Project Delivery Systems (PDS)

  • Ashish Gajurel


Traditionally project delivery system is defined as the process by which a project is designed and constructed for an owner, but these days PDS covers financing, planning, design, construction, operation, management, and maintenance of the project which have been delved into in this chapter.

Traditionally frequently used forms of PDS are design-bid-build (DBB), design-build (DB), and construction management at risk. There is, however, no formal system, methods, and principle which help in finding out the suitable project delivery method. Features, characteristics, procedures, advantages, and disadvantages of the project and the experiences of each player (owner, designer, constructor, and public authority) of the project are helpful in selecting appropriate project delivery method.


Public Authority Construction Cost Delivery Method Construction Phase Road Infrastructure 


  1. 1.
    Zimmermann J. Project delivery systems, lecture note in Lehrstuhl für Bauprozessmanagement und Immobilienentwicklung an der Technischen Universität München, issue January 2009.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Loulakis MC. Design build for public sector. New York: Aspen Publishers, Inc; 2003.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Terry GR, Franklin SG. Principles of management. 8th ed. Homewood: RD Irwin Publication; 1987.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Glavinich TE. Contractor’s guide to green building construction. New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons Publication; 2008.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sanvido VE, Kanchar MD. Project delivery systems, CM at risk, design-build, design-bid-build. Austin: The Construction Industry Institute – The University of Texas at Austin; 1998.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ohrn LG, Roger T. Defining project delivery methods for design, construction and other constructed related service in the United States, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Stanford University: project management, a department of land, building and real estate, Project delivery manual: Vols. 1 and 2.
  8. 8.
    Demkin JA (Bernstein PG, FAIA, RIBA, LEED AP). The American Institute of Architects. The architect’s handbook of professional practice. 14th ed. Hoboken: Wiley; March 2008.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    ASCE. Quality in the constructed project: a guide for owners, designers and constructors, ASCE manual no. 73. New York: ASCE; 2000.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Construction Specifications Institute. The project resource manual: CSI manual of practice. 5th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2005.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Molenaar KR, Yakowenko G (ASCE). Alternative project delivery, procurement, and contracting methods for highways. New York: ASCE; 2007.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ozdemir L. North America tunneling. Lisse: Swets and Zeitlinger B.V Publication; 2002.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Usher TE, Davenport P. Fundamental of building contract management, Australia, 2002.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Executive Summary, Design-Build Effectiveness Study. Final Report, US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, January 2006. Accessed 20 Mar 2010.
  15. 15.
    Kymell W. Building information modelling, planning and managing construction projects with 4D CAD and simulation. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2008.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pratt D. Fundamentals of construction estimating, delmar. New York: Cengage Learning Publications; 2004.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Local agencies and design – build contracting: a briefing paper for legislators and their staffs, Senate Committee on Local Government, Senator Patricia, Chair, State Capitol, Sacramento.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    The National Research Council. Exploratory study on responsibility, liability, and accountability for risks in construction. Washington, DC: The National Research Council; 1978.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Guidebook to highway contracting for innovation: the role of procurement and contracting approaches in facilitating the implementation of research findings, National cooperation highway research program. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1999.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Institute of Chemical Engineers. Form of contracts, lump sum contracts. 4th ed. Rugby: Institute of Chemical Engineers; 2001.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jackson BJ. Construction management JumpStart. San Francisco: SYBEX; 2004.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Levy SM. Construction superintendent’s operations manual. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2004.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Cushman RF, Loulakis MC. Design-build contracting handbook. New York: Aspen Law & Business; 2001.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Cunningham G, AIA. Commissioning large public project using construction manager at risk (CM@R), National conference on building commissioning, New York, 4–6 May 2005.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Molenaar KR, Yakowenko G. Alternative project delivery, procurement, and contracting methods for highways. Reston: ASCE; 2007.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kwak ZH, Randall B. Construction management at risk: an innovative project delivery method at stormwater treatment area in the Everglades, Florida. Accessed 20 Mar 2010.
  27. 27.
    Levy S. Design-build project delivery, managing the building process from proposal through construction. New York: MCGraw-Hill; 2006.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Moelmann LR, Harris JT. The law of performance bonds. Chicago: ABA Professional Education; 1999.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Satterfield Z. Tech Brief, Publisher by the National Environmental Service Center, West Virginia University, vol. 9, Issue 2, Summer 2009.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer India 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ashish Gajurel
    • 1
  1. 1.Institution of Engineering Civil Engineering/TransportaionTribhuvan UniversityKathmanduNepal

Personalised recommendations