New Study Has IPD on Top: But Not as Dramatically as Advertised in Some Quarters

In their focus on public-private partnerships, Douglas and Sykes of Farella Braun + Martel tout 30% life-cycle savings for P3 concessions over traditional delivery models.  This claim is based, in part, on a study from a Bay Area Council white paper: "Framework Conditions for Foreign and Domestic Private Investment in California's Infrastructue: Seizing the P3 Opportunity."  The council updated their white paper in 2012 with a report entitled "Accelerating Job Creation in California Through Infrastructure Investment."   There, the council cites the Long Beach Courthouse study which promised 25% life cycle cost savings, and a pre-bid study prepared by the joint venture team for the Presidio Parkway in San Francisco, which promised a 23% savings in construction costs over a traditional delivery method.

How reliable are these reports of 25% savings for construction and life-cycle costs.

On December 17, 2013 Julia Holden-Davis gave a presentation to Division 4 members regarding a recent study by Mounir El Asmar, professor at School of Sustainable Engineering and the Built Environment at the University of Arizona, Awad S. Hannah, professor in the College of Engineering at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and Wei-Yin Loh, also professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.  The study, Quantifying Performance for the Integrated Project Delivery System as Compared to Established Delivery Systems appeared in the November issue of the Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 139, Issue 11 (Nov. '13).  Unfortunately the article itself is behind a pay-wall.

Julia purchased a copy and studied it.  Here is her excellent summary.



A few points to note:

The report compared 12 IPD projects to 23 non-IPD projects, mainly in California and the mid-west.  The authors looked at 304 variables, including, of course cost and schedule.  The study suggests caution is in order when evaluating hyperbolic claims of "faster and cheaper."

 Asmar/Hannah/Loh conclude:

1. There was no significant cost difference between IPD and other delivery systems (CMR, DB, DBB).  The authors indicate that this confirms prior literature.

2. IPD projects slightly faster (but not dramatic)

3.  IPD'ish projects fared best of all in many of the metrics used.

4.  IPD had best results for quality, but no significant difference in latent defects.

5. The overall user experience with IPD was qualitatively better.