Research Profiles

Construction project control is a process that is concerned with attempting to complete the contracted works within the allocated timeframe and the pre-agreed budget, all in accordance with the set quality standards. To this end, the earned value management (EVM) method is undoubtedly recognized as a well-established technique offering an integrated approach for the efficient monitoring and controlling of the project’s cost and schedule targets during the course of execution. However, several limitations have been steadily reported in the literature concerning the underlying assumptions and practicability of this method, as perceived by key players in a number of industries, and more so in the construction industry. These implementation obstacles have led to the performance of extensive investigations dealing with ways and means that can improve the representation, usage, and measurements of the EVM sets of metrics. That said, this research aimed at investigating several decision-aid frameworks that can systematically guide the construction contract engineer in making the EVM tool better accustomed and suited for exercising project controls and administrating construction contracts, while making use of and benefiting from the enhanced capabilities of the technique that are widely spread in the archived literature. To this effect, the adopted multi-step methodology included: (1) the verification of the degree of importance of project controls in relation to project success, in order to establish the continued need for improving on the current practices related to putting in place effective project control processes; (2) the classification of the shortcomings and challenges reported to be incumbering EVM’s employability as a project controls tool; and (3) the compilation and synthesis of the encountered improvements, with the aim of gaining discernment on how the reported EVM shortcomings may probably be overcome. The main research outcomes involved developing several EVM-based frameworks, which shall be of value to the construction contract engineer, through stipulating an integrated set of methods and metrics used for: (i) checking the analytical schedule-based cash flow S-curve (i.e., planned value) submitted by the contractor, (ii) dealing with interim-payment valuations and certifications, and (iii) forecasting and updating the remaining duration for the construction project on hand. Finally, these outcomes revealed an opportunity for developing a number of particular provisions that can be adopted by contract administration practitioners when deciding on or drafting the construction contract conditions. As such, the developed particular conditions clarify and set out the related requirements to be met by contractors and the types of authority to be entrusted with the engineer for facilitating the employability of the proposed frameworks, thereby potentially minimizing the likelihood of conflicts and disputes to arise between owners and contractors on construction projects.

"As claims have become inevitable throughout the course of construction projects, claim/dispute administration mechanisms have gained considerable attention in the last years. These are offered by several standard contract conditions, including those drafted by the American Institute of Architects (AIA), Engineers Joint Contract Documents Committee (EJCDC), ConsensusDocs, International Federation of Consulting Engineers (FIDIC), Joint Contracts Tribunal (JCT), and New Engineering Contract (NEC). In fact, contract conditions governing the administration of construction claims and disputes play a critical role, in that their underlying resolution mechanisms, when devised properly, can be expected to help expeditiously track the evolution of claims and disputes leading to their resolution. Such successful outcomes act to counteract the detrimental repercussions of unresolved claims on the progress of the project and the relationship between the parties to the contract. However, the literature is found to be lacking research work that can measure the efficiency of any proposed claim/dispute resolution mechanism or can advise as to an optimal (if any exists) such mechanism.
Therefore, this research aimed at rigorously studying and analyzing the claim/dispute resolution mechanisms set forth in various standard conditions in order to assess their offered capabilities and merits on the progression of claims and disputes. The adopted methodology included: (1) performing a comprehensive analysis of the claim/dispute mechanisms, adopted by the aforementioned standard conditions, (2) investigating the spectrum of judgment-rendering roles and their properties, (3) synthesizing an all-encompassing timeline that covers all options that can be possibly applied within each of its modules while pinpointing their differences to aid contracting parties in adopting the most suitable one, (4) designing an agent-based model to simulate the progression of claims and visualize various scenarios, and (5) proposing a claim/dispute framework that can be viewed as optimal in promoting a more efficient tracking and progression of claims and disputes.
The conducted research revealed several findings. The all-encompassing timeline, merging the full continuum of standardized mechanisms, showed that the phases of disclosure of claims, initial judgment, alternative dispute resolution, and arbitration are core to any claim and dispute resolution framework. However, other additional phases of alternative dispute resolution, discussions, and amicable settlement, albeit being optional, can be sequenced differently. On the other hand, the agent-based simulation models showed that the presence of discussions, mediation, and adjudication is essential in order to have a higher possibility of resolving claims prior to being referred to arbitration. Finally, the simulation models revealed that the significant phases can be best sequenced as follows: disclosure of claim, discussions, initial judgment, adjudication, mediation, and arbitration."

"Time is a major constraint in today’s competitive market. Delivering construction projects using the sequential process of the design-bid-build (DBB) method is lengthy and lacks the constructability inputs of the builder. However, this project delivery method (PDM) affords a compatible coordination for the various design elements (DEs) due to the one-time packaging of design deliverables. In contrast, alternative PDMs, such as the construction manager at-risk (CMAR) or the design-build (DB), allow for a faster project completion due to the aspired timesaving associated with the earlier involvement of the builder and the concurrency of the various project functions (e.g., design, construction). On the one hand, starting construction with partially completed design may result in various degrees of incompatible coordination. This incompatibility occurs between the released deliverables and other associated unreleased elements that are usually at different design development stages. On the other hand, when the design consultant assumes the role of a design subcontractor, under a contractor-led DB delivery method, sub-optimally detailed releases for construction – due to the lack of owner’s review requirement − are commonly expected.
There stems the significance of this research work that aims at addressing the implications of releasing design deliverables under alternative PDMs. These implications are related to the design agreement negotiation and formation process, the design consultant’s liability exposure and indemnity, and the quality of the built facility. To this end, the adopted methodology includes four steps: (1) visualize the pattern and packaging of design information release (DIR) under alternative design-construction modes, (2) conceptualize the models pertaining to the design consultant’s staging of services and infer the expected changes in the staffing requirement and fee proposal, (3) test whether the adoption of a specific project organizational structure impacts the exposure of the design consultant to professional liabilities, and (4) track the rework resulting from the incompatible and deferred coordination under the DB method using the Building Information Modeling (BIM) platform and formulate the decision-making flowcharts with respect to proceeding with design and/or construction rework after either a release-imposed or a design-progression mandated coordination. These flowcharts inform the development of a time-variant performance analysis that considers the self-deficiency of the released DEs, the development deficiency of the associated elements, and how the resultant incompatibilities are resolved over time.
These multi-scenario analyses will aid the design-builder, the owner, and the design consultant in controlling quality-related matters with respect to their respective perceived risks and liabilities. Accordingly, from the design-builder’s perspective, monitoring time and budget performance in view of potential reworks leads to a better assessment and planning for potential risks. On the other hand, the analyses indirectly inform the owner about the long-term risks associated with undesired life-cycle costs of the built facility. Finally, this research study serves as an eye-opener for the design consultant when planning and organizing for the assignment of resources required under each PDM. Accounting for the quality of design documentation, while keeping in mind the persisting liability burden, is expected to impact the capability and willingness of the design consultant to deal with (or accept to abide by) a certain pattern or extent of design information release that is in satisfaction with the construction priorities or preferences imposed by a DB contractor."
"Time is a major constraint in today’s competitive market. Delivering construction projects using the sequential process of the design-bid-build (DBB) method is lengthy and lacks the constructability inputs of the builder. However, this project delivery method (PDM) affords a compatible coordination for the various design elements (DEs) due to the one-time packaging of design deliverables. In contrast, alternative PDMs, such as the construction manager at-risk (CMAR) or the design-build (DB), allow for a faster project completion due to the aspired timesaving associated with the earlier involvement of the builder and the concurrency of the various project functions (e.g., design, construction). On the one hand, starting construction with partially completed design may result in various degrees of incompatible coordination. This incompatibility occurs between the released deliverables and other associated unreleased elements that are usually at different design development stages. On the other hand, when the design consultant assumes the role of a design subcontractor, under a contractor-led DB delivery method, sub-optimally detailed releases for construction – due to the lack of owner’s review requirement − are commonly expected.
There stems the significance of this research work that aims at addressing the implications of releasing design deliverables under alternative PDMs. These implications are related to the design agreement negotiation and formation process, the design consultant’s liability exposure and indemnity, and the quality of the built facility. To this end, the adopted methodology includes four steps: (1) visualize the pattern and packaging of design information release (DIR) under alternative design-construction modes, (2) conceptualize the models pertaining to the design consultant’s staging of services and infer the expected changes in the staffing requirement and fee proposal, (3) test whether the adoption of a specific project organizational structure impacts the exposure of the design consultant to professional liabilities, and (4) track the rework resulting from the incompatible and deferred coordination under the DB method using the Building Information Modeling (BIM) platform and formulate the decision-making flowcharts with respect to proceeding with design and/or construction rework after either a release-imposed or a design-progression mandated coordination. These flowcharts inform the development of a time-variant performance analysis that considers the self-deficiency of the released DEs, the development deficiency of the associated elements, and how the resultant incompatibilities are resolved over time.
These multi-scenario analyses will aid the design-builder, the owner, and the design consultant in controlling quality-related matters with respect to their respective perceived risks and liabilities. Accordingly, from the design-builder’s perspective, monitoring time and budget performance in view of potential reworks leads to a better assessment and planning for potential risks. On the other hand, the analyses indirectly inform the owner about the long-term risks associated with undesired life-cycle costs of the built facility. Finally, this research study serves as an eye-opener for the design consultant when planning and organizing for the assignment of resources required under each PDM. Accounting for the quality of design documentation, while keeping in mind the persisting liability burden, is expected to impact the capability and willingness of the design consultant to deal with (or accept to abide by) a certain pattern or extent of design information release that is in satisfaction with the construction priorities or preferences imposed by a DB contractor."

With the increasing reliance on Public-Private Partnerships (PPP) in roadway construction and preservation, and due to the long-term nature of these concession contracts, there arises the need for practical and reliable tools that help in assessing the rights and responsibilities of each of the two main parties involved in a PPP road project – the highway agency and the concessionaire – thus forming a clear basis for the negotiations conducted between PPP parties whenever a change in the contract terms is required. This study addresses three risks that are directly related to the pavement’s technical aspect in PPP highway projects: 1) the non-compliance with the standard construction specifications, 2) the increased legal load limit and 3) the traffic volume risk. This will provide a framework for effectively managing these risks, through an accurate estimation of the effect of each risk on the financial flow of the negatively-impacted PPP partner. First, the non-compliance of contractors with the standard construction specifications set by transportation agencies is a major concern in all pavement construction projects. In traditional road procurement strategies, the owner imposes “penalties”, also known as “pay-adjustment factors” on the contractor in case the latter delivers an out-of-specs pavement construction. Pay-factor assessment methods available in the literature consider only the time to the first heavy maintenance activity and the increased agency cost. Such methodologies are not suitable in the context of a long-term complex PPP road project. Accordingly, the present study proposes a methodology for assessing the pay-adjustment factor to be imposed by the concessionaire on the construction subcontractor based on the predicted performance of the out-of-specs pavement. Both the agency and user costs, as well as all maintenance activities performed throughout the concession period, are included in the analysis. The pay-factor assessment method must be addressed during the negotiation phase and approved by the highway agency or its representative, who will be responsible for monitoring the performance of the pavement throughout the concession period, ensuring that appropriate maintenance is conducted to maintain the pavement at a satisfactory ride-ability level, as required by the contract terms. Second, an increased legal truck load limit significantly affects the pavement performance, leading to its accelerated deterioration and imposing additional expenditures for maintaining the road condition at a satisfactory ride-ability level, as required by the contract terms. These expenditures, in a PPP road project, are typically borne by the concessionaire. This study proposes two compensation strategies that can be adopted by the highway agency to remunerate the concessionaire for the increased maintenance costs caused by the increase in the legal truck load limit. The level of compensation depends on the corresponding reduction in the pavement performance throughout the concession period. Finally, inaccurate traffic volumes forecasts represent a major concern in PPP road projects. The two most common traffic volume risk sharing mechanism are the Minimum Revenue Guarantee (MRG) and the Least Present Value of Revenues (LPVR). Current practices in traffic volume risk sharing mechanisms ignore the effect of the change in traffic volumes on the pavement maintenance costs, therefore leading to an unfair risk management. Accordingly, this study addresses traffic volume risk by investigating the effect of the deviation in traffic levels on two major PPP parameters: the generated tolls and the maintenance costs. Then, the MRG and LPVR are adjusted by incorporating the effect of traffic volume risk on the project’s total cash flow, as to ensure a fair risk sharing between PPP partners. Briefly, the methodologies presented in the study require an accurate prediction of the pavement performance subject to the previously described scenarios: 1) delivering an out-of-specs pavement construction, 2) increasing the legal load limit and 3) encountering lower or higher than forecasted traffic levels. The AASHTOWare Pavement ME was used for the performance prediction, along with the LCCA tool, RealCost and a numerical model developed by the World Bank specifically designed for the financial analysis of PPP road projects. The findings of the this study imply that the most critical parameter that needs to be carefully monitored by the construction subcontractor is the thickness of the asphalt-concrete layer, followed by the air-voids content in the asphalt mix. The binder content, on the other side, seems to have a relatively low impact on the pavement’s performance. This is justified by the fact that high quality materials are typically used for the construction of PPP road projects, thus increasing the pavement’s resistance to rutting. Furthermore, the proposed strategies that can be adopted by the highway agency to compensate the concessionaire for the increase in the allowable truck load limit are dependent on the pavement’s characteristics, in terms of the materials used in the different pavement layers, as well as the traffic and climatic conditions. Finally, the results of the conducted financial analysis considering different traffic volumes emphasize the need to include the resulting effect on the maintenance expenditures, as well as the generated toll revenues. In fact, ignoring the impact of the traffic level on the maintenance cost leads to an unfair traffic volume risk sharing between PPP partners.

The roles and responsibilities of structural engineers have varied substantially over the years and continue to do so as the profession strives to meet the emerging challenges and opportunities related to new trends such as sustainability, globalization, technological advancements, complex and diversified project delivery methods as well as increased threats from natural events, accidents, blast loading or other similar causes. Structural engineering is also a vital and unique profession since it bears directly on the life safety of the general public, exposing structural engineers to high risks and liabilities. It is the engineering discipline with the highest frequency and severity of claims as well as the highest insurance rates per fees. Moreover, structural engineers remain intrinsically interlinked with various parties as they operate and may be involved in a potential split or transfer of liabilities with them. However, all stakeholders continue to venture into projects unprepared and unaware of the dynamics and implications of such liability shifts. From this stems the significance of this research which aims to investigate the types and extents of the liabilities faced by structural engineers in light of their changing roles and responsibilities and to then explore how these may be shared or transferred to other parties. To this end, the adopted multi-step methodology involved 1) conducting and analyzing integrative literature reviews, case law reviews, expert interviews, and real engineering case studies based on which the various parties who may be implicated in liability splits were identified and the subsequent steps of this research study were carried out, 2) developing constructs for the split of structural liabilities with contractors under relevant project delivery methods and based on qualitative split models, 3) elaborating constructs for the sharing or transfer of liabilities with internal reviewers as well as with external technical controller and third-party reviewers under various review types, 4) establishing a framework for the development of an effective structural Knowledge Management System (KMS) and constructs for the knowledge exchange process and related liability splits and, 5) developing constructs mapping the apportionment of liabilities with respect to knowledge sharing both intra-organizations in large global engineering consulting groups, within structural design groups, with other disciplines or with firms as well as inter-organizations between the project stakeholders. Finally, the different constructs will inform the development of a general framework delineating all potential sharing or transfer of structural liabilities with relevant parties. The findings of this research will give to structural engineers as well as to other engaged parties an in-depth understanding of the dynamics and the implications of these liability shifts on their work and incurred liabilities. This in turn will help them enter into well thought-out contracts, be prepared to better assume their duties and develop appropriate risk management plans to avoid and mitigate potential claims and disputes.