Search

Forum papers are thought-provoking opinion pieces or essays founded in fact, sometimes containing speculation, on a civil engineering topic of general interest and relevance to the readership of the journal. The views expressed in this Forum article do not necessarily reflect the views of ASCE or the Editorial Board of the journal. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Supply chain instabilities and inflated material prices have had a disruptive impact on cost estimating of construction projects. While several research efforts used national macroeconomic indicators to forecast the prices of domestically produced construction materials, none of the existing studies investigated whether the lagged macroeconomic indicators of the main trading partners could enhance the predictability of the prices of cement, steel, and lumber in the US construction sector. This paper fills this knowledge gap. The authors adopted a multi-step methodology that included: (1) collecting data on the target variables and the candidate leading indicators; (2) identifying the structural breaks in the collected data sets; (3) conducting causality tests to identify short-term associations and cointegration tests to examine long-term relationships; (4) developing vector error correction (VEC) models to forecast the prices in the short and long terms; and (5) evaluating the performance of the proposed models against existing forecasting models in the literature. Results of the Granger test and Johansen test indicate that Canada's overall producer price index (PPI) is a consistent leading indicator of the prices of cement, and Mexico's overall PPI is a consistent leading indicator of the prices of steel. Findings indicate no statistical evidence to suggest that neither Canada's PPI nor Mexico's PPI can be leading indicators of lumber prices. Over an 18-month ahead of sample horizon, the presented VEC models of cement and steel prices outperformed existing models, particularly beyond the 1-year-ahead forecasts. Utilization of the proposed forecasting models can significantly enhance the accuracy of cost estimates and feasibility studies of construction projects. This provides proactive financial planning for construction contractors and project owners through improved short- and long-term forecasting of the prices of main construction materials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The construction industry has witnessed unprecedented disruptions in the supply chain (SC) over the past four years due to the consecutive impacts of the 2018 steel and aluminum tariffs, the COVID-19 pandemic, and the Russian–Ukrainian war. SC disruptions have been linked to price escalations, the management of which varies across different construction contracts. Thus, there is a timely need to understand the contractual implications of price escalation clauses. This article fulfills this research requirement by following an interdependent research methodology. First, the authors analyzed and compared price escalation provisions under various US-based, international, and UK-based standard design–bid–build contracts. Second, the authors examined legal cases that have arisen due to disputes over price escalation-related matters. Third, based on the contractual and legal analysis, the authors formulated and proposed a set of contractual considerations that can be used to plan and manage the contractual implications arising from triggering price escalation clauses. The findings indicate substantial variability in contractual provisions addressing price escalation. A predominant approach entails specifying a fixed contract price, often with a general exception permitting adjustments related to legislative changes. Certain standard contracts afford flexibility through the incorporation of supplementary clauses or amendments during the contract formation stage to counteract escalation risks. Further, insights from the legal review show that judicial relief from contractual obligations is typically granted solely in instances of unforeseen and severe economic conditions. This research makes a significant academic contribution by advancing the understanding of contractual obligations concerning price escalation, especially in the context of ongoing market disruptions. Ultimately, the findings of this study will impact the construction industry by promoting more balanced contractual practices regarding price escalations in construction projects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aviation sector received an underperforming D+ score, indicating its deteriorating qualities in comparison with the overall US infrastructure. In response, US governmental bodies issued investment bills that target the improvement of the nation's airport system. Airport projects are still being implemented through design-bid-build (DBB), which is notorious for its ineffective risk shift, low contractor input, and poor cost and schedule performance. Studies show that design-build (DB) possesses prospective cost and schedule benefits. Despite this, there is still reluctance toward DB's usage in airport projects. Moreover, current studies lack in offering frameworks that assist airport practitioners in guiding stakeholders toward improved project delivery decision-making. Accordingly, this research's goal is to establish a holistic risk-based approach to assess the effect of utilizing DB versus DBB in US airport projects based on cost and schedule performance criteria. A four-step methodology is adopted where (1) risk factors were determined and grouped into eight risk categories, where they were quantified against their criticality to cost and schedule performance metrics; (2) the weights of the risk factors and their respective categories were realized to compute their importance; (3) the distribution of the data was statistically fitted; and (4) a benchmarking evaluation framework was developed and analyzed. The findings revealed that DBB is associated with 6% more perceived cost growth in comparison to DB delivery in airport projects. DBB is also linked to 7% more perceived schedule growth relative to DB airport implementation. It was also found that cost-related aspects influenced cost and schedule performance the most. Conversely, external aspects influenced performance the least. Ultimately, this study presents a novel approach for holistically assessing cost and schedule savings and growth in DB implementation in US airport projects, thus offering industry practitioners valuable insights into critical risk factors for enhanced decision-making and risk management practices that have national and global implications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Airports represent a crucial a sector of the US infrastructure, but they were documented to have scored a D+. To mitigate this, governmental authorities have issued initiatives to update the airport infrastructure. With an expected critical junction for a major transformation in the airport sector, it is anticipated that airport projects will increase. This shall result in an escalation in the number of disputes. Previous research analyzed dispute concerns within the construction sector, but none tackled the perspective of airport projects. Accordingly, the goal of this study is to investigate the leading causes of disputes in litigation within US airport projects through data-driven techniques. To achieve this goal, a three-step methodology is adopted, including (1) collecting a comprehensive list of federal and state litigation cases to map the data and identify the causes of disputes; (2) clustering and visualizing the data using k -means and network analysis (NA), respectively; and (3) determining the key associations emanating from the dispute clusters through association rule analysis (ARA). The outcomes of this research revealed a total of 23 dispute causes clustered across four groups. Results of the NA indicated that the most common dispute causes are those involved with ambiguity in contractual interpretation, incurred damages, safety issues, and negligence or lack to duty of care. ARA identified several key associations and risk themes related to (1) financial assurance and operational performance: (2) contractual compliance and execution; (3) business affiliation, methods, and inclusion; (4) integrity and misconduct; (5) regulatory hurdles and area effects; and (6) collaboration and teamwork challenges. By identifying these associations and causes of disputes, airport stakeholders can implement early proactive measures that aim to mitigate dispute risks experienced. Ultimately, this study is of value to stakeholders concerned with the overall support and success of dispute management procedures in US airport projects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Construction competitive bidding has been studied by many researchers; however, their focus was mainly on certain bidding aspects. Thus, despite their value, existing bidding models have limited applicability for various reasons including the noninclusion of some real-life factors that impact bidding-related decisions. As such, there is a need for identifying a comprehensive list of bidding factors that impact construction bidding–related decisions, studying their associations, and identifying understudied factors to direct future research efforts. This paper fills this knowledge gap. First, the authors conducted a systematic selection of 124 construction bidding–related articles published within the past 40 years. Second, the authors identified a list of 43 bidding factors from the contractor's perspective and divided them into four groups (project, bidding environment, economy, and company) based on their characteristics and relevance. Thereafter, the authors implemented cluster analysis and social network analysis (SNA) to quantitatively analyze the level of inclusion, co-occurrence, and interconnectivity among the bidding factors and identify the gaps in the literature. Results of cluster analysis revealed that previous studies focused mainly on company-related factors, while economy-related factors were the least studied. Also, SNA outcomes highlighted that experience in similar project and availability and costs of rental labor/equipment/material are the most studied factors in theoretical discussions, while number of competitors and size of the project are the most investigated factors in developed models. Consequently, this paper identified understudied bidding factors, including company reputation level in the market, bidding method, bidding stages, and contractor's risk attitude. Thus, this paper contributes to the body of knowledge by promoting a comprehensive understanding of bidding-related factors and providing a road map for incorporating critical understudied bidding-related factors. This would minimize redundancies and maximize the effectiveness of future bidding-related research. Ultimately, this should provide better decision-making for all associated stakeholders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Distributed solar generation (DSG) has been growing over the previous years because of its numerous advantages of being sustainable, flexible, reliable, and increasingly affordable. DSG is a broad and multidisciplinary research field because it relates to various fields in engineering, social sciences, economics, public policy, and others. Developing a holistic understanding of the state of research related to DSG can be difficult. Motivated to provide that understanding, the goal of this paper is to explore current and emerging multidisciplinary research trends associated with DSG. To achieve that, (1) a large data set of approximately 66,000 publications was collected; (2) the papers were labeled using keywords for topics including "Batteries and Storage," "Solar," "Complex Modeling," "Machine Learning (ML) and Artificial Intelligence (AI)," "Resilience, Vulnerability, and Disasters," "Policies and Incentives," "Social Aspects," "Economics," "Smart Grid," "Finance," "Social Equity," "Microgrid," and "Virtual Power Plant"; and (3) the data set was analyzed using scientometric and social network analysis (SNA) in respect to publication counts, citation counts, and interconnectivity between the topics. Notable findings were analyzed to describe current and emerging trends. It was found that social equity has high citation counts contrasted by few publications, indicating a possible strong need for research. There is also rapidly growing research in ML and AI in the context of DSG during recent years. Other research topics, such as smart grids, have been attracting fewer publications. The results also highlight the need for multidisciplinary research connecting the topics. To conclude, future research is suggested to explore research needs in the areas of social aspects, social justice and equity, public policy and incentives, and ML/AI. The findings should benefit researchers and stakeholders with a holistic understanding of multidisciplinary DSG-related research and provide insight for planning new research and funding opportunities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The partnership between the public and private sectors has led to a new and innovative way of delivering infrastructure projects that is referred to as public–private partnership (PPP). There are various benefits associated with PPP delivery methods including risk sharing, access to private funding, innovation, and flexibility, among others. Despite the proved benefits, contract conflicts and disputes are very common in PPP projects. While previous research studies examined the risks and the potential causes of conflicts in PPP projects, little-to-no research efforts were directed to study and model the interconnectivities between the different causes of conflicts in PPP agreements. To this end, the aim of this paper is to fill the gap in knowledge by providing a deeper understanding of the causalities or relationships between the different factors that cause disputes in PPP projects in the United States. The authors used a comprehensive analytical approach that involved three primary steps. First, 37 PPP case studies of infrastructure and construction projects were collected and analyzed using manual content analysis. Second, social network analysis was conducted to study the interdependencies between the different causal factors leading to disputes in PPP in general and in relation to Execution, Investment and Operation, and Third-Party Claims, in particular. Third, association rule analysis was conducted to identify key associations between the different causal factors that may trigger the three different types of PPP disputes. The findings showed that the key causes of disputes in PPP projects are related to (1) legal and regulatory, (2) payment and financial, and (3) poor management. While Execution-related disputes were found to be caused by complex interactions of causal factors, dispute causation of Investment and Operation–related and Third-Party Claims–related disputes seemed to be less simplistic. As such, the outcomes of this paper highlighted the important aspects required to avoid dispute occurrence in PPP projects. Ultimately, this paper contributes to the body of knowledge by providing directions for scholars and practitioners toward the aspects and interdependencies that require optimization and/or thorough consideration to avoid dispute occurrence and subsequently ensure successful implementation of PPPs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Current airport infrastructure is in a state of decline, with reports scoring it at an underperforming classification of D+. To address this issue, significant improvement and advancement of the infrastructure is needed. With backing on an authoritative level, the nation can expect an increase in the number of improvement projects. Airport stakeholders have long been accustomed to delivering their projects using traditional methods, such as design–bid–build (DBB). Design–build (DB) is an alternative delivery method that has added benefits for project metrics, such as schedule and cost performance. There is a lack of research evaluating DB within the context of airport projects. This study fills this knowledge gap. The goal of this research is to provide an improved understanding of DB with respect to DBB on fundamental key risks that impact schedule and cost performance in airport projects. This goal is achieved by a multistep interdependent methodology comprised of: (1) collecting and assessing data on 34 risk factors, (2) calculating the risk ratings of each factor, and (3) statistically analyzing the risks for their actual effect, as well as how they are perceived by between different stakeholder groups. The results show that the traditional DBB delivery method results in greater risks for most risk factors than does DB. Furthermore, contractors perceived DBB more negatively than DB. The top significant risk in DBB is the low level of team collaboration. Conversely, while statistically insignificant, unclarity or incompleteness in project scope was the most critical risk factor in affecting DB. To this end, DB implementation has promise for handling many risks better than DBB, and greater integration of DB should be prioritized in future airport projects to reap those added benefits. Ultimately, this research contributes to the body of knowledge by providing insight for airport stakeholders on the crucial risk factors that must be considered in project delivery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper investigates the ethical and professional responsibilities of engineering Graduate Students (GSs) and Faculty Members (FMs) in relation to Graduate Recruitment Offers (GROs). The authors developed an academic survey for data collection and subsequently evaluated the collected data based on common ethical theories and principles, as well as relevant professional codes of conduct. Based on the survey responses, this study identified the most common driving and preventive reasons for FMs and GSs not to honor a signed GRO. Further, the perception of GSs and FMs in relation to GROs was investigated using statistical methods. Finally, the authors provided an educational framework in the form of a checklist aimed at promoting ethical and professional decision-making as related to GROs. Ultimately, the outcomes of this research can be incorporated into senior seminar courses to enhance engineering undergraduate students' ethical education and promote their ethical thinking as they grow into professional roles. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Construction bidding is a complex process that involves several potential risks and uncertainties for all the stakeholders involved. Such complexities, risks, and uncertainties, if uncontrolled, can lead to the rise of claims, conflicts, and disputes during the course of a project. Even though a substantial amount of knowledge has been acquired about construction disputes and their causation, there is a lack of research that examines the causes of disputes associated with the bidding phase of projects. This study addresses this knowledge gap within the context of infrastructure projects. In investigating and analyzing the causation of disputes related to the bidding stage, the authors implemented a multistep research methodology that incorporated data collection, network analysis (NA), spectral clustering, and association rule analysis (ARA). Based on a manual content analysis of 94 legal cases, the authors identified a comprehensive list of 27 causes of disputes associated with the bidding stage of infrastructure projects. The NA results indicated that the major common causes leading to disputes in infrastructure projects comprise inaccurate cost estimates, inappropriate tender documents, nonproper or untimely notification of errors in a submitted bid, nonproper or untimely notification of errors in tender documents, and noncompliance with Request for Proposals' (RFP) requirements. Upon categorizing and clustering the causes of disputes, the ARA results revealed that the most critical associations are related to differing site conditions, errors in submitted bids, unbalanced bidding, errors in cost estimates, and errors in tender documents. This study promotes an in-depth understanding of the causes of disputes associated with the bidding phase within the context of infrastructure projects, which should better enable the establishment of proactive plans and practices to control these causes as well as mitigate the occurrence of their associated disputes during project execution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]