Sustainable Energy and Transportation Systems †MyAssignmenthelp

Question: Discuss about the Sustainable Energy and Transportation Systems. Answer: Introduction Faced with growing traffic, the NSW government has decided to expand the M4 motorway, given traffic into Sydney is growing at a pace. Because of the complexity of the problem such as having to keep 140000 vehicles moving through the transport corridor and the sheer volume of the project, the NSW decided no single company could undertake the construction project on their own. As such, the bidders had to form a joint venture, setting up a new entity (WestLINK), composed of three companies to undertake the project. In addition, the joint venture company has hired additional five consultants, and will work with over 180 specialty sub contractors to undertake the project. Being a publicly funded project, the NSW must ensure the project is undertaken as per the requirements; to be within the stated budget of AUD 16.8 billion, and be completed on tome (the deadline for completion is 2023), for the whole 39 km expansion of the M4 motorway. To ensure the success of a project, such as the mass ive M4 project, the owner must select the right person/ entity for the job. Further, there must be a team buy-in and a clearly defined scope. For this project, there are certain challenges that must be overcome (Jha, 2014). The challenges include keeping 140000 vehicles moving through the project corridor, completing the project within scope and time, keeping down costs, being able to form a cohesive team, and fast tracking the schedule. In lieu of these, the stakeholders have consulted APIC Consult, a general consultant on the best way to manage the project, in the context of the project delivery method and the financial contract method. The project delivery method refers to a system that an organization utilizes to finance and organize construction operations for a facility being constructed, through a legal framework with relevant parties (Lewis, 2011). Financial contractual method refers to the method chosen for financing the execution of the construction project (Weil, 2017). Having been contracted to advise the stakeholder on the best way to tackle the project, this paper details, after reviewing the various project delivery and financial contracting methods, the most suitable way with which to handle the project. Further, the best procurement method is also determined and advised. To do this, an evaluation matrix will be developed to evaluate the various methods based on their suitability for the overall proje ct and ability to overcome the stated project challenges, while ensuring the objectives of the project are met. To develop the evaluation matrix, this report will first set goals to use in the evaluation, based on the project requirements and the challenges, and then give scores to each f the different project delivery methods and the financial contracting types (Levy, 2011). A weighted score will then be developed for each for all the identified goals , which acts as the criteria weight, and the best methods proposed for the client (Ehrgott, 2010). Evaluation Goals Goal Criteria Weight Ability to Handle Project Complexity 10% Fast track schedule and cost control 15% Worker and Public safety 10% Unified and cohesive team 20% Meet 2023 deadline within stipulated cost 30% Risk 15% The criteria weights are awarded based on their importance, as a percentage (Kumar Dash, 2016); the ability to meet the deadline within the stipulated budget is a very important aspect of the project, and so is given the highest criteria weight. The success of the project depends on the team delivering the project; this team must have a unified vision and goal, and work in a synergistic manner in order to meet the deadline within cost, and so this goal is given the next highest criteria weight of 20%. Every project has a risk; the ability to effectively manage the risks is crucial for the success of the project, and so this is given a 15% criteria weight. Fast tracking the project schedule and keeping down costs is another important goal, and is given a similar criteria weight of 15%. The ability to keep traffic moving while undertaking the construction works is also a important aspect of the project that will ensure timely delivery, and so this is given a criteria weight of 10%. fi nally, work place health and safety is also an important aspect of any project undertaking to ensure the health and safety of both workers and the general public, so this is given a criteria weight of 10%. Weighting the project Delivery Methods Having established the project goals and deciding on the criteria weights, the next step is to give weighted scores to the project delivery methods (which are variables in the report0, with justification. This is in order to develop an aggregate score based on the criteria wight and help determine the best method for project delivery. The criteria weighting was done in a spreadsheet as shown in the table below by multiplying the criteria weight with the score awarded to each project delivery method out of 100 points. The sum for each project delivery method is then computed. Project Delivery Method Evaluation matrix Design-Build D-B Design-Bid-Build D-B-B Contract Manager at Risk CM@R Goal Criteria Weight Score Weighted Score Score Weighted Score Score Weighted Score Ability to Handle Project Complexity 10% 75 7.5 76 7.6 82 8.2 Fast track schedule and cost control 15% 88 13.2 85 12.75 85 12.75 Worker and Public safety 10% 80 8.0 80 8.0 84 8.4 Unified and cohesive team 20% 84 16.8 70 14 86 17.2 Meet 2023 deadline within stipulated cost 30% 77 23.1 70 21 84 25.2 Risk 15% 80 12 74 11.1 78 11.7 Totals 1 80.6 74.45 83.45 Justifications and Assumptions The weights are based on the inherent characteristics of the project delivery methods, their strengths, and weaknesses. D-B-B involves contracting different entities to undertake design and construction. While this method can fast track a schedule, and ensure safety, it will have challenges in creating a unified cohesive team, handling complexity, and risk; these factors can jeopardize its ability to deliver on time and within cost (Warhoe, 2013). In D-B, the contract for designing and building is given to a single contractor and so they can create a cohesive team better, effectively manage risks, meet the deadline within budget, and fast track the schedule, as well as handle complexity to a moderate level (Jackson, 2011). CM@Risk entails delivering the project within a GMP (guaranteed maximum price) based on the specifications for the contract. This method is suitable for consortia and brings in expertise from various fields and hence, can handle complex projects due to value engine ering. Schedules can be fast tracked and it can guarantee lower costs. The method takes the risk away from the project owner, and a unified cohesive team can be easily created. Because it has expertise, issues such as health and safety can be handled competently, hence it gets higher scores (Hess, 2007). On weighting, the CM@Risk is found to be the best approach, just better than D-B; D-B-B is the least suitable approach, and so CM@Risk is recommended as the best project delivery method. The goals are to keep costs low, finish project within budget, and lower risks to owner, and align with project objectives through cohesion. Criteria weights are given based on impact; with finishing project within budget and keeping costs low getting higher criteria weights Financial Contract Type Evaluation Matrix Fixed Cost plus Fee Lump Sum GMP Goal Criteria Weight Score Weighted Score Score Weighted Score Score Weighted Score Deliver project within budget 30% 78 23.4 82 24.6 85 25.5 Keep costs low 28% 75 21.0 85 23.8 83 23.24 Align project with objectives (cohesion) 20% 82 16.4 80 16.0 85 17.0 Lower Risks to owner 22% 74 16.3 85 18.7 85 18.7 Totals 100% 77.08 83.1 84.44 Rationale and Assumptions The fixed cost plus fee is where a fixed fee is set at project inception, although it may be adjusted; however, it gives contractors minimal incentive for cost control, hence it scores low on keeping costs low. It may raise risks for the owner too hence this score of low. For lump sum, the contractor gives a single universal price for all works; it lowers risk for the owner, can enable timely project delivery, will help keep down costs, and achieve project alignment (Glazov, 2010). The GMP entails payment for costs of undertaking works, plus a profit up to a specified ceiling. This method greatly lowers risks, can accelerate construction, greatly aligns with objectives, and will ensure project delivery within budget (Kassel, 2017). GMP just outperforms the lump sum method by a small margin, while fixed cost plus fee comes third. GMP is therefore the most suitable financial contract type for the project. Procurement Evaluation Matrix Competitive Procurement Negotiated Procurement Best Value Procurement Goal Criteria Weight Score Weighted Score Score Weighted Score Score Weighted Score Reduce Risks 17% 78 13.26 60 10.2 80 13.6 Innovations From Supplier Base 23% 78 17.94 72 16.56 79 18.17 Ensure Quality Delivery 30% 82 24.6 70 21.0 82 24.6 Cost Effectiveness 30% 75 22.5 65 19.5 74 22.2 Totals 78.3 67.26 78.57 Rationale and Assumptions Competitive Procurement is commonly used where bids are received from sellers and evaluated, and then a supplier chosen based on a given criteria. It significantly reduces risks such as substandard products, helps attain innovation and will ensure a high quality of products. Its also cost effective; however, not all bidder may be interested and so cost effectiveness is not guaranteed. For negotiated procurement, it entails inviting bidder without advertising and negotiating the finer details; this scores low in all goals because issues such as quality, cost effectiveness, and reduced risks cannot be guaranteed (Davidson, 2016). Best value procurement entails selecting vendors based on several criteria, and the vendors/ suppliers can be sourced through advertising or invitation. The vendor is selected based on scoring in areas relevant to the project objectives, and hence scores relatively high in all goals (Morledge Smith, 2013). The best value procurement method just outperforms co mpetitive bidding, and so is chosen as the best procurement method. Conclusion The NSW, in efforts to ease traffic in its main motorways, seeks to expand the M4 motor way in a complex project budgeted at $ 16.8 billion, to be completed by 2013 for 39 km of road. Some challenges arise; the need to move traffic moving, keep costs low and fast track schedules, ensure a cohesive team, ensure safety and health, and deliver the project on time. These goals can be overcome through effective project delivery, financial contracting, and procurement methods. To select the best methods, an evaluation matrix was used for scoring, based on the project objectives and challenges. The criteria therefore chooses CM@Risk project delivery method, GMP financial contracting, and best value procurement as the most suitable for this project References Davidson, N. M. (2016). Affordable housing and public-private partnerships. London: Routledge. Ehrgott, M. (2010). Multiple criteria decision making for sustainable energy and transportation systems: Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Multiple Criteria Decision Making, Auckland, New Zealand, 7th-12th January 2008. Berlin: Springer. Glazov, J. (2010). Construction Contracts: The 10 Most Important Terms - Price | Construction Law Today. Construction Law Today. Retrieved 2 April 2018, from https://www.constructionlawtoday.com/2010/01/construction-contracts-the-10-most-important- terms-price/ Hess, S. A., American Bar Association. (2007). Design professional and construction manager law. Chicago, Ill: American Bar Association, Forum on the Constuction Industry. Jackson, B. J. (2011). Design-build: Design-build essentials. Clifton Park: Delmar. Jha, K. N. (2014). Determinants of Construction Project Success in India. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. Kassel, D. S. (2017). Managing public sector projects: A strategic framework for success in an era of downsized government. London : Routledge Kumar, A., Dash, M. K. (2016). Fuzzy optimization and multi-criteria decision making in digital marketing. Hershey, PA : Business Science Reference Levy, S. M. (2011). Project management in construction. New York : McGraw-Hill Education Morledge, R., Smith, A. (2013). Building procurement. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. Weil, R. L. (2017). Financial accounting: An introduction to concepts, methods and uses. New York: Cengage Learning. Warhoe, S. P. (2013). Applying earned value management to design-bid -build projects to assess productivity disruption: A system dynamics approach. Boca raton, Fl; Dissertation.Com