ASCE T&DI Abstract 40 - Final Paper

ASCE T&DI Abstract #40 Page 1
2014 ASCE T&DI Conference
Track E- Aviation: Airport Construction and Program Management
Abstract 40 – A Review of Successful Project Delivery and Management Methods
for Major Airport Capital Projects
Author: Angela R. Newland, P.E., I.A.P., A.A.E., M.ASCE1
1City of Columbus, Department of Finance and Management, Columbus, Ohio 43215;
PH (614) 645-1472; FAX (614) 645-0254; email: arnewland@columbus.gov
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this paper is to convey lessons learned from various project
delivery methods and project management techniques used on major airport capital
projects at two case study airports: Port Columbus International Airport and the Fort
Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport. Project delivery methods to be discussed
include those that were led by the Airport and those that were led by an airline. In
addition, two different project management techniques will be compared: project
management by in-house airport staff, and project management by a consultant
Program Management Office (PMO). The principal conclusions are that each project
delivery method can be successful if it is used in the right circumstance; capital
programs of nearly all sizes can be effectively managed by in-house Airport staff; and
when very large capital programs surface, a consultant Program Manager can be useful.
Lessons learned and best practices from each project delivery method and project
management technique will be emphasized throughout the paper.
PART 1: AIRPORT-LED PROJECT DELIVERY METHODS
Port Columbus International Airport (CMH) is a medium hub airport in Ohio.
The Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport (FLL) is a large hub airport in
Florida. The Columbus Regional Airport Authority (CRAA) manages CMH, and the
Broward County Aviation Department (BCAD) manages FLL. The Airport-led project
delivery methods used at both airports include design-bid-build (DBB), design-build
(DB), and Construction Manager at Risk (CMR), as well as variations to those methods.
Variations to those methods include a fast-tracked DBB project at CMH; a joint lead
design-build project at CMH, where the designer and the contractor were equal parties
to the agreement with the Airport Owner (CRAA); and an energy conservation services
organization (ESCO) agreement at CMH.
A. GENERAL PHILOSOPHY
It is helpful for the Airport Owner to establish a general philosophy for when
an airport should consider alternative project delivery methods rather than the

traditional Design-Bid-Build method. The general philosophy BCAD used for projects
at FLL was as follows:
“Design-Build should be used on projects that are programmatically
simple, or where the industry standard for that type of work is for the
contractor to be responsible for design. Examples are parking garages,
energy conservation services, antenna towers, bridges, and airport in-
line baggage screening systems. Any aspects of Design-Build (DB)
projects that require significant Airport Owner input should be specified
in detail in the design criteria package used to solicit the DB contractor.
The Construction Manager at Risk (CMR) method is recommended for
complex, vertical (building) projects or projects where the work needed
to be completed by a critical date certain. When using CMR, an
independent party should be retained to verify the CMR's value
engineering and constructability recommendations, and to provide a
review of the Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) submitted by the
CMR.”
Another example of a general project delivery philosophy is the one used by
the Massachusetts Port Authority (Massport)1. Their philosophy is to use CMR only
on vertical projects over $5 million; and to use DB only for horizontal (civil works)
projects over $5 million.
B. USE OF DESIGN-BID-BUILD
Most of the capital projects at both CMH and FLL were delivered using the
Design-Bid-Build (DBB) approach. This was a successful delivery method in those
cases when the contract documents were reasonably well prepared, when the project
was straight-forward in its scope of work, when the contractor appropriately bid and
staffed the project, when the weather was good during construction, and when the
Airport’s project management and inspection staff were attentive to the project.
Recognizing that this utopia was often difficult to find, it was important to include an
appropriate contingency amount in the project budget to address unforeseen conditions
and other issues that may surface during the construction.
One of the more unique and successful projects delivered using DBB was a fast-
paced project to construct new terminal facilities for Skybus Airlines at CMH. The
great urgency to complete the project in a short amount of time was due to the new
hometown airline, Skybus, starting flight operations at CMH only nine months after
they announced that they would use Columbus as their national base of operations.
This $9,000,000 project, completed in 2007, used an “ultra fast-tracked” DBB delivery
method. The term “ultra fast-tracked” refers to all design and construction being
completed within a seven month period. The work was happening so fast that steel to
construct the additional terminal facilities was ordered by the contractor before the
design was completed. Lessons learned from this project were to ensure an adequate
contingency for such a rapid-paced project; to implement a strict change order approval
process; and to have frequent high-level team meetings to facilitate communication.

Another unique DBB contracting arrangement was at CMH, where the Design
Consultant and the Construction Manager (Agency Representative) were jointly
contracted with CRAA. The goal was to have a single contract with the Airport Owner
that covered both the design and construction management responsibilities. This turned
out to be a challenging contractual arrangement for the Airport Owner to administer,
since there was no true single point of responsibility in the contract. For that reason,
this type of contracting arrangement is not recommended.
C. USE OF DESIGN-BUILD
Three different types of Design-Build contracts were used at CMH and FLL:
one with the contractor as the lead contracting entity; one with a Construction Manager
as the lead (with a Guaranteed Maximum Price or GMP); and one with an Energy
Services Company (ESCO) as the lead.
The largest Design-Build (DB) contract ever executed for work at FLL was the
$185 million South Runway Structures contract. The scope of work currently
underway is to build runway and taxiway bridges over a railroad and a highway. This
work is being done in a constrained area, within a tight timeframe, and in close
coordination with other contractors on adjacent contracts. DB was the chosen delivery
method because of the need to expedite construction, and the need to have portions of
the construction underway before the full design was complete. A Design Criteria
Package (DCP) was prepared to the 30% complete design stage by a separate consultant
under contract to Broward County. This DCP was issued for bid, and bids came well
under the $270 million construction cost estimate. As of this writing, the project is on
schedule for the new runway to open for service in the fall of 2014. One of the
challenges of this delivery method on this project was the constant need for
involvement by the DCP consultant with the bridge DB design consultant through the
remainder of the design phase. When using DB, it is important to provide sufficient
scope and funds in the DCP consultant contract to allow that consultant to be involved
through the full design phase of the project. This will help ensure that the intent of the
DCP is carried through the completion of the design by the DB design consultant.
The second type of DB contract, with the Construction Manager (CM) as the
lead, resulted in a new 4,200 space parking garage and terminal expansion that was
completed on schedule (in the year 2000) and within budget ($92 million). However,
it had many complications that resulted from the contractual arrangement of all the
parties. The scope of the project was the construction of a 120,774 sq m (1.3 million
sq ft) parking garage, including rental car tenant fit-out, and a 7,900 sq m (85,000 sq
ft) terminal expansion at CMH. The Design Consultant was under contract to the CM,
the CM was contracted to deliver the construction within a Guaranteed Maximum Price
(GMP), and all the trades contracts were bid separately under contract to the Airport
Owner (per State of Ohio bidding requirements at that time). This complicated
arrangement resulted in the Design Consultant not having direct communication with
the Airport Owner, and with the trades contractors wanting to have direct
communication with the Owner while the CM was responsible for the overall GMP.
One of the primary lessons learned was to avoid contractual relationships where the

Contractor is required to deliver a project within a GMP and a defined schedule, but
does not directly hold the trade contracts.
The third type of DB contract, one with an Energy Services Company (ESCO)
as the lead, was done at CMH in 2008 by the Columbus Regional Airport Authority
(CRAA). This arrangement had the ESCO perform an in-depth assessment of the
energy use in the various CRAA-owned buildings (including the airport terminal);
develop a plan for improvements to the facilities to reduce energy use; and construct
those improvements with a guaranteed pay back of all construction costs within 10
years. Improvements made included energy efficient lighting and substantial
renovations to the HVAC system. This contract was a success, and did result in
immediate and significant energy savings to CRAA. If the pay back had not been
realized within the stated time period, the ESCO would have been responsible to pay
the difference between the actual amount realized and the capital expense. This type
of contracting arrangement for energy services companies was permitted under a State
of Ohio law enacted in 1994 and amended in 20082. For airports in states that allow
ESCO contracts, this type of contract is an excellent way to demonstrate the pay back
of an energy conservation capital project. For airports in states that do not allow ESCO
contracts, the Airport Owner should use a design consultant to perform an energy audit
in advance of preparing construction documents for lighting, HVAC, and other energy
retrofits. This will help support the financial feasibility and energy efficiency of such
projects.
D. USE OF CONSTRUCTION MANAGER AT RISK (CMR)
Construction Manager at Risk (CMR) was used on two terminal expansion
projects at FLL. CMR was chosen for the first project, a $40 million project to add
4,645 sq m (50,000 sf) and renovate 9,290 sq m (100,000 sf) to Terminal 4, due to the
desire to complete such a large scale renovation with multiple phases in an expeditious
manner. The positive aspect of this delivery method was that construction was
completed faster than if a Design-Bid-Build (DBB) procurement method would have
been used. Also, obtaining contractor input during the design phase increased the
constructability of the project, and reduced the quantity and magnitude of potential
change orders. The downside was that it was difficult to determine whether the CMR’s
Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) was the best price, since the bidding process was
not open to all bidders.
The second CMR project at FLL was for a >$100 million, six gate terminal
expansion. Again, CMR was chosen because of the desire to complete a complex
building project as quickly as possible. The CMR would bid on the various packages
as they were designed to the 100% level. This allows construction of completed design
packages to occur while design of other packages is underway. Both design and
construction of this project are currently in progress. This has been an effective method
for getting contractor input during the design phase, reducing the identification of
infrastructure clashes during the construction phase by the CMR’s use of Building
Information Modeling (BIM), fast-tracking construction by being able to perform
construction while design is underway, and facilitating single point of responsibility
for construction by having a single contractor managing the construction of several bid

packages. As with the previous example, the downside of this delivery method on this
project has been the inability to determine if the Owner is getting the best price for the
construction due to the restricted bidding process. If the Owner’s primary need is to
get a complex building project done quickly, and cost is not the primary concern, this
is a good delivery method to use.
PART 2: AIRLINE-LED PROJECT DELIVERY METHODS
Airline-led project delivery and project management examples include a
Design-Bid-Build (DBB) in-line baggage screening system and three Design-Build
(DB) projects at FLL. All of these were done as part of amendments to various airline
signatory leases.
The DBB project involved the design and construction of a $37 million in-line
baggage screening system for Southwest Airlines at FLL in 2011-2012. The Broward
County Aviation Department (BCAD) hired a consultant to perform the design of the
system, and amended the Airport’s use-and-lease agreement with Southwest Airlines
for the construction of the system. Southwest was able to complete the construction
much quicker than BCAD would have, due to the Airport’s time consuming process
required for bidding and change order processing. However, a key lesson learned was
that the Design-Bid-Build (DBB) delivery method for in-line baggage screening
systems in general is less efficient and more expensive than a Design-Build (DB)
method. This relates to the bag handling equipment design being specific to the
manufacturer of the equipment, and the equipment manufacturer is not known until the
construction bids are received. A design consultant designing such a system in advance
of bidding results in inefficiencies due to duplicative baggage system design (and
therefore greater expense).
This led to a change in the procurement method to DB for two subsequent in-
line baggage screening systems at FLL. The use-and-lease agreements for Delta and
JetBlue were amended for those airlines to contract for the design and construction of
the in-line baggage screening systems in their respective airport terminals. The airlines
in general have demonstrated that they can complete the design and construction much
quicker than the Airport Owner can. In both instances, the design and construction
managed by the airlines was based upon a design criteria package developed by a
consultant hired by BCAD.
The final example of airline-led project delivery methods is also at FLL. In late
2013, BCAD amended Southwest Airline’s use-and-lease agreement for a $295 million
addition of five gates onto Terminal 1 and major renovations to that terminal.
Southwest Airlines is the dominant carrier in this terminal. Their involvement in the
conceptual design phase was very important and helpful to ensure the project will meet
the long term needs of the airline.
One of the key lessons learned through all of these airline-led projects is that
the airlines have a vested interest in completing the project in an economical and
expeditious manner. The DB procurement method through an amendment to their use
and lease agreement puts the airline in control of the project from design through
construction. It also substantially reduces the likelihood of the Airport Owner
inhibiting the timely completion of the project. This is especially true when a

reasonable contingency amount is included in the lease amendment, to cover
unforeseen conditions that may arise during construction. Impediments to turning over
the management of capital projects to the airlines are that the airlines are generally still
obligated to follow the procurement rules of the Airport; the Airport Owner loses
control over the day-to-day management of the project; and a single airline is put in
charge of a project that, in many cases, impacts several other airlines.
When there is a single airline using a large component of an airport facility, and
that airline has experience in managing large capital projects, the airline-led project
delivery method can be a successful way of completing a project more quickly and
economically than an Airport Owner could.
PART 3: PROJECT MANAGEMENT BY IN-HOUSE AIRPORT STAFF
Properly trained and educated in-house staff can manage a large volume of
capital projects at medium and large hub airports. The key to successfully using in-
house staff is having good project controls systems, good standard operating
procedures, and a mechanism for supplementing staff on an as-needed basis.
Consistency in project management protocol between several project managers,
including ongoing updates as procedures change and training for new project managers,
will ensure that time is not wasted figuring out what to do, when to do it, and who to
involve throughout a project’s lifespan. To exemplify this point, a Project Management
Procedures Manual was developed at CRAA and is in the process of development at
BCAD.
In 2009, over $400 million in airport capital projects was managed by 10 in-
house project managers at the Columbus Regional Airport Authority. In 2013, over
$600 million in projects was managed by nine project managers at BCAD. Those
BCAD project managers were not affiliated with the FLL Airport Expansion Program,
which is described in the “Program Manager” section of this paper below. As the
project volume grew at both CMH and FLL, it was important to supplement the in-
house project managers with an adequate number of consultant staff who would
perform the daily, on-site inspection during construction. This flexibility in managing
the overall workload demands allows the Airport Owner to maintain a consistent level
of in-house project management staff, and to virtually eliminate the need for project
manager layoffs during slow periods. Another point to recognize is that some small
projects can be just as time-consuming to manage as much larger projects. This is
important to realize when determining an equitable distribution of in-house staff project
management workload. This factor is a result of government entities having to follow
the same processes through design, bidding, change orders, and construction, no matter
what the size of the project is.
One reoccurring debate at CRAA and BCAD was whether an independent
construction inspection company was needed for the daily inspection during
construction, or whether that inspection should be done by the consultant design
Architect/Engineer (A/E). At CMH, an independent inspection company was used on
most vertical building projects, and the A/E was used for inspection on most pavement
projects. Pavement projects were, in general, less complex and appeared to benefit
more from having the A/E provide the daily construction inspection. At BCAD, the

trend was toward an increasing use of an independent inspection company for both
horizontal and vertical projects. The rationale was that an independent company would
not be inclined to cover up or ignore construction issues that could be related to design
consultant errors or omissions. A general observation is that when schedule is the
driving factor in a project, allowing the A/E to provide construction inspection and
quality control testing streamlines the documentation process and allows a single
source of responsibility. When quality drives the project, an independent construction
inspect firm provides value-added oversight of the construction. No matter who does
the daily construction inspection, the Airport Owner still must ensure that the inspector
is providing thorough and timely inspection reports; timely identification and follow
up on all construction issues; and constant feedback to the Owner on potential change
orders, quality issues, schedule, and budget.
Another reoccurring debate at both airports was whether the in-house project
managers should manage projects “cradle to grave” (from design concept through
construction close-out), or specialize in only design project management or
construction project management. The author performed a survey of six medium and
large hub airports in 2009 on the subject. What the author found was there was no
consistent best practice. Some airports did “cradle to grave” project management, and
were very happy with that approach. Some airports managed the design phase with
different staff than those who managed the construction phase, and were very happy
with that approach. The main advantage to the separation of design phase management
from construction phase management was the ability for staff to use and develop
expertise in their focus area. There are substantially different skills and experience
required to effectively manage a design contract versus a construction contract. The
main advantage of managing “cradle to grave” is that there is no learning curve or lost
knowledge of project history and details when the transition occurs between the design
and the construction phases. The author’s experience is that the “cradle to grave”
approach was more effective on the projects at CMH and FLL.
PART 4: PROJECT MANAGEMENT BY A CONTRACTED PROGRAM
MANAGER
A Program Manager was hired by CRAA in mid-2001 to develop the CMH
Master Plan, and to eventually manage the resultant design and construction of that
Master Plan. At the time, the aircraft ramp space around the single airport terminal was
at capacity, and the airlines were demanding more capacity as soon as it could be
constructed. However, the terrorist acts on September 11, 2001 changed the rapid
growth of CMH to the extent that the Program Manager was used only for the
development of the CMH Master Plan. A “Peer Review” of the Master Plan concept
was held, which involved the participation of several airport management and aviation
consultant leaders in the review of the CMH Master Plan. This Peer Review was an
excellent and relatively inexpensive way of getting the best lessons learned from those
who had been through the complicated process of developing other airport master
plans. Another key lesson learned was to make sure the Program Manager assigns the
lead contractual Program Management role to a person employed by the prime

consultant holding the contract, and not to a subconsultant. This helps ensure a single
point of responsibility and conflict resolution for the contract.
At FLL, a Program Manager was hired in 2009 to manage the design and
construction of the Airport Expansion Program (AEP). The AEP, still underway, is
composed of a $1.2 billion program to replace and expand an existing runway to
increase airfield capacity; and to expand an existing airport terminal to increase
terminal capacity. Two separate companies were hired to provide the construction
inspection and “Owner’s Representative” construction management: one for the
runway expansion project and one for the adjacent terminal expansion project. While
this spread the work around the consulting industry, it resulted in some duplication of
effort and overlap of coordination in the common areas of work.
The Program Management Office (PMO) was a scalable supplement to the
BCAD project management (PM) staff. The benefits of having this staff supplement
are the ability to reduce PM staffing as projects are completed, and the ability to hire
consultant project managers who had specific experience with the particular, large scale
type of project they were managing (for example, building a new runway over a
highway).
There are challenges of having this staff supplement provided by a consultant
rather than by in-house staff. One is the overlap of consultant and in-house staff
responsibilities. When consultant PMs and in-house PMs work side by side on the
same project, the in-house PM often has an inherent belief that they are of higher rank
than the consultant PM rather than an equal. The in-house PM often wants to have
control of the work the consultant PM is doing, so it is very important that the duties
of each be made very clear from the outset.
Another challenge is that while the Airport Management staff’s goal is to have
a quality project completed on time, completed at the least expense, and completed
with the lowest long-term operating cost, the Program Manager’s ultimate goal is to
make a profit on the contract and enhance their companies’ ability to get more contracts
in the future. These differences become more material when contract amendments are
being negotiated or when there are issues with the Program Manager’s performance. It
is important for both the Airport Owner and the Program Manager to realize each
other’s perspectives and motivating factors when dealing with contract and
performance issues.
An important lessoned learned at FLL was the importance of co-locating the
consultant PMO staff with the in-house PM staff. This greatly improves
communication between the parties, and better ensures a team approach to the
management of the Program. The FLL PMO was in place over a year before the co-
location occurred, and there was a marked improvement in communication and
cooperation between the PMO and the Airport staff after the co-location occurred.
Having a Program Manager can be a great asset on a very large and unique
capital program. However, a Program Manager adds a large percentage of overhead
and complexity of management structure to a program. Careful consideration of the
true need, benefits, and consequences of hiring a Program Manager should occur well
in advance of hiring one. The role of the PMO with respect to the construction
management and inspection function should also be fully considered before hiring a
PMO, especially since all of those functions are being performed on the Airport’s

behalf. The greater the number of contracted entities to the Airport, the more time is
needed for the management of those contracts; and the more time and money is needed
to coordinate between all those entities.
CONCLUSIONS
Each project delivery method can be successful if it is used in the right
circumstance. Each project delivery method can fail if it is either used in the wrong
circumstance, or if it has key staff members who are not the right fit for the project and
its delivery method. The Transportation Research Board’s (TRB’s) Airport
Cooperative Research Program (ACRP) Report 21: “A Guidebook for Selecting
Airport Capital Project Delivery Methods” (2009)3 is an excellent reference tool for
evaluating the impacts, advantages, and disadvantages of the three primary project
delivery methods (DBB, DB, and CMR). It is most helpful when an Airport Owner
evaluates the various delivery methods during the planning stages of the project, prior
to any design occurring. Establishing a standard policy or philosophy for the use of
alternative delivery methods is also helpful, recognizing that many projects are similar
in nature and do not require extensive evaluation prior to determining a delivery
method.
Airports should strongly consider allowing airlines to implement large capital
projects when the airline is either the sole or the primary user of the resultant project.
Airlines will generally have the ability to complete the work in a more expeditious and
cost efficient manner.
Capital programs of nearly all sizes can be effectively managed by in-house
Airport staff. Having established project controls and project management protocols
in place will help in-house staff be more efficient, and better able to handle a larger
project workload. When “mega” programs surface, or when a special capital program
outside the normal, long term workload is on the horizon, a consultant Program
Manager can be useful. Some factors to facilitate success in working with a Program
Management Office (PMO) are co-location of the key PMO staff with the Airport’s
project management staff, clear distinction of responsibilities between the PMO and
the Airport’s staff, and the ability to scale the size of the PMO to the size and needs of
the capital program as it evolves.
No matter what project delivery method is used, or what staff manages the
projects, the most successful projects will always involve effective communication;
cooperation between team members; attention to detail; and timely decision making.
APPROVALS
Representatives of the City of Columbus (Ohio), the Columbus (Ohio) Regional
Airport Authority and the Broward County Aviation Department (Fort Lauderdale,
Florida) have reviewed and consented to the publication of this paper.
REFERENCES

1Massachusetts Airport Authority’s General Project Delivery Philosophy,
www.massport.com/doing-business/pages/capitalimprovements.aspx.
2Energy Conservation Measures, Ohio Revised Code Section 717.02,
http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/717.02
3Transportation Research Board (TRB) Airport Cooperative Research Program
(ACRP) Report 21: “A Guidebook for Selecting Airport Capital Project
Delivery Methods” (2009), http://www.trb.org/main/blurbs/162449.aspx

ASCE T&DI Abstract 40 - Final Paper

More Related Content

What's hot

Similar to ASCE T&DI Abstract 40 - Final Paper

ASCE T&DI Abstract 40 - Final Paper