Melbourne Metro Tunnel Project: Methodology for Delivery System

This report provides a comprehensive analysis of project delivery systems, focusing on the Melbourne Metro Tunnel as a case project. It begins with a literature review of project management techniques and project delivery methods, highlighting the importance of resources, tools, and techniques in project success. The report then introduces the Melbourne Metro Tunnel project, detailing its objectives and current status. A methodology for the project delivery system is proposed, including requirements, a SWOT analysis, and implementation strategies. The evaluation of the proposed system, expected outcomes, and a conclusion summarizing the findings are also presented. The report concludes by emphasizing the need for tailored project management approaches based on specific project requirements.

Running head: DELIVERY SYSTEM OF THE CASE PROJECT
DELIVERY SYSTEM OF THE CASE PROJECT
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1DELIVERY SYSTEM OF THE CASE PROJECT
Table of Contents
Introduction................................................................................................................................2
Literature review........................................................................................................................3
Case Project:...........................................................................................................................3
Project Deliverable System:...................................................................................................3
Performance comparison of PDMs........................................................................................8
Project Delivery Method Selection......................................................................................10
Development of methodology..................................................................................................11
Requirements........................................................................................................................11
Methodology........................................................................................................................13
SWOT Analysis...................................................................................................................14
Implementation of the methodology........................................................................................15
Evaluation of PDS................................................................................................................18
Results and expected outcome.................................................................................................19
Conclusion................................................................................................................................19
References................................................................................................................................21
Bibliography.............................................................................................................................24

2DELIVERY SYSTEM OF THE CASE PROJECT

3DELIVERY SYSTEM OF THE CASE PROJECT
Introduction
Project management is one of the crucial aspects that defines the success of the
project. The subject of the paper is project management, that defines the measures that should
be adopted to ensure that the all the operations are done with utmost attention. The attention
is also cited to the components that ensures the success of the operations. The components in
discussion are the resources, techniques, tools and others. However, the project management
techniques differ in nature according to the need for the project. Several project management
approaches have been made available by the scholars who have devoted their time to the
project management. Another one of the crucial aspects of a project management tools and
techniques is a project delivery system which is a collection of decision making, service
providing and operations for the delivery of the project.
The discussed paper aims at presenting a methodology for case project delivery
system. The case that had been selected for the project delivery system is the Melbourne
Metro Tunnel. A brief introduction of the project, current status of the project and the needs
of the project has been defined to pursue with the paper. Literature review of the past
scholarly work has been done to identify the current status of knowledge that is available in
context to the project management in construction industry. Following the review, the paper
has offered a methodology that will assist in successful delivery of the project. Furthermore,
attention has also been cited on the implementation of the proposed methodology along with
the results and the outcome that is expected of the system before summarising the paper to
conclude on the findings.

4DELIVERY SYSTEM OF THE CASE PROJECT
Literature review
Case Project:
The Victorian Government along with the Metro Tunnel Project is aimed at initiating
the project “Turn up and Go” train service. This is generally considered to be one of the
prominent feature that most of the major cities all across the globe are having. This is
generally considered to be one of the largest rail infrastructure that Melbourne is having since
it was introduced in the CBD’s rail capacity which was a part of the city loop almost 30 years
ago (Metrotunnel.vic.gov.au, 2018). This tunnel was aimed at providing a 9KM rail tunnel
which connected the Kensington and the South Yarra which would be the part of the
Sunshine-Dnadenong line (Metrotunnel.vic.gov.au, 2018). This was also aimed at
establishing a new underground metro station at North Melbourne Arden, Parkville, State
library, Toen hall and Anzac. Besides this the stations situated underground would also be
associated with connecting the pedestrian with the major stations that includes the Town hall
with the Finders Street Station and the State Library with the Melbourne Central Station.
Project Deliverable System:
Till date no general definition has been provided for the project delivery system.
According to some researchers the project delivery system is generally defined as the
sequence of the project phases, parties that are involved in the project and the implicit
responsibilities that are provided to the project parties. Besides this the associated general
contractors are associated with defining the various project deliverable methods as the
comprehensive process associated with assigning of the contractual responsibilities so as to
design methods as the “the comprehensive process of assigning the contractual
responsibilities for designing and constructing a project. A delivery method identifies the
primary parties taking contractual responsibility for the performance of the work” (Zhou &
Ke, 2013). All this documented definition is not associated with complying one with another

5DELIVERY SYSTEM OF THE CASE PROJECT
and besides this the minor as well as the major differences can be identified as well. The
situation becomes more complex whenever the authors are associated with combining the
various kind of payment modes, procurement methods and the management methods with the
project development methods (Sullivan et al., 2017). In this the concept of procurement
method is also sometimes equal to the method of delivery which is often referred to as the
method of selecting the contractor or the architect. According to some of the recent
references a comparison has been depicted in the table provided below:
Concept Definition Types
Project delivery method Associated with defining
the sequencing of the
project phases, along with
the parties who are
involved in the project as
well as the implicitly
assigned roles, and
responsibilities that the
parties associated with the
project are having
Management method This is considered to be
mechanics which is used
for administrating and
supervising the process of
construction
Either retained by the
owner agency or is
outsourced including
CMA and PMDBB, DB,
CMR, IPD, and so on
Procurement This generally refers to Most of the practiced

6DELIVERY SYSTEM OF THE CASE PROJECT
method/selection method the procedures which is
used for the purpose of
selecting the designer or a
constructor for the project
procurement methods
includes the lowest bid,
best value, and
qualifications-based
selection
Payment
method/contracting
method
This generally refers to
the way that the owner
prefers so as to pay for the
services provided
Unit price, GMP, cost plus
fee, lump sum, and so on
According to the table provided above there exists different type of project delivery
methods which are available in today’s world. According to the PDMs which are closely
related with each other makes the process of classifying the PDM very difficult. According to
the CII or the Construction Industry Institution there exists three major fundamental PDMs
and this mainly includes the DBB or design-bid-build, DB or design-build and CMR or the
construction-manager-at-risk. Rwelamila and Edries, (2017), was associated with proposing
an amalgam of the different classifications from the perspective that different countries are
having. Besides this they were also associated with classifying the PDM into three categories
and this mainly includes the following:
 Separate and cooperative system which also included the conventional systems and
the variants as well
 Integrated systems which includes the DB and their variants
 Lastly, the management oriented systems which also includes management
contracting and the construction management as well.

7DELIVERY SYSTEM OF THE CASE PROJECT
According to Wang et al., (2017), the depth of the design is to be maintained along
with the implementation stage of the various delivery systems which are entirely different
from one another. So it is essential to structure the delivery system spectrum by depending
upon the depth of the design and the stages involved during construction. This has been
depicted in the figure provided below:
Figure 1: PDM spectrum. The scope of each PDM is from the left point of the
coordinate PDM.
In a similar way the figure 2 provided below also depicts the various kind of project
delivery approach, which are generally combined with the different phases of the PLC or the
Project Life Cycle. It is often seen that most of the project delivery approaches generally
extend far beyond the scope of the DB contracting by placing of the increasing functional
responsibilities.

8DELIVERY SYSTEM OF THE CASE PROJECT
Figure 2: Alternative PDMs.
Despite of the categorization of the PDM that are found in the various literature, this
paper has been associated with supporting the opinion regarding the relationship that exists
between the design and the construction is perceived. This is perceived in order to have the
most bearing regarding the evolution of the various consequent choices related to the project
delivery system. For this reason, the figure depicted below is associated with classifying the
PDM in a simple way (Pakkala, 2012). This is generally proposed by depending upon the fact
that if the design and the construction are integrated and achieved by making a single contract
without taking into account the financing, operations and many more. Along with this the
paper is also associated with distinguishing the concept of the delivery system and the
method which has been provided in table 1. For this reason, the method like the CM agency
or the CMA are in essence management methods and are not included in the project delivery
system. All this reason leads to the essential need of two fundamental project delivery
method that is DBB and DB. There exist various names for the PDMs throughout the
construction industry amongst which most of them are hybrids or are the modified versions of
these two methods.

9DELIVERY SYSTEM OF THE CASE PROJECT
Figure 3: Classification of PDMs. EPC may predate DB, but DB is always taken as
one fundamental project, so here we take EPC as one variant of DB
Performance comparison of PDMs
Amongst the studies which are existing right now regarding the performance
comparisons of the various PDMs, DBB, DB and construction management at risk or
the CRM acts as most important ones which are studied mostly. PDMs are having
advantages as well as disadvantages which has been demonstrated by the various
researchers. Konchar and Sanvido, (2013) has been associated with empirically
comparing the costs, schedule and the performance quality of the three major project

10DELIVERY SYSTEM OF THE CASE PROJECT
delivery methods that is the DDB, DB and the CMR. This has been done by making
use of the project-specific data that is collected from the 351 U.S building projects.
According to the study of Cheng et al., (2011), was associated with employing
the random effects that the meta-analysis model is having so as to statistically
integrate the results in previous studies. Besides this the meta-analysis results also
verified by the robust test which showed that the DB project is associated with
achieving the significant lower cost growth on an average rate. Along with this the
meta-analysis on different groups of studies also reflected the fact that the DB system
is associated with performing worse in the public projects. The DBB is seen to be
more conducive towards the control of cost growth under complex project conditions
(Rwelamila & Edries, 2017). The cost growth that is induced by the DB system is
associated with experiencing an initial growth which is followed by the shrinkage
because of the changes occurring in the policies. This is turn is associated with
reminding the owners about the fact that the PDM is to be selected in accordance to
the specific conditions of the project. Due to the reason that each of the projects are
unique in which the performance of the projects are influences by various factors
except the PDM. This in turn helps in understanding the fact that the results obtained
from the performance comparison is difficult to rely upon.
The study conducted by Rojas and Kell (2018), was associated with comparing
the cost growth performance that the CMR and the DBB methods are having in an
empirical way by the Pacific Northwest public school project. According to the results
there is significant difference between the CMR and the DBB in construction change
order costs.

11DELIVERY SYSTEM OF THE CASE PROJECT
Project Delivery Method Selection
The performance of the project is greatly impacted by the project delivery method
along with having a huge impact upon the construction as well. There exists no such project
delivery option which is perfect as one of the option might be better than another which is
dependent upon the unique requirements of projects. There exists number of objectives of the
owners in terms of cost, schedule, quality and he level of control while deciding the project
delivery method (Park et al., 2015). PDM is generally considered to be problem with multiple
objectives which is generally not an easy task. Most of the researchers have been associated
with exploring the problems related to PDM selection by determination of the selection
factors first without the usage of the results from the study related to the performance of the
comparison that has been stated above. After this various kind of decision analysis
technology has been adopted that includes the AHP, Fuzzy and the weighted matrix as well
so as to select the PDM that is most appropriate.
Article by Ghavamifar (2015), has been associated with providing a comprehensive
solution for the common challenges faced by the selection process of delivery method. The
DSS or the decision support system that has been developed in this research is associated
with providing a useful information along with the introduction of the advantages and the
limitations that each of the PDM is having for the decision makers (Liu et al., 2015). Besides
this the requisite well-structures decision making process is embedded with the proposed
framework of this decision aid tool which is reliable and sufficient in order to solve the
problem related to the appropriate selection process of the PDM. Four type of PDMs are
discussed in this and this includes the DBB, PPP, CMR and lastly DB.
Xia et al. (2011), was associated with establishing a fuzzy multi criteria decision-
making (FMCDM) model so as to select the DB operation variation that is most suitable.
Besides this a three-round Delphi questionnaire survey was conducted for the purpose of

12DELIVERY SYSTEM OF THE CASE PROJECT
identifying the appropriate selection criteria and the importance that they are having. Besides
this a fuzzy set theory approach, known as the modified horizontal approach is used along
with the bisector error method (Park & Kwak, 2017). This was done so as to establish the
fuzzy membership functions that is associated with enabling the clients to perform a
quantitative calculations regarding the performance of each DB operational variation.
Development of the FMCDM was done by making use of the weighted-mean method so as to
aggregate the overall performance of DB operational variations regarding the criteria needed
for selecting.
Wang et al., (2017), was associated with considering the project delivery system,
contract, and transaction management as a project transaction element consideration. Besides
this they have also been associated with putting the same model and along with this they also
made a decision about the selection through system science. The research has also been
associated with selecting the project delivery systems to some extent, however this is still
dependent upon the various selection factors. In a Similar way, Anderson and Oyetunji,
(2013), was associated with combining the project delivery method with contract strategy.
Which was followed by the development of the decision support tool so as to select the
project delivery and contract strategy (PDCS).
Development of methodology
Requirements
The case of the paper is Melbourne Metro Tunnel where the project owner is the
Victorian State Government’s Rail Projects Victoria (RPV) and CPB contractors along with
John Holland are responsible for successful completion of the project
(Metrotunnel.vic.gov.au, 2018). The requirements of the Melbourne Metro Tunnel have been
collected through the secondary means that includes reviewing of the scholarly works and the

13DELIVERY SYSTEM OF THE CASE PROJECT
Melbourne Metro Tunnel project summary. The key requirements and the process of
identification has been listed as follows:
i. Technology Scanning was done based on the needs of the case project and the
secondary literature. The scan reflected the need for ICT (Information
Communication & Technology) solutions, tunnel layouts, acoustic design and others.
ii. Construction Team was also surveyed based on their past works, tools and techniques,
project management approach and others.
iii. Project management approaches such as the Critical path, Critical Chain Project
Management and others also needs to be accounted for (Taniguchi & Agemi, 2018).
Furthermore, the different project delivery systems also demand attention. The most
prominent project delivery approaches are DBB (design bid build), DBB with CM
(Design bid build with construction management), DB (Design Build) and similar
others delivery approaches.
iv. Identification of the constraints and enablers are also a requirement that needs to be
offered the attention of the potential delivery system.
v. Site Investigation is also a notable concern that needed to be accounted to ensure the
feasibility of the project delivery system.
vi. Work package requirement: the table below cites the requirements
Works Package Procurement Models
Pre-construction preparation and service
relocation
Managing Contractor
Main tunnel development work and
knowledge of cut & cover methodology
Availability based PPP model
Rail infrastructure development Competitive alliance
Rail systems: ICT tools and other Competitive alliance

14DELIVERY SYSTEM OF THE CASE PROJECT
mechanical & electrical equipment
Widening the existing rail network Case by Case
Methodology
The following measures will be adopted to deliver the Melbourne Metro Tunnel with
desirable quality and within the allocated budget and time.
i. In-source: The project owner will administer the construction contracts and will be
supported by the bid on & build the project.
ii. Alternative delivery program: Ass part of the discussed step, the resources will be
integrated with the project delivery system that will increase the capacity for delivery
of a quality project. The discussed program will be a combination of three delivery
models that includes
a. Design Bid Build: Entire contract will be contracted and the construction
work will be bided and contracted separately.
b. Design Build: It will account for combining the engineering design and the
construction within one solicitation which will enable CPB contractors and
John Holland along with other contractors to work together and deliver the
project. It will further assist in carrying concurrent activities further
accelerating the project work.
c. Program Management will assist the firm in providing day to day directions,
implementation and case’s operational management.
iii. Local Bodies Projects will be capable of delivering
a. Consultants that can be retained by the RPV or on behalf of the local entities
to deliver the project within budget and time.

15DELIVERY SYSTEM OF THE CASE PROJECT
b. Qualified agencies will sign in an agreement with the RPV for developing,
bidding, letting and awarding the project along with awarding the construction
engineering.
The discussed measures could be adopted to ensure that the development for the
Melbourne metro tunnel project delivery system is considered. Hence, the project delivery
system should include four phases namely preparatory, planning, contract procurement and
contract execution phase. Preparatory and planning phase is to be undertaken at the
organisational level while contract procurement and contract execution needs to be
undertaken at the project level. Furthermore, it should include three process for a sustainable
delivery of the project that includes knowledge building process, implementation process and
implementation assessment process.
SWOT Analysis
Strength Weakness
 Owner involvement will be high.
 Well-defined budget scope.
 Fast track Schedule
 Assistance to the decision-makers in
making procurement decisions.
 Extra investment in managing
alternative delivery program.
 High involvement of the local
entities will create chaos.
 Issues may arise due to hierarchical
chain (owner, contractor, sub-
contractor and workforce)
Opportunity Threat
 Proposed for the discussed case and
hence, is highly compatible.
 Save time.
 High involvement of technology
exposes it to cyber-threats.
 Change in government may halt the
process and develop difficulty for

16DELIVERY SYSTEM OF THE CASE PROJECT
 Well-established framework.
 Involvement of all the bodies avoid
the development of conflict.
the project.
Implementation of the methodology
The tables below discuss the implementation processes based on the phases and the
concurrent processes.
Processes Description
Implementation The plan for the implementation of the project delivery system
initiates with the preparatory phase with respect to the contract
execution phase. The discussed process facilitates the
implementation by:
a) Identification of the decisions that are prominent for the
project delivery system
b) alignment of the project strategy with the project practices.
Knowledge building The discussed phase is aimed at enabling the project team to accept
the delivery system. To attain the discussed objective can be
attained by
a) Collection, verification, storing and dissemination lessons
that are would enable learning of implementation effort.
b) Identification of the data sources on the adopted project
delivery system.
Implementation Plan for the assessment of the project delivery system from the

17DELIVERY SYSTEM OF THE CASE PROJECT
Assessment initial stage to the execution phase. The discussed process will
ensure that the implementation and the operations are smooth and
functional and it includes:
a) Inclusion of the external and internal benchmarking.
b) Offering a feedback for the implementation progress to the
organisational decision making.
Phase Description
Preparatory This phase emphasizes on the identification
of the information that is available at the
organization level and this option can be
further utilized at the project and planning
level for the newly proposed delivery
models. Following is the list of five
objectives those have been utilized for
driving the high-level organizational
personnel:
To determine whether the available new
approaches have been available for the
application
To explain the reasons behind the change
To start the loop of information exchange
between the project and organization level
To define the strategies adopted for project

18DELIVERY SYSTEM OF THE CASE PROJECT
delivery
To start the loop of information exchange
between the project and surrounding level
Planning The organizational-level personnel will be
responsible for performing this phase and
also focuses on the implementation of
organizational changes, project priorities,
and early risk allocation strategies on the
project delivery.
Project champion or manager for the
initiation and delivery of the eventually
administering and procurement contracts.
There should be compatibility between the
financial and delivery approaches
considering the project and organizational
objectives.
Contract procurement This phase will be performed by the
organizational level personnel and/or project
personnel through focusing on the
performance monitoring in manner to
manage the contractual relationships those
are necessary for the project delivery. This
phase will be helpful in leading towards the
establishment of the contractual framework
among the selected project service provider

19DELIVERY SYSTEM OF THE CASE PROJECT
and the agency.
Contract execution This phase will be performed by the
organizational level personnel and/or project
personnel through focusing on the
performance monitoring, contract
management, final deliverable acceptance,
and successful delivery of the project. This
phase leads to the establishment of the
framework between the project service
provider, the interested parties and the
agencies.
Evaluation of PDS
The discussed section is aimed at detailing the PDs against various factors of thee
business case and that includes
i. Project Objectives: Melbourne Metro is developed based on the Urban Design
Strategy and hence one of its primary objective is sustainability along with other
project objectives that includes within budget and time. So, the delivery system is
compatible with the project objective because it offers a well-defined budget scope,
fast-track scheduling and also considers directly involvement of the project owner. As
the project owner in this scenario is Victorian State Government’s RPV, hence, the
development of project will obey by Urban Design Strategy and offer sustainability.
ii. Risk and constraints: The risk and constraints in the discussed scenario are the
construction risk such as noise & vibration, land stability and others. The proposed
delivery model is able to cope up with the risks and constraints of the construction

20DELIVERY SYSTEM OF THE CASE PROJECT
due to high involvement of the technology. Most of the system such as dust flyers,
HVAC system, construction equipment and others are mechanical in nature which
will also mitigate the threat of cyber-attack. However, it should be noted that if
systems are automated through cloud based IoT then appropriate cloud safety and
monitoring tools should be adopted.
Results and expected outcome
The discussion above has cited the project delivery system for the Melbourne Metro
Tunnel and it is expected to assist the project associates in decision making and other core
prominent needs. Furthermore, it will also assist the RPV and the contractors of the project to
select sub-contractors who will ensure that the delivery of the system is effective and
efficient. Furthermore, it will also support the project owner and the team to adopt adequate
measures that will ensure that the delivery of the project is of quality and effort, resource and
time saving.
Conclusion
Hence, the report in discussion could be summarised to state that the project delivery
system is one of the core needs of the project delivery and should be provided with adequate
attention. The report has discussed the case of Melbourne Metro Tunnel that is under the
ownership of RPV and the contractors of the project are John Holland and CPB contractors.
The project is one of the major projects that will define the progress of Victorian state and is
in need of adequate project management and project delivery system. Hence, the report in
discussion has discussed an overview of the case, followed by the literature review on the
subject to understand the current knowledge that is available about the subject. The
development of methodology for the case project delivery and the implementation strategy
for the same has also been considered as part of the paper. Different processes and phases of

21DELIVERY SYSTEM OF THE CASE PROJECT
the implementation strategy has been discussed in the paper before discussing the expected
outcome and the concluding on the paper. Hence, in conclusion, it would be justified to state
that project delivery system is one of the most crucial needs for the successful delivery of the
project. However, more prominent that the project delivery system is the selection of the most
appropriate delivery model that is compatible with the nature of project work and even
ensures successful delivery of the project within time and budget.

22DELIVERY SYSTEM OF THE CASE PROJECT
References
Anderson, S., & Oyetunji, A. (2013). Selection procedure for project delivery and contract
strategy. In Construction Research Congress: Wind of Change: Integration and
Innovation (pp. 1-9).
Chen, Y. Q., Liu, J. Y., Li, B., & Lin, B. (2011). Project delivery system selection of
construction projects in China. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(5), 5456-5462.
Ghavamifar, K. (2015). A decision support system for project delivery method selection in
the transit industry.
Konchar, M., & Sanvido, V. (2013). Comparison of US project delivery systems. Journal of
construction engineering and management, 124(6), 435-444.
Liu, B., Huo, T., Meng, J., Gong, J., Shen, Q., & Sun, T. (2015). Identification of key
contractor characteristic factors that affect project success under different project
delivery systems: empirical analysis based on a group of data from China. Journal of
Management in Engineering, 32(1), 05015003.
Metrotunnel.vic.gov.au. (2018). Managing construction noise and vibration | Managing
construction impacts | Construction | Metro Tunnel. [online] Available at:
https://metrotunnel.vic.gov.au/construction/construction-impacts/noise-and-vibration
[Accessed 3 Aug. 2018].
Metrotunnel.vic.gov.au. (2018). Urban Design Strategy | Design strategies and plans |
Planning | Metro Tunnel. [online] Available at:
https://metrotunnel.vic.gov.au/planning/design-strategies-and-plans/urban-design
[Accessed 3 Aug. 2018].
Pakkala, P. (2012). Innovative project delivery methods for infrastructure. Finnish Road
Enterprise, Helsinki, 19.

23DELIVERY SYSTEM OF THE CASE PROJECT
Park, H. S., Lee, D., Kim, S., & Kim, J. L. (2015). Comparing project performance of design-
build and design-bid-build methods for large-sized public apartment housing projects
in Korea. Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering, 14(2), 323-330.
Park, J., & Kwak, Y. H. (2017). Design-bid-build (DBB) vs. design-build (DB) in the US
public transportation projects: The choice and consequences. International Journal of
Project Management, 35(3), 280-295.
Rojas, E. M., & Kell, I. (2018). Comparative analysis of project delivery systems cost
performance in Pacific Northwest public schools. Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management, 134(6), 387-397.
Rwelamila, P. D., & Edries, R. (2017). Project procurement competence and knowledge base
of civil engineering consultants: An empirical study. Journal of Management in
Engineering, 23(4), 182-192.
Sullivan, J., Asmar, M. E., Chalhoub, J., & Obeid, H. (2017). Two decades of performance
comparisons for design-build, construction manager at risk, and design-bid-build:
quantitative analysis of the state of knowledge on project cost, schedule, and
quality. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 143(6), 04017009.
Taniguchi, Y., & Agemi, N. (2018). Structural Improvement of the Construction Joint of the
Cut and Cover Tunnels. In High Tech Concrete: Where Technology and Engineering
Meet (pp. 1985-1993). Springer, Cham.
Wang, L. C., Lin, Y. C., & Lin, P. H. (2017). Dynamic mobile RFID-based supply chain
control and management system in construction. Advanced Engineering
Informatics, 21(4), 377-390.
Xia, B., Chan, A. P., & Yeung, J. F. (2011). Developing a fuzzy multicriteria decision-
making model for selecting design-build operational variations. Journal of
construction engineering and management, 137(12), 1176-1184.

24DELIVERY SYSTEM OF THE CASE PROJECT
Zhou, F. Y., & Ke, H. (2013). Research on influencing factors index system for selecting a
project delivery system. In The 19th International Conference on Industrial
Engineering and Engineering Management (pp. 509-517). Springer, Berlin,
Heidelberg.

25DELIVERY SYSTEM OF THE CASE PROJECT
Bibliography
An, X., Wang, Z., Li, H., & Ding, J. (2018). Project Delivery System Selection with Interval-
Valued Intuitionistic Fuzzy Set Group Decision-Making Method. Group Decision
and Negotiation, 1-19.
Anumba, C. J., & Evbuomwan, N. F. (2013). Concurrent engineering in design-build
projects. Construction Management & Economics, 15(3), 271-281.
Chen, Y., Zhu, X., & Zhang, N. (2014, December). Comparison of project objectives and
critical factors between DBB and DB in China. In Industrial Engineering and
Engineering Management, 2014. IEEM 2009. IEEE International Conference on (pp.
583-587). IEEE.
Ding, J., Wang, N., & Hu, L. (2018). Framework for Designing Project Delivery and
Contract Strategy in Chinese Construction Industry Based on Value-Added
Analysis. Advances in Civil Engineering, 2018.
Ding, J., Wang, N., & Hu, L. (2018). Framework for Designing Project Delivery and
Contract Strategy in Chinese Construction Industry Based on Value-Added
Analysis. Advances in Civil Engineering, 2018.
Fahmy, S., & Jergeas, G. F. (2014). Design-build delivery system on trial. AACE
International Transactions, PM111.
Farnsworth, C. B., Warr, R. O., Weidman, J. E., & Mark Hutchings, D. (2015). Effects of
CM/GC project delivery on managing process risk in transportation
construction. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 142(3),
04015091.
Love, P. E. (2012). Influence of project type and procurement method on rework costs in
building construction projects. Journal of construction engineering and
management, 128(1), 18-29.

26DELIVERY SYSTEM OF THE CASE PROJECT
Love, P. E., Skitmore, M., & Earl, G. (2016). Selecting a suitable procurement method for a
building project. Construction Management & Economics, 16(2), 221-233.
Songer, A. D., & Molenaar, K. R. (2015). Selecting design-build: Public and private sector
owner attitudes. Journal of Management in Engineering, 12(6), 47-53.
Touran, A., Gransberg, D. D., Molenaar, K. R., & Ghavamifar, K. (2010). Selection of
project delivery method in transit: Drivers and objectives. Journal of Management in
Engineering, 27(1), 21-27.