of theforecast. Projects are vetted on likelihood ofoccurring based upon the known andanticipated market conditions.Market-Driven Validation:AddressableMarket2018-2021FMI then validates and adjusts as necessarythe market sizing and forecast based uponprimary research conducted with actualmarket participants and senior FMIconsultants. These industry members canspeak directly to market conditions anddirection based upon there intimateknowledge of the individual market andsegment.FMI Corporation Copyright 20182

Approach and SourcesStep 1: Construction Put in Place (CPiP)Determining total construction put in place (CPiP) for the assessed segments* is the first and most critical step in estimating the design-build marketopportunity. FMI’s definitions and historical CPiP estimates match reports released by the U.S. Census Bureau. Five-year CPiP forecasts are modeledand maintained utilizing various resources: In-house econometric models analyze trends and predict shifts in construction spending against various demographic and economic drivers. Technical in-house publications and subscriptions, including FMI’s own Nonresidential Construction Index (NRCI) and construction projectdatabases are utilized to offer insight into each segment considering backlogs, trends influencing demand and various project details. FMI’s industry relationships and staff expertise/review.Step 2: Design-build Construction Put in PlaceNext, FMI developed custom market-sizing specifically for design-build construction by segmenting spending into various segment types and Censusdivisions. Estimates for design-build construction spending were derived through a combination of historical project databases, planned project lists,stakeholder interviews and industry stakeholder surveys.For this research, design-build was defined as a method to deliver a project in which the design and construction services are contracted by a singleentity. The use of consistent design-build terminology varied by construction segment (i.e., manufacturing, commercial, etc.). To account for all designbuild spending, several variations of design-build were considered and assessed when developing the market-sizing model.Key research sources include, but are not limited to those listed below:United States Census Bureau Construction put in place historyVarious Primary and Secondary Resources Stakeholder interviews/surveys Key secondary resources (e.g., ENR, Dodge, McGraw-Hill, REED, IIR, Global Insights, PWF) Industry focused associations (e.g., DBIA, ARTBA, AWWA, AIAI) Government agency databases (STIP, CIP, project lists)Study results/findingsThe results of the study were developed through a combination of DBIA provided contacts and FMI internal contacts. In total, 82 interviews wereconducted and 101 survey responses were collected. Firms of all revenue sizes participated on the study. These ranged from ENR top-10 firms to firms with 10 million in annual revenue. The studywas unbiased towards firm type, service/product offering or association affiliation.*Assessed segments include: religious, public safety, communication, amusementand recreation, lodging, health care, transportation, office, commercial,manufacturing, educational highway/street, water/wastewaterFMI Corporation Copyright 20183

Table of contentsSectionSlideExecutive Summary6Combined Market Sizing (Assessed segments)8Nonresidential Market15Market Sizing16Trends and Drivers25Highway/street and Water/Wastewater Market40Market Sizing41Trends and Drivers49Appendix59FMI Corporation Copyright 20184

Executive Summar y

Executive SummaryDesign-build construction spending in the assessed segments is anticipated to grow 18% from 2018 to 2021 and reachover 320 billion. Design-build is anticipated to represent up to 44% of construction spending in the assessed segments by 2021. Designbuild spending in Manufacturing, Highway/Street and Education represent the greatest percentage of design-buildconstruction spending by segment over the 2018-2021 period. The Mountain (6.3%), Pacific (6.1%) and South Atlantic (6.2%) census divisions are anticipated to yield the highest growthrates over the 2018-2021 period.Owner’s have traditionally employed design-bid-build as the project delivery method of choice. As owner needs andproject demands have changed, owners have become increasingly likely to assess the option to employ alternativedelivery methods. Owner selection of a project delivery method involves multiple factors. Overall, owners identified “delivery schedule” as thegreatest influence of project delivery method selection. In addition, owner goals and objectives were identified to be highlyinfluential in project delivery method selection. The education process for design-build has continued to expand. A continued emphasis toward educating owners andproject stakeholders on the process and benefits associated with design-build will facilitate continued adoption and greaterutilization.From an industry perspective, alternative project delivery methods have become a more frequent option for bothpublic and private owners. On the public side, enabling design-build legislation has been put in place to facilitateincreased use. Private owners indicated utilizing design-build on projects presenting unique challenges. Overall, owners indicated receiving significant value from design-build when employed on larger and more complexprojects. These projects allowed for greater opportunity to provide project innovations and subsequent cost savings. In addition to larger and more complex projects, design-build utilization continues to expand into project sizes 25 millionas owners continue to gain exposure to the benefits of design-build.FMI Corporation Copyright 20186

Combined MarketSizing(Assessed Segments)Assessed segments include: religious, public safety, communication,amusement and recreation, lodging, health care, transportation, office,commercial, manufacturing, educational, highway/street, water/wastewater

Overall, design-build is anticipated to account for 44% of construction spending in the assessedsegments over the 2018-2021 forecast period.Market size comparisonDistribution of marketTotal combined spend, Rollup, 2018-2021 US CPiP spending, 2018-2021Total U.S. Construction Put in Place (CPiP) 5.4 TrillionManufacturing,16%Segment breakoutU.S. Construction Put in Place (CPiP)Assessed Segments - 2.7 TrillionCommunicationWater/Wastewater, 3%, 3%*Other, 2%AmusementandRecreation, 3%Lodging , 4%Educational,15%Health Care,6%Transportation,8%Highway/street,14%Office, 12%Commercial,13%Design-build CPiPAssessed Segments - 1.2 TrillionMarket breakoutSouth Atlantic,20%Mountain, 8%WNC, 9%Pacific, 17%WSC, 11%ENC, 14%*Other includes: Public safety and religiousNew England,4%ESC, 5%Mid-Atlantic,12%FMI Corporation Copyright 20188

Design-build construction spending in the assessed segments is anticipated to grow 18% from2018 to 2021.Design-build construction put in place (Assessed segments); 2013-2021Billions of dollarsSource(s): FMI analysis of multiple sources 35015% 324 30713.1% 30013% 290 257 25011% 2389.2% 2229% 196 2007.9% 1807.2%7%6.8% 1505.6%5.8%5.6%5%Year-over-year growthConstruction Put in Place; Billions of dollars 274 1003% 501%-1% 0201320142015201620172018201920202021FMI Corporation Copyright 20189

The Mountain, Pacific and South Atlantic census divisions are anticipated to yield the highestgrowth rates over the 2018-2021 period.Design-build construction put in place by census division (Assessed Segments)Billions of dollarsSource(s): FMI analysis of multiple sources2018e2021fCAGR(18-21)Mountain 22.0 26.46.3%Pacific 45.7 54.56.1%East NorthCentral 39.1 45.95.5%West NorthCentral 23.7 27.55.1%New England 11.4 13.14.8%Middle Atlantic 32.7 37.85.0%South Atlantic 54.7 65.66.2%East SouthCentral 13.6 16.15.6%West SouthCentral 31.2 36.75.5% 274.2 323.75.7%SOUTHNORTHEASTMIDWESTWESTBillionsof current dollarsU.S. TotalFMI Corporation Copyright 201810

Manufacturing, educational and highway/street hold the largest share of design-build spendingthrough 2021.Distribution of forecast spending by segmentDistribution of marketCombined CPiP spending, 2018-2021Source(s): FMI analysis of multiple sourcesCPiP spending, 2018, 2021Source(s): FMI analysis of multiple sourcesWater/WastewaterAmusement alth Care7%Manufacturing CAGR: 6.6% 49Educational CAGR: 5.8% 46Highway/street CAGR: 7.0% 41Commercial CAGR: 4.6% 40Office CAGR: 4.9% 26Transportation CAGR: 5.6% 21Healthcare CAGR: 7.1% 11 10 8 13 11 912018 274.2B22021 323.6BLodging CAGR: 4.7%Amusement & Rec. CAGR: 3.9%Water/Wastewater CAGR: 4.8%Communications CAGR: 3.9%*Other CAGR: 6.7% 44Transportation8%Manufacturing16% 53 42 38Office12% 36 35Educational15%Commercial13% 22 17Highway/street14%Total spend 2018-2021: 1,193B*Other includes: Public safety and religiousFMI Corporation Copyright 201811

Design-build is anticipated to continue to gain market share over the 2018-2021 period.Distribution of delivery method utilizationSource(s): FMI analysis of multiple sources2018-2021 CPiP: 2,729B2013-2017 CPiP: GC/CMAR35% Dissatisfaction with the adversarial nature and limitations of design-bid-build as well as increasingly challenging project characteristics and demandshas resulted in greater interest in and use of design-build and other alternative delivery methods. Negative project owner experience and perceptions of design-bid-build are most influenced by limited opportunity for innovation, lack of a fast-trackprocess and higher risk profile for the project owner.*Other includes EPC and IPD**CMGC/CMAR, design-bid-build and Other percentages are based on estimated utilization across construction spending.FMI Corporation Copyright 201812

Design-build construction spending is anticipated to account for 1.19 trillion over the 20182021 forecast period.Forecast byGeographySouth AtlanticPacificENCSpend2018-2021CAGR2018-2021% of totaldesign-buildCPiP 240.06.2%20.1% 199.5 169.46.1%5.5%5.0%11.8%WSC 136.35.5%11.4%WNC 102.55.1%8.6%6.3%8.1%ESC 59.25.6%5.0%New England 49.44.8%4.1%Total 1,193.95.7%*Other includes: Public safety and religious% of totaldesign-buildCPiPManufacturing 192.96.6%16.2%Educational 182.25.8%15.3%Highway/Street 167.97.0%14.1%Commercial 152.44.6%12.8%Office 148.54.9%12.4%Transportation 94.95.6%8.0%Health Care 77.37.1%6.5%Lodging 48.74.7%4.1%Amusement andRecreation 40.43.9%3.4%Water/Wastewater 33.63.9%3.0%Communication 33.63.9%2.8%*Other 5.14.0%1.7%Total 1,193.95.7%100%Forecast by segment14.2% 141.4 96.3CAGR2018-202116.7%Mid AtlanticMountainSpend2018-2021100%FMI Corporation Copyright 201813

Nonresidential MarketNonresidential segments include: religious, public safety, communication,amusement and recreation, lodging, health care, transportation, office,commercial, manufacturing, educational

Market Sizing

Total U.S. nonresidential construction spending is anticipated to reach over 550 billion by2020.U.S. nonresidential construction put in place; 2013-2021Billions of dollarsSource(s): FMI30% 700 58625% 565 543 523 500 500 47020% 445 392 400 36015%13.4% 30010%Year-over-year growthConstruction Put in Place; Billions of dollars 6008.8% 2006.5%5.6%4.5% 1005%4.0%3.9%3.8% -0%201320142015201620172018201920202021FMI Corporation Copyright 201816

Overall, design-build is anticipated to account for 45% of nonresidential construction spendingover the 2018-2021 forecast period.Market size comparisonDistribution of marketTotal combined spend, Rollup, 2018-2021 US CPiP spending, 2018-2021Total U.S. Construction Put in Place (CPiP) 5.4 TrillionReligious, 1%Public Safety,Amusement and1%Recreation, 4%U.S. Nonresidential Construction Put in Place (CPiP)Target Segments - 2.2 TrillionSegment breakoutEducational,18%Communication, 3%Lodging , 5%Health al,15%Design-build CPiP 990 BillionMarket breakoutSouth Atlantic,20%Office, 15%New England,4%ESC, 5%Mountain, 7%WNC, 9%Pacific, 17%WSC, 10%ENC, 15%Mid Atlantic,12%FMI Corporation Copyright 201817

Design-build is anticipated to continue to gain market share over the 2018-2021 period.Distribution of delivery method utilizationSource(s): FMI analysis of multiple sources2018-2021 CPiP: 2,217B2013-2017 CPiP: 5%*Other includes: CMAR/CMGC, Design-bid-Build, IPD, EPCFMI Corporation Copyright 201818

Design-build spending for nonresidential construction is anticipated to grow 17% from 2018 to2021.U.S. nonresidential design-build construction put in place; 2013-2021Billions of dollarsSource(s): FMI analysis of multiple sources 30030% 268 254 25025% 241 214 197 20020% 184 161 150 14615%14.3%10.2% 10010%Year-over-year growthConstruction Put in Place; Billions of dollars 2288.4%7.3%6.7% 505.4%5.5%5.6%201920202021 05%0%201320142015201620172018FMI Corporation Copyright 201819

The Mountain census division is anticipated to yield the highest growth rate over the 2018-2021period.U.S. nonresidential design-build construction put in place by census divisionBillions of dollarsSource(s): FMI analysis of multiple sources2018e2021fCAGR(18-21)Mountain 16.8 20.16.1%Pacific 38.4 45.65.9%East NorthCentral 34.1 39.85.2%West NorthCentral 19.8 22.84.8%New England 10.1 11.64.7%Middle Atlantic 27.9 32.45.0%South Atlantic 45.9 54.65.9%East SouthCentral 11.5 13.55.4%West SouthCentral 23.7 27.85.6% 228.2 268.05.5%SOUTHNORTHEASTMIDWESTWESTBillionsof current dollarsU.S. TotalFMI Corporation Copyright 201820

Construction activity is increasingly concentrated in a limited number of markets.Nonresidential project locations across U.S. megapolitansProjects completed, under construction or planned in past 12 monthsSource(s): FMI analysis of multiple sourcesCascadiaTwin CitiesGreat LakesMountainSierra PacificMegalopolisTexas TriangleProjectSouthwestPiedmontFloridaFMI Corporation Copyright 201821

At 19%, manufacturing holds the largest share of design-build spending through 2021.Distribution of forecast spending by segmentDistribution of marketCombined CPiP spending, 2018-2021Source(s): FMI analysis of multiple sourcesCPiP spending, 2018, 2021Source(s): FMI analysis of multiple sourcesCommunication Amusement andRecreation3%4%Public Safety2%Lodging5%ReligiousHealth Care1%8% 53Manufacturing CAGR: 6.6% 49Educational CAGR: 5.8% 41Commercial CAGR: 4.6% 40Office CAGR: 4.9% 26Transportation CAGR: 5.6% 21Healthcare CAGR: 7.1% 11 10 8 13Lodging CAGR: 4.7% 11 912018 228.2B22021 268.0BAmusement & Rec. CAGR: 3.9%Communications CAGR: 3.9%Public safety CAGR: 6.7%Religious CAGR: 4.0% 44Transportation10%Manufacturing19% 42 36Office15% 35 22Educational18% 17Commercial15%Total spend 2018-2021: 990BFMI Corporation Copyright 201822

Nonresidential design-build construction spending is anticipated to account for 990 billionover the 2018-2021 forecast period.Spend2018-2021CAGR2018-2021% of totaldesign-buildCPiPSouth Atlantic 200.55.9%20.2%Pacific 166.95.9%16.8%Forecast byGeographyENC 147.15.2%Spend2018-2021CAGR2018-2021% of totaldesign-buildCPiPManufacturing 192.96.6%19.5%Educational 182.25.8%18.4%Commercial 152.44.6%15.4%Office 148.54.9%15.0%Transportation 94.95.6%9.6%Forecast by segment14.8%Mid Atlantic 121.15.0%12.2%WSC 103.05.6%10.4%Health Care 77.37.1%7.8%WNC 85.24.8%8.6%Lodging 48.74.7%4.9% 40.43.9%4.1%7.4%Amusement andRecreationCommunication 33.63.9%3.4%Public Safety 14.86.7%1.5%Religious 5.14.0%0.5% 990.85.5%100%MountainESCNew EnglandTotal 79.6 49.7 43.5 990.86.1%5.4%4.7%5.5%5.0%4.4%100%TotalFMI Corporation Copyright 201823

Trends and Drivers

Delivery schedule, owner goals and objectives, contractor experience and initial cost wereindicated to be extremely influential in the selection of a project delivery method.Characteristics that were indicated to be extremely influential in the selection of a project delivery method.Questions were answered on a 1 to 5 scale (1 not influential, 5 extremely influential)Source(s): FMI SurveyPercentage of respondents that indicated extremely influentialDelivery schedule48%Owner goals and objectives46%Contractor experience45%Initial cost41%Project complexity and innovation29%Staff experience/ availability (owner)21%Project type20%Level of design completion18%Initial project risk assessment15%Legal and regulatoryInitial cost is always a key factor in projectdelivery selection. The use of alternative deliverymethods was indicated to provide the bestavenue to achieve the originally identified cost.Understanding the needs of owners is highly important for industryparticipants. The ability to get in early and develop strongcommunication and understanding of what the owner valuesprovides a solid foundation for successful project delivery.Alternative delivery methods provide the ability to work with theowner early on and identify key areas of importance.Experience is also a key factor in project delivery method selection.Having a stable of available firms to perform the work allows theowner to achieve the greatest results. A limited pool of experiencedfirms does not provide the owner with the added advantages ofearly firm involvement.13%Life-cycle costThird-party agreementsThe critical nature of the project has a majorimpact to selection, and owner’s want to ensurethat a timely delivery schedule is understood andprovides adequate time to successfully deliverthe project.9%4%FMI Corporation Copyright 201825

Delivery schedule was the most influencing factor for owners when selecting a project deliverymethod.Project delivery method influencing characteristicsWeighted average of responsesSource(s): FMI SurveyExtremelyinfluential5Questions were answered on a 1 to5 scale (1 not influential,5 extremely influential)Owner identified influencers4.5Delivery schedulePrimaryOwnerinfluencersOwner goals andobjectives4ContractorexperienceProject typeProject complexityAnd innovationLevel of designcompletionInitial project riskassessment3.5Staff experience/availabilityInitial costSecondaryownerinfluencersLife-cycle cost3TertiaryOwnerinfluencersLegal and regulatoryThird-party ial2.533.54Non-owner identified influencers4.55ExtremelyinfluentialFMI Corporation Copyright 201826

The majority of project delivery methods are selected during project programming.When does your organization typically make its project delivery method decision?Source(s): FMI Survey During this phase few decisions are made regarding which project delivery method will be used.Project development13% of selections Typically during this phase owners define the projects goals and objectives. In addition, owners willidentify potential constraints/issues associated with the project. This process allows owners to reviewthe project delivery methods available for their specific project type. During this phase the majority of project delivery methods are selected.Project programming74% of selectionsEnd of final design3% of selectionsOther12% of selections Owners can conduct a thorough assessment of the risks associated with the project and the resultingadvantages/disadvantages of each project delivery method. The challenge is that a minority of owners have a formal risk management process, and most do notdemonstrate a strong commitment to conducting a formal risk assessment. This is often due to thecomplexity of conducting a formal risk assessment. Owners do not typically select a project delivery method at the end of final design. If they are aiming toutilize an alternative delivery method they will involve other stakeholders earlier in the process. Depending on the needs and circumstances an owner faces, project delivery method selection maytake place outside of the above mentioned times.FMI Corporation Copyright 201827

Familiarity with design-build is increasing as owners have become more knowledgeable on theprocess.Design-build education process The education process for design-build has continued to expand.However, the lack in owner knowledge and understanding of thedesign-build process is a limiting factor for greater utilization.Market commentary “It seems that some of the user community hasdesign-bid-build engrained in their delivery methodselection.” “We are seeing design-build used more frequentlyacross public projects. It is nice to see thisflexibility.” “There are challenges with having owners that arein the education process. They need to learn totrust the process.” Although DBIA is pushing the industry in the right direction, one-thirdof respondents identified DBIA as the source for project deliverymethods and one-third of respondents rely on legacy information.“We don’t see a lot of the small municipalitiestaking advantage of design-build, but they mightnot be the best fit for that delivery method.” “Once you have lived through the low bidenvironment, it is not hard to see the benefits ofdesign-build.”40% “Firms that are arguing for design-bid-build are theones that don’t understand the process and thebenefits of other methods.” “Design-build is not for everyone. If there is anowner that doesn’t understand it they should thinktwice before using it.” “Design-build is a great tool to use. I don’t think theconstruction community at large understands it orrealizes how often it is used.” Once owners get a full understanding of the process and benefitsassociated with design-build they are more likely to continue to employit as a preferred delivery method. DBIA is recognized as pushing the industry and increasing overallawareness of the process. It was stated that in the past five yearsthere has been significant improvement in the push towards greaterdesign-build utilization.“DBIA has done a good job at getting all stakeholders involved forthe 5%0%OtherLegacyDBIAFMI Corporation Copyright 201828

Over half of owners indicated using or anticipate using design-build in the next five years.Which of the following project delivery methods has your organization used, or anticipates using in the next five years?Owner respondentsSource(s): FMI PCIPD50%6%Owner’s have traditionally employeddesign-bid-build as the project deliverymethod of choice. As owner needs andproject demands have changed, ownershave become increasingly likely toemploy an alternative delivery method.Alternative project delivery methods have become amore frequent option for both public and privateowners. On the public side, legislation has been putin place to facilitate increased use. These methodsallow owners to address specific project/programneeds. Owners indicated that moving forward overthe next five years their use of these methods willcontinue.The use of IPD and EPC delivery methods are morespecific to select segments. IPD was indicated to beused to a greater extent in the health care market,whereas EPC is consistently employed in the heavyindustrial market. Stakeholders believe this willremain the norm moving forward. IPD in specific hasnot gained the traction originally assumed.3%FMI Corporation Copyright 201829

The majority of owners indicated design-build utilization will increase in the next 5 years.From an industry perspective, how will the use of the following delivery methods change in the next 5 years?Owner respondents; (1 significant decrease, 5 significant increase)Source(s): FMI Survey100%4%Significant increase8%90%Slight increase11%19%Stay the sameSlight decrease80%Significant decrease38%70%60%54%48% Forty-six percent of owner respondents indicatedan increase in the use of CMGC/CMAR in thenext 5 years. However, 16% of owners see adecrease.50%40% Over 50% of owners believe the use of designbid-build will remain the same. However, 32%believe there will be a decrease in use.38%30%20%29%29%8%10%0% Sixty-seven percent of owner respondentsindicated an increase in the use of design-buildin the next 5 MI Corporation Copyright 201830

Experience with design-build was rated highest across all project delivery methods.Experience with various delivery methodsWeighted average of responses; (1 poor, 5 excellent)Source(s): FMI SurveyPoorFairGoodVery GoodExcellentMarket commentary:Design-build 8% 14%CMGC/CMAR %28%22%39%35%4.073.9322%23%11%11% “CMAR seems to be lesschallenging from a legislative pointof view. It doesn’t have therequirements that design-builddoes.” “In the Northeast CMAR is thedominant delivery method. Everyonce in a while we will have adesign-build project come along.”3.6530% “We’ve found the use of designbuild to be a good experience. Itreduces our risk and the issuescan be defined to the design-buildteam.” “CMAR is beneficial when we wantto have more oversight of theproject. We can reach out directlyto the architect.”3.11 “IPD doesn’t seem to have pickedup or caught on outside of a fewhealthcare projects.”3.06ExcellentFMI Corporation Copyright 201831

Opportunities to innovate and the ability to fast track a project were identified as top benefitsassociated with design-build.Which project delivery method do you most associate the following benefits with?Associated benefitEarly knowledge of costAbility to achieve design excellenceMostShorter procurement periodMost qualified service providersMore predictable/ manageablescheduleMore opportunities to innovateLeast project risk (for the owner)Highest qualityGreater project/ design controlFinal cost closest to budgetFewer disputesMore collaborative process for theownerLeastAbility to fast track projectSource(s): FMI SurveyDesign-bid-buildDesign-buildCMGC/CMAROther (EPC, IPD)*ProgressiveDesign-build*Progressive Design-build: Analysis of benefits associated with progressive design-build were collected throughstakeholder interviews. Its benefits were indicated to include the best attributes from design-build and CMAR.FMI Corporation Copyright 201832

Progressive design-build is steadily growing in use.Progressive design-build The progressive design-build process was seen favorably bystakeholders due to its qualifications-based selection process. Selection for progressive design-build is driven by contractorqualifications and fee. The limited design component during selectionwas indicated to significantly reduce the cost of pursuit.‒ Although limiting design during the pursuit phase reduces cost forpursuing teams, it also leaves the owner with less certainty arounddesign. To address this, some owners have employed a hybridapproach that incorporates a preliminary design component in theselection process. Once a team is selected for the project the design component is pushedforward. The design-build team meets with the owner after they areselected and begins the design process. This was indicated to facilitategreater involvement from all parties involved on the project. Although progressive design-build is growing in use, there is limitedlegislation addressing the selection of design-build teams strictly onqualifications.Traditional design-build Compared to progressive design-build, design-build was indicated to bemore cost intense for pursuing teams due to the design component. However, the selection of a design-build team was indicated to be on abest value or qualifications basis over 80% of the time. Various agencies provide a stipend to teams not selected on a designbuild pursuit. The stipend aims to alleviate the cost burden of pursuit forteams that are not successful.Market commentary “We’ve seen more projects using the collaborative designbuild model.” “During the design phase on a progressive design-buildproject you are not designing in a vacuum. You aredesigning with the owner at the table.” “We’ve seen a couple different ways that the contractprocess is done. One was a qualification based selection,one was purely negotiated, and others have been a mix.” “It is difficult to justify picking a team in a fair competitiveway when you are dealing with public money.” “Progressive design-build is the natural next step forowners using CM/GC.” “We see more and more owners trying to wrap their headsaround progressive design-build. Water/wastewaterowners are a little further down the road on this.”Design-build selection processBest-value50%Qualifications based32%Low priceOther17%2%FMI Corporation Copyright 201833

Progressive design-build is particularly interestingto us. We see this as a continued trend movingforward.”-Public Owner34

Design-build utilization continues to expand into project sizes 25 million as owners continueto gain exposure to benefits of design-build.Likelihood of projects utilizing design-build by project sizeSource(s): FMI analysis of m

the market sizing and forecast based upon primary research conducted with actual market participants and senior FMI consultants. These industry members can speak directly to market conditions and direction based upon there intimate knowledge of the individual market and segment.

Related Documents:

Test Name Score Report Date March 5, 2018 thru April 1, 2018 April 20, 2018 April 2, 2018 thru April 29, 2018 May 18, 2018 April 30, 2018 thru May 27, 2018 June 15, 2018 May 28, 2018 thru June 24, 2018 July 13, 2018 June 25, 2018 thru July 22, 2018 August 10, 2018 July 23, 2018 thru August 19, 2018 September 7, 2018 August 20, 2018 thru September 1

Conc Diagram- All Failures Cispa Data Avalon Date PCB Lot Number Igarashi TPS date codes. MB Panel Number VIAS Hole Location Failure 9-June'09 11-June'09 923 162 12-June'09 923 163,164 TBD TBD 1 13-June'09 923 164 15-June'09 923 166 16-June'09 923 167 17-June'09 923 168,171 18-June'09 923 171 19-June'09 923 171 20-June'09 923 171 22-June'09 923 173 23-June '09 923 179 24-June '09 923 .

June 16 Shelach Lecha June 23 - Korach June 30 Hukath We Remember Sylvia Marans Elberg - June Vera Meyerhoff - June Daniel Rosenberg - June1 Edward Wandrei - June 6 Helen Feinberg-Ginsburg - June 6 Thelma Cohn - June 12 Wilma Sizemore June - 16 Joseph P. Suffel - June 21 Eliot Rivers - June 31 Paul Aaron Kowarsky - Sivan 14 -

Winter Carnival 14 June P&C Disco 8 17 June Board Meeting 18 June 19 June 20 June 21 June Bletchley Vale Cup 9 24 June Swimming Lessons Yr 3 – 6 P&C Meeting 25 June Swimming Lessons Yr 3 – 6 26 June Swimming Lessons Yr 3 – 6 Pre Primary Junior Olympics 27 June Swimming Lessons Yr 3 – 6 Yr2 Start Smart 28 June Swimming Lessons Yr 3 – 6 10

IV. Consumer Price Index Numbers (General) for Industrial Workers ( Base 2001 100 ) Year 2018 State Sr. No. Centre Jan., 2018 Feb., 2018 Mar., 2018 Apr 2018 May 2018 June 2018 July 2018 Aug 2018 Sep 2018 Oct 2018 Nov 2018 Dec 2018 TEZPUR

Year Make Model----- ----- -----2018 Acura ILX 2018 Acura TLX 2018 Acura RLX HYBRID 2018 Alfa Romeo 4C 2018 Alfa Romeo Giulia 2018 Alfa Romeo Giulia 2018 Alfa Romeo Giulia 2018 Alfa Romeo Giulia 2018 Audi TT Roadster quattro 2018 Audi A3 2018 Audi A3 Cabriolet 2018 Audi A3 Cabriolet quattro 2018 Audi A3 quattro

(WIOA) Combined State Plan (Combined State Plan or State Plan), submitted on April 1, 2016, is substantially approvable. Therefore, the Departments have approved your Combined State Plan, which covers the period July 1, 2016 through June 30,

Kompleksitas permasalahan pembelajaran sejarah di atas bisa dipecahkan melalui pengembangan e-modul yang didesain untuk memfasilitasi peserta didik belajar secara mandiri. E-modul dikembangkan dengan mengunakan aplikasi eXe (E-learning X HTML Editor), perancangan e-modul ini akan dibuat semenarik