|M.Sc Student||Eran Haronian|
|Subject||Examination of the Feasibility of Use of Relational|
Contracts in Transport Infrastructure Projects
|Department||Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering||Supervisor||Full Professor Sacks Rafael|
|Full Thesis text - in Hebrew|
Cost overruns and failure to meet project deadlines resulting in claims and disputes are a worldwide phenomenon in transport infrastructure projects. The traditional project delivery systems (PDS ( in the construction industry create competition between the participants in the project. The owner strives to achieve maximum value for minimal cost, whereas the contractor and other suppliers are interested in increasing their profits, even at the expense of the projects' goals. The majority of public owners use traditional PDS methods such as Design-Bid-Build and Design-Build.
In order to deal with these issues, collaborative and integrated PDS have been developed and adopted in various countries. The most popular collaborative PDS are Alliancing in Australia and Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) in the US. The experience and knowledge gained in the implementation of collaborative PDS around the world indicates that projects with high risks, significant complexity, and large budgets are best suited for such approaches.
When public agencies select delivery systems for projects, such as transport infrastructure, they must select the most appropriate delivery system in terms of its potential to provide best value for the public and the process must be transparent. This is a multi-criterion decision-making (MCDM) problem that involves various considerations of the projects' characteristics and environment. Most of the MCDM methods currently applied are not feasible, over-simplify the considerations and/or lack transparency. The ‘Choosing by Advantages’ (CBA) decision-making system was applied in three experiments on transport infrastructure projects to determine the most appropriate delivery systems, and to prioritize those projects for which collaborative delivery systems were selected. These experiments illustrate that there are projects that could benefit greatly from collaborative PDS, and on the other hand that there are projects that are not suitable. The results show that CBA has four advantages for this problem: (a) flexibility in defining the decision factors, (b) a structured discussion that allows for a variety of opinions to be expressed, (c) subjective judgments are taken into account late in the process, only after a based consensus has been established regarding the alternatives, and (d) the process and results are transparent to all.
An owner who strives to obtain value from the range of PDS available, should adopt a broad perspective concerning the variety of projects undertaken, the limitations of the industry, and its capacity regarding the different PDS. Collaborative PDS require suitable partners and increased involvement of the owner, thus should be retained for the most appropriate projects.
The findings of this research also indicate that there are no significant obstacles to application of collaborative PDS for transport infrastructure projects in Israel.
The study shows that there is a variety of transport infrastructure projects in Israel. High risk and complicated projects, with significant financial scope, are candidates for collaborative PDS. However, gradual adoption should be considered in order to allow the learning process of the industry.