Pramen Prasad Shrestha

Value for Money (VfM) analysis is the primary mechanism by which U.S. state agencies evaluate whether a project should be delivered through a public-private partnership (P3) or conventional public procurement. While the methodology has been widely applied, relatively little is known about how practitioners conduct these analyses and apply VfM in practice. This study addresses that gap through semi-structured interviews with 12 practitioners participating across 10 interview sessions involving VfM analyses for U.S. highway projects. Framework analysis was used to examine practitioner perspectives on VfM objectives, assumption development, risk assessment, financing, discounting, and critical success factors. The findings indicate that VfM practice is shaped by funding constraints, reliance on professional judgment, and the quality of stakeholder engagement. Participants described project environments in which fiscal considerations strongly influenced procurement decisions and payment mechanisms. Across all major modeling components, practitioners relied heavily on historical benchmarks, expert judgment, and comparable project experience due to the limited availability of project-specific empirical data during the pre-procurement stage. Communication, stakeholder engagement, and the transparency of assumptions were consistently identified as important contributors to analytical credibility and reliability. The study contributes a practitioner-centered perspective to the VfM literature and highlights the importance of strengthening the institutional foundations of VfM practice through improved data collection, post-completion evaluation, transparency, independent review and public-sector analytical capacity. The findings suggest that enhancing the quality of information and governance surrounding VfM analysis may be as important as methodological refinement in improving future procurement evaluations.

Public-private partnerships (P3s) have become an increasingly adopted delivery method for major U.S. highway infrastructure, with Value for Money (VfM) analysis serving as the primary analytical basis for procurement decisions. VfM assessments compare the estimated cost of conventional public delivery against the risk-adjusted cost of private delivery to determine the preferred pro-curement approach. While VfM analysis has been well-established at the procurement stage, no published peer-reviewed study has examined whether these estimates remain consistent with outcomes observed after project completion. This study addresses that gap by reconstructing pro-curement-stage and post-completion VfM values for seven completed U.S. highway projects using the FHWA P3-VALUE toolkit as a standardized analytical framework, with post-completion values updated using realized project data while maintaining a consistent model structure and discount rate. A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was applied to assess whether systematic differences existed between paired estimates. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test did not detect a statistically significant difference between procurement-stage and post-completion VfM estimates (exact two-sided p = 0.6875). VfM increased in three projects and decreased in four, while all seven projects retained their original directional VfM conclusions when the available post-completion information was incor-porated. However, the small sample size and limited statistical power mean that the non-significant result does not establish equivalence or demonstrate the general stability of procurement-stage VfM assessments.

Progressive Design-Build (PDB) differs from traditional lump-sum Design-Build (DB) by allowing project design, scope, and cost to be progressively developed before the final construction price is established. However, empirical comparisons of these two delivery methods across infrastructure sectors remain limited. This study compares the performance of lump-sum DB and PDB projects in the transportation, water/wastewater, and aviation sectors using data obtained from the Design-Build Institute of America database. After data screening, the final sample consisted of 95 lump-sum DB and 37 PDB projects. We evaluated cost growth, schedule growth, and construction intensity using descriptive statistics and nonparametric statistical tests. PDB projects exhibited significantly lower mean cost growth than lump-sum DB projects (1.76% vs. 3.24%, respectively; p = 0.006). Construction intensity was also significantly lower for PDB projects ($141K/day) than for lump-sum DB projects ($358K/day) (p < 0.001). No statistically significant difference was found in schedule growth (p = 0.131). Overall, the findings suggest that PDB may offer improved cost control while maintaining schedule performance comparable to lump-sum DB for infrastructure projects.

Progressive Design-Build (PDB) has gained increasing attention as an alternative project delivery method that promotes early collaboration between owners and design-builders. However, limited empirical research has systematically identified the factors that are critical to successful PDB project delivery. This study identifies and evaluates critical success indicators (CSIs) and groups them into broader critical success factors (CSFs) affecting the cost and schedule performance of PDB projects during the procurement and implementation phases. A literature review and exploratory expert survey were used to identify and validate the CSIs, followed by a questionnaire survey of industry professionals. Twenty-nine valid responses representing 55 PDB projects across multiple infrastructure sectors were analyzed using statistical analyses. Six procurement-phase and eight implementation-phase CSIs were identified as critical. Principal Component Analysis (PCA) was used to group the procurement indicators into four CSFs related to owner competencies, owner–design-builder working relationships, design-builder competencies, and owner procurement processes. Four implementation CSFs were identified: owner–design-builder working relationships; owner project management processes; owner and design-builder competencies; and owner-, design-, and change-management processes. The findings provide empirical guidance for owners and design-build teams to prioritize organizational, relational, and managerial practices that support successful PDB project delivery.

Value for Money (VfM) analysis is the primary mechanism by which U.S. state agencies evaluate whether a project should be delivered through a public-private partnership (P3) or conventional public procurement. While the methodology has been widely applied, relatively little is known about how practitioners conduct these analyses and apply VfM in practice. This study addresses that gap through semi-structured interviews with ten practitioners involved in VfM analyses for U.S. highway projects. Framework analysis was used to examine practitioner perspectives on VfM objectives, assumption development, risk assessment, financing, discounting, and critical success factors. The findings indicate that VfM practice is shaped by funding constraints, reliance on professional judgment, and the quality of stakeholder engagement. Participants described project environments in which fiscal considerations strongly influenced procurement decisions and payment mechanisms. Across all major modeling components, practitioners relied heavily on historical benchmarks, expert judgment, and comparable project experience due to the limited availability of project-specific empirical data during the pre-procurement stage. Communication, stakeholder engagement, and the transparency of assumptions were consistently identified as important contributors to analytical credibility and reliability. The study contributes a practitioner-centered perspective to the VfM literature and highlights the importance of strengthening the institutional foundations of VfM practice through improved data collection, post-completion evaluation, transparency, independent review and public-sector analytical capacity. The findings suggest that enhancing the quality of information and governance surrounding VfM analysis may be as important as methodological refinement in improving future procurement evaluations.

Public building projects in the United States continue to face challenges related to cost escalation and schedule delays, prompting increased interest in alternative project delivery methods. Although Design–Bid–Build (DBB) remains the most commonly used approach, Design–Build (DB) and Public–Private Partnership (P3) delivery methods are increasingly adopted with the expectation of improved project performance. This study uses three statistical tests to determine whether three performance metrics related to the cost and schedule of U.S. building projects delivered using P3, DB, and DBB are significantly different. Before conducting this test, project costs were adjusted to constant 2025 dollars using the RS Means City Cost Index to account for differences in completion years. On average, all three test results indicate that P3 projects’ cost growth (−2.61%) is significantly lower than that of DB (7.95%) and DBB (24.40%). Similarly, the schedule growth of P3 projects (−2.51%) was significantly lower than that of DB (2.65%) and DBB (27.09%). However, no statistically significant difference in the schedule was observed between DB and DBB. Differences in construction intensity were not statistically significant. These findings provide quantitative insight for owners when selecting delivery methods for building projects.

Across the United States, growing reinvestment needs, aging assets, and rising service expectations are placing increasing pressure on how water and wastewater projects are delivered. Traditional Design–Bid–Build (DBB) has been widely used, but alternative delivery methods such as Design–Build (DB) and Construction Management-at-Risk (CMAR) are being adopted with the expectation of better cost and schedule performance. Their increased use has created a need to assess their performance and compare these delivery methods in terms of cost and time. Performance comparisons of this nature have been conducted in the highway and building sectors; however, there has been limited research in the water and wastewater sectors. In addition, a performance comparison including construction intensity with a large sample size across all three delivery methods has not been conducted in water and wastewater projects. Hence, this study conducts a statistical comparison of DBB, DB, and CMAR using three project performance indicators: cost growth, schedule growth, and construction intensity, with costs normalized to 2025 for inflation and durations measured in working days. The analysis compares outcomes across delivery methods for both the full project sample and a consistent project-size range. Results indicate that cost growth is generally low and does not differ significantly between methods irrespective of project size. However, schedule performance and construction intensity vary by delivery approach and project size. The study found that DB and DBB schedule growth is better than CMAR when considering all samples. With samples of projects costing $10 million to $110 million, only DB schedule growth was found to be better than DBB and CMAR. Considering the entire sample, the construction intensity of DB was found to be superior to DBB and CMAR, and CMAR was superior to DBB. When the data are separated between $10 million and $110 million, only DB construction intensity was found to be superior to DBB and CMAR water and wastewater projects. The outcomes of the cost and schedule comparison among the three delivery methods can assist water and wastewater project owners in making well-informed decisions regarding the selection of the delivery method based on their project scope, time, and budget.

The United States confronts significant challenges within the water and wastewater sectors. According to the American Water Works Association (AWWA), a capital investment of $1.3 trillion is necessary for the repair and replacement of water infrastructures in the United States over the next 25 years. As alternative delivery methods are new in the water and wastewater sectors, the utility owners lack expertise and experience in executing these delivery methods. Thus, it is important to investigate the critical success items and factors of Design-Build (DB) methods, thereby ensuring that projects are completed within scheduled timeframes and budgets with better quality. To address this need, the present study undertakes a comprehensive literature review to identify the critical success factors associated with DB methods. Subsequently, a survey is conducted among both public and private utility owners to rank these items. The study identifies top critical success items related to completing projects within schedule and budget. Through principal component analysis, five budget- and schedule-related critical success factors were extracted. The outcomes of this study are the top critical success items and factors, thereby providing valuable insights for water and wastewater utility owners to focus on these items and factors intensively and help them execute the projects with great success.

Wastewater manholes are crucial infrastructure components in sewage systems. They provide necessary access points for inspection and maintenance. However, limited studies were conducted on the life-cycle cost analysis of manholes. The primary objective of this study is to compute and compare the Life-Cycle Unit Cost (LCUC) of cement concrete and polymer concrete manholes to identify a cost-effective alternative for public agencies. To achieve the objective, this study analyzed commonly used 1.83 m diameter manhole data; 343 cement concrete manhole and 88 polymer concrete manhole cost data were collected from the Clark County Water Reclamation District (CCWRD), Las Vegas, Nevada, United States. The results show that the initial costs of polymer concrete are higher than those of traditional cement concrete. Statistical tests were conducted to determine the group differences. The findings show that the LCUCs of polymer concrete manholes are significantly cost-effective when compared to traditional cement concrete manholes. Public agencies can utilize polymer concrete manholes to save costs in future water and wastewater pipeline manhole construction projects.

Public–private partnerships (P3s) have gained prominence in both developed and developing nations over recent decades. P3 contracts have been used in a broad spectrum of infrastructure sectors in the United States. However, it is important to demonstrate how P3 projects compare in terms of cost and schedule to traditional project delivery methods to make more informed choices when selecting a delivery method in infrastructure construction. This research focused on benchmarking the project performances of P3 highway projects against design-build (DB) and design-bid-build (DBB) highway projects by analyzing cost growth and schedule growth for highway projects undertaken using P3, DB, and DBB project delivery. Statistical tests revealed that P3 highway projects had a mean cost growth of 2.12%, whereas DB projects experienced 8.95% growth, and DBB projects 7.27%. Furthermore, the mean schedule growth for P3 highway projects was 0.59%, compared to 37.94% for DB projects and 31.39% for DBB projects. The research results can provide valuable insights to assist decision-making processes for future projects, which can be particularly useful for government agencies, private companies, and other stakeholders involved in infrastructure development. Furthermore, the stakeholders can make more informed choices when selecting a delivery method with the identified performance comparison findings, potentially reducing the likelihood of project disputes and failures.