Assignment - II

University :
Other Exam Question Bank is not sponsored or endorsed by this college or university.

Assignment - II

Student ID number U3248564

Student Name Mithun Aadimulla

Unit name Built Environment Professional Thesis - 1

Unit number 11811

Name of lecturer/tutor Dr Saeed BanihashemiAssignment topic Comparison Between Design-Bid-Build and Public-Private-Partnership Delivery Methods in ConstructionDue date 26 May 2024

Word Count 10756

Signature of student: Mithun AadimullaDate: 1 September 2023(Students submitting work electronically can type their name in the space for signature above but must produce a signed copy of this coversheet on request.)

Date of submission: 26 May 2024

Abstract

The construction industry is crucial for economic development and modernization, providing essential infrastructure. Among various project delivery methods, Design-Bid-Build (DBB) and Public-Private Partnerships (PPP) are prominent due to their distinct advantages and challenges. This thesis offers a comparative analysis of DBB and PPP, focusing on cost, time, quality, stakeholder involvement, and risk management.

DBB, the conventional method, involves three phases: design, bidding, and construction. The design phase is handled independently by an architect or engineer, followed by competitive bidding, and finally construction. While DBB's clear separation of roles ensures clarity and simplicity, it often leads to extended timelines, cost overruns, and fragmented stakeholder engagement. DBB projects frequently encounter cost overruns due to unforeseen circumstances and design changes, making budget control challenging.

In contrast, PPP is a more integrated method, involving a contractual agreement between the public sector and a private entity. The private sector assumes significant roles in design, financing, construction, and sometimes maintenance and operation. PPP aims to leverage private sector efficiencies, capital, and innovation for public infrastructure projects. This approach is particularly beneficial for complex, large-scale projects requiring long-term operational and maintenance considerations. PPP projects generally exhibit better cost performance due to fixed-price contracts that transfer cost overrun risks to the private sector, though they involve complex contracts and long-term financial commitments.

Time efficiency is another critical factor. DBBs sequential nature often results in time overruns, particularly when design modifications are needed during construction. PPP projects, by integrating design and construction phases, enable simultaneous activities that reduce timelines. However, initial stages of PPP, such as financial closure and contract negotiation, can be time-consuming.

Quality outcomes in construction depend on project specifications, team efforts, and oversight mechanisms. DBB benefits from detailed specifications and a clear separation of design and construction responsibilities. However, construction quality depends heavily on the contractor's adherence to these specifications. PPPs promote continuous collaboration between builders and designers, leading to better project outcomes. Involving the private sector in maintenance and operation ensures high-quality infrastructure.

Stakeholder involvement varies significantly between DBB and PPP. DBB involves multiple stakeholders in different phases, leading to fragmented communication and potential conflicts of interest. PPPs encourage collaboration between the private and public sectors throughout the project lifecycle, improving stakeholder engagement and aligning project objectives.

Risk management is another crucial aspect. In DBB, the owner bears design risks while the contractor bears construction risks, often leading to disputes. In contrast, PPP allocates risks to the parties best equipped to manage them, usually transferring significant risks to the private sector. Effective risk management in PPP depends on the contractual agreements and the private entitys capacity to manage assigned risks.

This thesis provides a comprehensive comparative analysis of PPP and DBB, highlighting their respective advantages and disadvantages through literature reviews and case studies. It offers practical recommendations for future application in construction projects. The analysis reveals that DBB is suitable for projects with well-defined scopes and minimal complexity, while PPP offers greater potential for efficiency, innovation, and risk mitigation in large-scale, complex projects. The choice between DBB and PPP should be based on a thorough assessment of project-specific factors, including risk tolerance, desired innovation, and stakeholder collaboration. Understanding the strengths and weaknesses of DBB and PPP can guide project managers and policymakers in selecting the most appropriate delivery method for future construction projects, contributing to successful infrastructure development worldwide.

Table of Contents

TOC o "1-3" h z u Comparison Between Design-Bid-Build and Public-Private-Partnership Delivery Methods in Construction PAGEREF _Toc167637824 h 1Signature of student: Mithun AadimullaDate: 1 September 2023 PAGEREF _Toc167637825 h 1Date of submission: 26 May 2024 PAGEREF _Toc167637826 h 1Introduction PAGEREF _Toc167637827 h 6Background PAGEREF _Toc167637828 h 8Research Methodology PAGEREF _Toc167637829 h 9Literature review PAGEREF _Toc167637830 h 10Outline of Project Delivery Methods PAGEREF _Toc167637831 h 10Design-Bid-Build (DBB) PAGEREF _Toc167637832 h 10Merits and Demerits of DBB PAGEREF _Toc167637833 h 11Public-Private Partnership (PPP) PAGEREF _Toc167637834 h 13Merits and Demerits of PPP PAGEREF _Toc167637835 h 14Case Studies PAGEREF _Toc167637836 h 16Design-Bid-Build Project Delivery Method PAGEREF _Toc167637837 h 16Case study 1: Expansion of San Diego International Airport Terminal 2 PAGEREF _Toc167637838 h 16Case study 2: comparing the cost and time performances of DB and DB projects in Kuwait. PAGEREF _Toc167637839 h 18Public-Private Partnership Project Delivery Method PAGEREF _Toc167637840 h 19Case Study 1: Public-Private Partnerships in Ontario, Canada. PAGEREF _Toc167637841 h 19Case Study2: Contractual Management in projects under PPP in United Kingdom PAGEREF _Toc167637842 h 21Comparative Analysis between Design-Bid-Build and Public-Private-Partnership PAGEREF _Toc167637843 h 22Cost performance PAGEREF _Toc167637844 h 22Time performance PAGEREF _Toc167637845 h 23Innovation PAGEREF _Toc167637846 h 23Risk allocation PAGEREF _Toc167637847 h 24Involvement of stakeholder PAGEREF _Toc167637848 h 24Adaptability and flexibility PAGEREF _Toc167637849 h 24Quality and efficiency PAGEREF _Toc167637850 h 25Summary of Findings PAGEREF _Toc167637851 h 25Recommendations for future research PAGEREF _Toc167637852 h 27Conclusion PAGEREF _Toc167637853 h 28References PAGEREF _Toc167637854 h 29

IntroductionFor any country, construction Industry plays a key role in its economic development, by serving a backbone for modernisation and infrastructure growth. Over the past few years, many project delivery methods have been engaged to make sure for the successful completion of the construction projects. Among all different methods, Public- Private Partnerships (PPP) and Design-Bid-Build (DBB) have gained a significant importance because of its unique advantages, characteristics and challenges.

Design-Bid-Build Method, which is mostly referred as the conventional project delivery methods which consists of three stages of a construction projects: design stage, bidding stage and construction stage. In this approach, design stage of a construction project is completely independent and is most likely carried out by an engineer or architect and then the project will be put out for contractors to bid by client. After successful completion of the bidding phase, awarded contractors will execute the construction of a project with approved designs and plans. Because of its clear separation of roles and responsibilities among various stakeholders and clear contractual relationships, DBB method is very widely adopted. On the other hand, this method has its own drawbacks which includes extended project timelines, possibility for cost overruns and shattered stakeholder engagement.

On the other hand, Public-Private Partnerships resembles as a more integrated project delivery method for construction projects. In this PPP approach, a contractual agreement is made between the public sector and a private entity. In this approach, private entity will have significant roles and responsibilities during various phases of a construction project which includes design, financing, construction and in some cases maintenance and operation based on the contract. Primary aim of this collaborative approach is to utilise the efficiencies, capital and innovation of private sector companies in delivering public infrastructure projects. This project delivery approach has gained a significant popularity globally, especially in complex and large-scale projects which requires long-term operational and maintenance considerations and in projects that require more investment upfront.

Comparative analysis of Design-Bid-Build and Public- Private Partnership delivery methods is very essential in understanding their relative merits and demerits among various factors like time, cost, quality, stakeholder involvement and risk management. From this analysis, deep insights can be developed for project managers, policy makers and various stakeholders in the construction industry and it enables an informed decision- making for the future construction projects.

One pf the more critical factor in evaluating DBB and PPP delivery methods is their cost performances. Construction projects with DBB approach, often faces cost overruns because of unforeseen circumstances along the construction stages and because of design changes. On the other hand, PPPs involve fixed- price contracts and any risk of cost- overruns will be transferred to private sector. So, there is more potential for completing the project within the estimated cost. However, due to the complex nature of PPP contract and long-standing financial commitment between both private and public sector can lead to financial challenges and risks.

Efficiency of time is another key factor in comparing these two projects delivery methods DBB and PPP. Projects under DBB delivery method has sequential nature and this nature can often lead to time overruns. Especially, when design modifications are necessary during the construction stage of the project, all construction must come to a hold and will delay the deadline of the project. PPP delivery method by integrating construction and design phase of a project and by involving simultaneous activities, has more potential in reducing the project times. But, initial stages of PPP approach, including financial closure and contract negotiation had the potential to take more time and offsetting the time saving that are achieved during the construction phase of project.

In a construction project, quality outcomes are influenced by clarity in project specifications, team efforts of the project team and mechanisms for oversight in place. DBB project delivery method has more benefits because of it detailed specifications and design and clear separation of construction and design responsibilities among various stakeholders. However, the construction quality will mainly depend on the adherence of the contractor on the project specifications. PPPs, with its collaborative and integrated project delivery system, aim for continuous collaboration builders and the designers, which in turn can enhance the overall outcome of a project more efficiently. High- quality infrastructure can also be delivered with PPP approach by involving the private sector in maintenance of operation of the project.

For both DBB and PPP project delivery methods, involvement of stakeholders varies very significantly. In DBB approach, multiple stakeholders are involved in different phases of a project, which can lead to shattered communication and mismatch of interests. Whereas PPPs will encourage collaboration among private and public sectors throughout the lifecycle of a project. This approach will improve project outcomes, enhance engagement of various stakeholders and align objectives of a project.

Another significant aspect for PPP and DBB project delivery methods is risk management. In DBB delivery approach, risks in design stage are usually taken by the owner and risks in construction phase are taken by the contractor. This separation of risk management may often lead to misalignment of the interests and disputes among stakeholders. In contrast, PPPs will aim to allocate the risk to the parties which can best mange the risks. This will often lead to transfer of potential risks to the private section which includes financial, operational and construction risks. The successfulness of managing the risks in PPP project delivery approach depends on how the contractual agreements between the two parties are made the capacity of the private entity to take the assigned risks to it.

Aim of this thesis is to provide a detailed comparative analysis among PPP and DBB project delivery approaches mainly focusing on the above- mentioned performance metrics. This thesis aims to highlight the significant advantages and disadvantages of these methods by examining various metrics through case studies and literature reviews. It also aims in providing recommendations in a practical way for their future application in the construction projects. Subsequent section of this thesis will concentrate more in detail on various aspects of DBB and PPP and provide a methodology for comparative analysis and provide results and findings from case studies that are relevant to the analysis.

Relevance of Comparative Analysis

Comparative analysis of both project delivery methods DBB and PPP are essential for various reasons. Firstly, it aids in evaluating the performances of these methods among various metrics like time, cost, risk management, stakeholder management and quality of a construction project relatively. Secondly, this comparative analysis will provide insights of the most influential factors that determine the success or failure of these two methods. In addition, it will also guide the decision- makers in public sector and construction industry in selecting the best project delivery methods suitable for a specific project.

Research Questions

Main research questions that are driving this thesis are:

What is the difference in cost performances between DBB and PPP projects?

How does DBB and PPP project delivery methods compare in relation to time efficiencies?

How the quality of construction project can be affected by DBB and PPP approaches?

What are the variations in stakeholder management among DBB and PPP project delivery methods?

How can risk management strategies in DBB and PPP can help in successful execution of a construction project?

BackgroundDBB project delivery method, which is mainly characterized by its sequential manner among project phases had been very predominant from many decades within the construction industry. This method involves individual contracts for construction and design. In which, design stage is completed before bidding stage and followed by construction. Clarity and simplicity of this method has made it as the most popular choice, even more in public sector projects.

On the other hand, PPP project delivery method involves a more integrated system. In which, construction, design, maintenance and operation and financing are all combined into a single contract and given to a private entity. This integrated model has gained a lot importance globally, as public sector wants to leverage the capital and expertise of private sector in delivering public infrastructure. PPP contracts can be of various forms like Design-Build-Finance-Operate (DBFO) and Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT), with each system with its own disadvantages and advantages.

Research Objectives

Primary Objectives of this thesis are:

Analysing the cost performances of DBB and PPP project delivery methods.

Comparing the time efficiencies of both the project delivery methods.

Evaluating the outcomes in quality with the projects done with DBB and PPP.

Examining the strategies for risk management in DBB and PPP projects.

Assessing the impact and involvement of stakeholders in DBB and PPP individually.

Research MethodologyQualitative approach is adopted in this research. By utilising the comprehensive literature review of existing studies, case studies and reports on PPP and DBB project delivery methods. Data collection will be done from the existing research papers and other academic journal. In this research thesis, a systematic approach is utilised in conducting the comparative analysis of Design-Bid-Build and Public-Private- Partnership project delivery methods.

Research design

Research design for this thesis will be a descriptive and qualitative with main focus on comprehensive literature review and analysing from case studies. Qualitative approach will be utilised for exploring the nuances and complexities of DBB and PPP project delivery methods. This will allow for a more detailed understanding of challenges, process and results associated with both the project delivery methods.

Data Collection

For this thesis, data collection will be gathering the relevant data from the existing literature, which will include reports, case studies, academic articles and dissertations that are related to DBB and PPP delivery methods. Data collection can be divided into two stages: Literature. Review and case studies.

Data Analysis

This process involves both quantitative and qualitative techniques for comparing the performances of DBB and PPP project delivery methods. This analysis will be structured around the key metrics which are identified in the objectives: time, cost, quality, stakeholder involvement and risk management. Qualitative analysis includes both content analysis and thematic analysis. Whereas Quantitative analysis includes comparative analysis and descriptive analysis.

There are also few limitations to this research methodology like availability of data, generalizability and subjectivity within qualitative analysis. `

Literature reviewOutline of Project Delivery Methods

Before renaissance, most of the large-scale projects in construction were executed by using master- builder approach. In this method a single person or a company will be performing all the roles and responsibilities of a Engineer, Architect and Contractor. Due to advancements in technology in construction and increasing complex nature of construction projects, a need for a system has been substantial CITATION Noe16 l 3081 (Noel Carpenter & and Dennis C. Bausman, 2016). In the present-day construction industry, project delivery methods will define the procedural steps and contractual relationships within a construction project. These methods are the frameworks by which the construction projects are designed, planned, constructed, financed and managed. They also define the roles and responsibilities among various stakeholders and shows great impact on project duration, cost, stakeholder involvement and risk distribution. Each project delivery methods have its own advantages and disadvantages, making them viable and suitable for different projects in different scenarios. Selecting an appropriate project delivery method is very crucial for the project owner whether it a public or a private entity, as successful execution of a construction project depends on various factors. CITATION Moh01 l 3081 (Khalil, 2001)For this thesis, two project delivery methods Design-Bid-Build (DBB) and Public- Private-Partnership (PPP) are selected and comparative analysis has been conducted in between these two methods.

Design-Bid-Build (DBB)DBB, project delivery method has been the traditional method, especially for the projects in public sector. In this method, there are mainly three phases of project; design, bid and build and these are carried out by the owner with individual contractors. Design and construction of a project will be carried under different contracts; owner- designer contract and owner-contractor contract CITATION Noe16 l 3081 (Noel Carpenter & and Dennis C. Bausman, 2016). The design stage mainly involves hiring a engineer or an architect to determine the specification of the project. Once all the design of a project are finalised and bidding stage will start, and the project will be put out for bidding. In this stage, all the contractors will compete to win the bid for successful execution of the project. Once the construction contractor is selected, construction phase of the project will start. This method is well known for its unique and clear separation of roles and responsibilities. This separation of construction and design responsibilities will lead to more effective design quality, because the designer or the architects will solely concentrate on the project specifications with no influence from the construction point of view. On the other hand, this can also lead to increased project costs and inefficiencies due to disputes and change in project specification in the construction stage CITATION Ngo14 l 3081 (Ngoma, 2014).

Merits and Demerits of DBBSequential phases: Design-Bid-Build project delivery system involves a linear sequence of construction phases; design, bid and build. This system starts with the owner giving a contract to design professional for creating the designs. After finishing up the design, the project will be out for bidding and the contract will be given to the builder who bids the lowest by meeting all the requirements. Only after awarding the contract, construction stage will begin (Antoine, 2018). In detail, DBB method will involve a series of phases like programming, estimating the costs, preliminary design, schematic design, design development, construction drawings, negotiation/bidding, construction and occupancy. This approach will provide a clear framework in delivering the project.

Separation and Clarity of responsibilities: DBB will offer a clear separation of roles, with two separate contractors for construction and design. This can eventually lead to a more focus on the quality of design without considering the design constraints. CITATION Sar16 l 3081 (Sarah Soud Salem Al- enezi, 2016). This separation between the two contractors for design and construction contractors will aid them to maintain a clear delineation of accountability and tasks (Bolton&Heller,2018). This separation responsibilities may lead to a good control during the design stage, but it may cause more issues during the construction stage if any flaws are discovered in that stage.

Potential for Delays and Cost- Overruns: Because of the separation between roles and responsibilities among different contractors may lead to inefficiencies. Also, any changes in design during the construction phase can lead to overruns in overall duration and cost of the project. This can happen usually because of the change in specifications during the construction stage and this may lead to disputes between the designers and construction contractors. Projects under DBB will usually have lengthier project times because of its sequential nature. If there are delays in the design stage, this delay might affect the project duration as construction cannot be started until the design is completed CITATION Jan17 l 3081 (Jane Park, 2017). Despite the cost certainty of DBB system at award stage of a contract, these construction projects cab see some cost overruns because of design errors and because of any unforeseen circumstances that may be need changing the orders in construction stage. This alteration may also lead to some disputes among builder and designer which will in turn result in increased costs and project delays (Antoine, 2018).

Quality Outcomes: Quality of any project under DBB project delivery system mainly depends on the completeness and clarity of the documents provided by the designer. It also depends on the adherence of the builder for the specification provided by the designer. Any type of ambiguities and gaps within the design specifications may lead to issues in quality during the construction (Ngoma, 2014). In many parts of the world, after examining the relationship between project management methods and project performances in the construction industry has found that projects under DBB project delivery system mostly suffer from issues with quality control because of its separated nature between the design and construction stages.

Defined budget and scope: Since, projects with DBB method, undergo a detailed design stage, more accurate costs and more clear scope for the project can be created, even before starting the construction stage.

Fixed Price Contracts: With DBB project delivery system, mostly there will be fixed price contracts. With this contract, owners can set their budgets in an overall and this will be more beneficial for public-sector projects where the allocation of budget is very crucial CITATION Jan17 l 3081 (Jane Park, 2017). Usually, construction projects under DBB will have very strong contractual agreements which will be accompanied by complete designs. This system will be more advantageous to simple projects with outcomes that are predictable in which these fixed price contracts can be very effectively used. CITATION Jan17 l 3081 (Jane Park, 2017)Potential for changing orders: Besides many advantages with DBB project delivery system, one of its main disadvantages is its potential to have numerous changes in orders especially during the construction phase of the project. Any changes in design after or during the construction phase will lead increased will lead to increased costs and delays (Hosseinia, 2016). As an illustration, in the Mid-1990s, expansion of Terminal 2 at San Diego International Airport, because of not sufficient planning in pre-design stage had led to litigation and significant amount of cost overruns (Bolton & Heller, 2018).

Lack of collaboration: Because of the separative nature of Design-Bid-Build Project delivery method, it may lead to mis collaboration between the builder and the designer. This can lead to inefficiencies and breakdowns in communication (Bolton & Heller, 2018). Because of these disputes and uncommon interests between the designer and the contractor, will lead to increased duration and cost of the construction project in overall.

Selection of Builder: Often under DBB project delivery methods, contractors for construction are selected based on the lowest bid. There are chances where the inexperienced builders can bid at the lowest quote and win the project execution, which will eventually lead to a lower quality outcome.

Owner Control: Owner of the project can significantly control the design stage and decisions can be made even before starting the construction with detailed plans and this will potentially reduce the changes and uncertainties during the construction stage.

Transparency and Fairness: As the bidding process under DBB method is competitive, it promotes fairness and transparency in the selection of contractor, which will eventually reduce the risk of corruption and favouritism.

Lack of contractor involvement in early stages: Because of the separative nature between designer and the builder in this system may cause issues since builder cannot give any inputs during design stage. This may result in unoptimized design for constructability, eventually leading to increased cost and inefficiencies during the construction stage (Antoine, 2018)..

Public-Private Partnership (PPP)Public- Private Partnership project delivery method has evolved as a potential alternative to the traditional project delivery methods in the construction industry. PPPs will involve a contractual agreement made between the public sector and the private entity. This contract will involve design, financing, construction and sometimes involve maintenance and operation. Primary aim of this project delivery system is to leverage the innovation and efficiencies of the private sector and transferring potential risks to private entity. Adoption of PPP project delivery method for any construction project will be driven by various factors. One of the major factors is because of the increased financial difficulties faced by the public sector or the governments globally. Traditional project delivery methods like Design- Build and Design-Bid-Build will often require huge capital in the initial stages of a project and this will eventually drain the public funds. Whereas with PPP project delivery methods, financial responsibilities and risks can be shared by both public sector and private sector. Because of this nature PPP project delivery method, lathe infrastructure projects can be executed without any heavy and immediate financial burdens on government entities CITATION Tim l 3081 (Timothy Adu Gyamfi, n.d.). PPPs are also considered as impact drivers for innovation in large scale public infrastructure projects including bridges, courthouses, hospitals, transit lines and highways. Performance specifications, financial incentives during the process of bidding and because of collaboration of the public sector and the private entity in initial stages of the project will ensure effective results in innovation which can improve the quality of the project, reduce costs and also risks CITATION Mic17 l 3081 (Siemiatycki, 2017).

One of the most important strategies of PPP is its potential in fostering innovation. Competitive nature of PPP project delivery system will encourage private companies in developing innovative solutions for meeting the specification of the project which are outlined by the public sector or government. Effectiveness of PPP project delivery method depends on the management of relationship between the private entity and the public sector. Maintaining an effective relationship management in PPP project delivery method is very crucial for success of the construction project. It will make sure that the interests of both private and public sectors are aligned and minimise the conflicts. Also, in some contracts under PPP where the private entity is responsible for operations and management of the project, an effective relational contract will provide strong roots in resolving issues between both the parties and avoid delays and litigation which will cost a lot of money CITATION And06 l 3081 (Smith, 2006).

Merits and Demerits of PPPEnhanced Collaboration and Partnership: PPP project delivery system will aim for a stronger partnership among the private and the public sector. This collaboration will eventually allow form increased expertise, resources and skill for any construction project from both the parties. This will lead to a more innovative and efficient project delivery method (Tang et al.,2010). One of the potential benefits of PPP is enhanced partnership because it will improve the relationship and communication among participants in the project, which is one of the most crucial factor for a project success.

Financial Efficiency: PPP project delivery method can lead the public sector to more cost savings. Public sectors can spread their capital investment throughout the life cycle of the project by involving private entity and this will reduce the financial burden for government bodies. This efficiency in finances will play a very crucial role during the crucial times where there will be more budget constraints. PPP project delivery systems can optimise the overall life cycle costs of a project by making sure that the public finds are utilised more effectively.

Improved Risk Management: One of the main strengths of PPP is its effective allocation of the risks to both the parties. While making a contract under PPP, risks will be designated to either public or the private entity based on their ability to manage it. This strategical way of allocating the risk will aid mitigating the significant issues that can arise throughout the life- cycle of the project. Effective risk management in PPP project delivery method is very crucial, as it can reduce the chances of project delays and cost overruns for a construction project (Grimsey & Lewis, 2002).

Quality Improvement and Innovation: Because of the competitive drive and expertise of the private sector, PPPs will often have higher quality and more solution with innovation. To meet the contractual specification or obligations made under a PPP contract and to avoid penalties for not following them, private entities are more motivated to execute a high- quality services and infrastructure. By integrating advanced practices and technologies, PPPs have indulged potential innovation in project deliveries.

Development and Economic Growth: By involving private entities in public infrastructure projects development and economic growth can be simulated. PPP project delivery methods will attract more foreign investments, improve local economies and will create more jobs. Projects under PPP method can contribute to the economic development of a country or a region by executing and facilitating big infrastructure projects, which might be very hard for the public sector to facilitate them. This stimulation in economic situation can lead to enhanced social benefits like increased economic activity and enhanced public services (Akintoye et al., 2003)

High Transaction costs: In contrast to its advantages, one of the main disadvantages of PPP is more transaction cost that are associated with projects under PPP model. The costs for financial, legal and advisory services which are essential to manage and negotiate contracts under PPP can be considerable. A careful management on these costs is essential to ensure cost- effectiveness in an overall under PPP model. Complexity of PPP model will often result in potential costs upfront which can outlay some financial benefits through this model. As a result of this high transaction costs, some smaller companies cannot enter the market, which will significantly limit innovation and competition (Tang et al., 2010).

Potential for adversarial relationships: primary reason for designing PPP model is to increase collaboration, but sometimes due to its contractual nature, it can lead to more adverse relationship among the public and private entities. Disputes may arise over performance standards; risk allocation and contract terms and it will potentially lead to project delays and conflicts. So, in mitigating these conflicts, a fair and clean contract terms are essential. Maintaining more transparent communication channels and by developing trust, relationship between both the parties can be effectively managed (Shen et al., 2006).

Complex Contract Management: Overseeing PPP contracts requires an elevated degree of skill and experience from the public area. The intricacy and long-haul nature of these agreements require nonstop oversight and the executives to guarantee that private accomplices meet their commitments. This prerequisite can strain public area assets and abilities. Effective contract agreement is basic for the progress of PPP projects, however it represents a critical test because of the multifaceted idea of PPP arrangements. The requirement for strong observing and execution assessment systems further adds to the administration intricacy (Li et al., 2005).

Regulatory and Political risks: PPP projects are much of the time subject to political and administrative dangers, remembering changes for government arrangements, administrative structures, and general assessment. These dangers can influence project reasonability and execution. Political opposition and the requirement for exceptional regulation can likewise postpone PPP project execution. Political obstructions are a huge hindrance to PPP reception, especially in districts where the official structure for PPPs isn't deep rooted. Dealing with these dangers requires cautious preparation and proactive commitment with partners to guarantee administrative consistence and public help (Tang et al., 2010).

Public Interest and Equity concerns: There are worries that PPPs might focus on private benefit over open interest, possibly prompting disparities in help conveyance. The private area's benefit thought processes could struggle with the public area's objectives of openness and reasonableness. The disappointment of some PPP activities can be credited to unreasonable benefit assumptions and lacking thought of public government assistance, featuring the requirement for adjusted and even-handed agreement terms. Guaranteeing that PPP projects line up with public qualities and goals is vital for their drawn-out progress and public acknowledgment (Kumaraswamy & Zhang, 2001).

Case StudiesDesign-Bid-Build Project Delivery Method

Case study 1: Expansion of San Diego International Airport Terminal 2Context and Background

The San Diego International Airport Terminal 2 extension project, started during the 1990s, gives a basic contextual analysis in the utilization of the Design-Bid-Build (DBB) project delivery system. This task was overseen by the Public Works Division of San Diego preceding the foundation of the autonomous Airport Authority in 2003. The venture, at first planned at $145 million, was expected to address the developing traveller requests and modernize the maturing framework of the terminal.

Project Implementation

The DBB strategy includes two separate agreements: one for construction and one for design. For this case, design phase was finished first and then it was followed by a competitive nodding system to choose a building for executing the construction stage. Main aim of this separation id to allow for planning in detail and for separation of responsibilities and roles between builders and the designers. In contrast, this project had experienced various challenges that are related to DBB method.

Issues and Challenges

Inadequate planning in pre-design stage: This project has experienced lot of difficulties from insufficient planning in pre-design stage. Initial budget for this project did not take all the soft costs into contact and then it led to financial issues which came up while construction was going on.

Cost overruns and change orders: Because of the Northridge earthquake in 1994, significant changes were made in the structural codes. These changes were not considered in the initial design. These changes in the codes have resulted in a numerous change of orders and the project cost was escalated to $232 million from an initial cost of $145 million, which is almost a 62% increase.

Disputes in Contract: Because of the segmented and the linear nature of DBB project delivery system, it will usually lead to disputes among builders and designers, where the owner is in middle of them. In this scenario, omissions and design errors were neither communicated effectively nor resolved and this led to cost overruns and numerous changes in orders.

Breakdowns in communication: In this project, there is a huge lack of trust and partnership among various stakeholders in the project. Issues regarding communication had let to blame- shifting and finger- pointing between the construction contractor and the design team. This had finally led to increased litigation risks and project delays.

Management Turnover: As the project was in its Mid-way to execution, the director of public works had resigned, and this rose the necessity of hiring a project manager for the project. Because of this transition, project has become more complex, and it caused instability to structure of project management.

Outcomes and Learnings

Completion of Terminal 2 expansion had finally happened during the 1998 Super Bowl season but there was only a little time left for debugging and system testing. The project had suffered from negative media coverage and litigation because of delays and noticeable cost overruns.

From this case study, various important parametrises can be learnt about DBB and some of them are mentioned below:

Significance of detailed pre-design planning: In mitigating risks during the construction stage of the project, subsequent planning and costing for all project costs including very minimal costs like soft costs is very essential.

Clear responsibility and commination structures: For smoother execution of the project and

prevent disputes between builders and the designers, establishing a clear of responsibility and communication is very essential.

Adaptability and flexibility to changes: Projects under DBB project delivery method must be flexible to change according to the unforeseen events like natural disasters. To achieve this, significant changes in design is necessary.

Case study 2: comparing the cost and time performances of DB and DB projects in Kuwait.Context and background

The comparative examine of Design-Bid-Build (DBB) and Design-Build (DB) project delivery methods in Kuwait gives a complete evaluation of the time and value overall performance of public construction projects. This examine focuses on infrastructure projects finished under both methods, imparting insights into their relative challenges and efficiencies. This study had examined several public infrastructure projects including sewage and rainwater networks, water treatment and pumping plants and road networks, in all these projects, DB had outperformed DBB in regard to schedule and cost overruns. Same trends were also observed in education and healthcare projects in Kuwait.

Methodology

The study mainly involved collecting data of the finished projects under DBB and DB project delivery methods from the public agencies in Kuwait. These projects were sectioned based on the size and contract type of the project. Their performances were analysed by using statistical test like independent sample T- test and Mann- Whitney and descriptive statistics.

Analysis and Findings

Schedule performance: Projects under DBB project delivery method had experienced more schedule growth than other project delivery methods. Because of its sequential nature, there were delays in duration in many projects.

Cost performance: When compared to projects under DBB, projects under DB delivery method had experienced more efficient cost performance. DBB projects had experienced more cost overruns because of its separative nature, in which there are two individual contractors for design and construction.

Risk allocation: DBB projects had experienced more difficulties regarding risk allocation, because owner of the project will always be in the middle of builders and designer and any risks will be very hard to allocated.

Intensity of Construction: This study had introduced a new metric named construction intensity, which is cost per day in executing the project. Projects under DBB had seen very less construction index, but this also shows that the projects were completed late, thereby increasing the overall cost and duration of the project.

Recommendation and Implications

Risk management and comprehensive planning: For projects under DBB project delivery system, improving the pre-design planning and implying a strict risk management plan is very important to change the existing challenges in this delivery method.

Legislative support and policies: This study also highlights the necessity for supportive legislation and policies in facilitating the adoption of alternative projects delivery methods, as there was only DBB method is allowed in Kuwait, which will eventually lead to effective and efficient public project delivery.

Public-Private Partnership Project Delivery MethodCase Study 1: Public-Private Partnerships in Ontario, Canada.Context and Background

Ontario in Canada has become a very significant player in PPP construction market. There are a lot of infrastructure projects like courthouses, hospital, highways, transit lines and bridges completed under PPP model. Ontario Infrastructure had constructed a huge variety of PPP systems including build- finance (BF) to a more complex design-build-finance-maintain (DBFM) models. This diverse range testifies how private sector can impact innovation in various levels.

Main Innovations

Construction and Design Innovations: Many projects under PPP model had explained how the use of different materials in construction had resulted in increasing durability and in reducing budgets. As an instance, by replacing traditional materials with more durable and cost-effective materials. To reduce construction timelines and efficiency, innovative techniques in construction have been utilised. As an example, modular construction methods had allowed for reduced labour on site and faster assembly.

Operational Innovations: Various projects in Ontario had involved more futuristic energy- efficiency technologies which achieved a significant reduction in operational cost. This includes the innovations on LED lighting and more efficient HVAC systems. Also, projects like LEED gold- certified courthouses had proven innovations in sustainable practices in building like rainwater harvesting plants and green roofs.

Case Example: Quinte Courthouse

This project, Quinte Courthouse was completed in 2013 and it stood as an outstanding example for PPP innovation. This project is constructed under DBFM model, and it involved a modern courthouse construction in Belleville, Ontario. Design of this courthouse had emphasized both aesthetics and functionality. Proposal was to build and efficient layout maintaining all the required amenities in a smaller floor area. Exterior design of this building is simple but elegant. Most energy efficient construction methods and materials were used in the construction.

This project has achieved the most energy efficient among all the other bids by providing advanced climate control systems and insulation. This primary focus on a sustainable project not only matched with the environmental goals but also decreased the operational cost. Public Plaza in front of the courthouse was designed very carefully to increase connectivity and community engagement.

Analysis of Innovation and Procurement

In Ontarios project under PPP model, procurement process promotes innovation mainly through specification based on performance and competitive bidding. Contractors are encouraged to propose quality- enhancing and cost- saving innovations to increase their chance of winning the project. On the other hand, this study had found that to attain the financial scored in evaluating the bids, in some cases they have overshadowed technical advancements. This was leading innovations more on cost- saving options rather than the transformative options.

Challenges and limitations

Even though PPP system had symbolised some great innovations, there have been challenges and limitations to it. Because of the high level of risk taken by the private entities, in some cases innovations seem to be more conservative by aiming more at ensuring compliance instead of pushing the boundaries. In some cases, although the specification based on performance are there to allow for more flexibility, in real sense they can be perspective sometimes which will limit the scope for solutions that are innovative. Because of the limited indulgent of community stakeholders and local government bodies, process of planning can reduce the potential to make innovations that are community driven.

Case Study2: Contractual Management in projects under PPP in United KingdomThis contextual analysis investigates the elements of Legal and relational contracting inside PPP projects in the United Kingdom. It analyses how powerful connections and legal systems impact performance results in complex infrastructure projects, drawing on information from different PPP driven projects.

Context and Background

UK has been one of the most predominant players when it comes to PPP project delivery system, but it was initially known as Private Finance Initiative (PFI). There is various type of contracts under this method, but some of them include design-build-operate (DBO) and design-build-finance-operate (DBFO) agreements. Because of the complexity of these contracts, a supreme balance between social and legal contracting has become a primary necessary to ensure successful delivery and to manage risks.

Key Findings

Relationship and Trust Management: For a successful PPP project, trust has become one of the crucial factors. For timely conflict resolution, smoother project execution and combined problem solving, trust between public and private entities has become very crucial. Construction projects that had given relational contracting a major priority seem to have better outcomes in the project. Because of this approach, it required more legal contracting, and this often led to project delays and disputes.

Performance and Legal frameworks: Comprehensive contracts are very essential for overall responsibilities, roles and allocating of risks. But over strict contracts will limit adaptability and innovation.

Case Study: London Underground Project

The London underground PPP was one of the most complex and large infrastructure projects in UK. This project had provided some valuable insights into relational and legal contracting. This project involved the maintaining and upgrading of the London underground system under a few DBFO contracts. Various private sector companies are held responsible for various sections of infrastructure, from station upgrades to track maintenance. This project had faced various number of challenges, including project delays and cost overruns. There was a detailed contractual framework for resolving the disputes, but due to adverse nature of some contracts, it avoided combined problem solving. On the other hand, certain categories of the project were benefited from strong relational contracting. Like, combined efforts between corresponding teams had driven towards innovative techniques for station refurbishment and track replacement, this in turn reduced project cost and time.

Challenges and Recommendations

Balancing Relational and Legal Approaches: Projects should aim at achieving legal balance with flexibility in relational. This balance can be achieved with approaches in hybrid contacting that can provide clear legal approaches and promotes collaboration and trust.

Capacity building and training: Overall outcomes of the project can be improved by enhancing the capabilities and skills of project managers in both relational and legal aspects. This will include training in conflict resolution, relationship management and negotiation.

Stakeholder engagement: More effective and innovative project solutions can be achieved by increasing the involvement of stakeholders including end users and local communities. This requires open communication channels and inclusive planning processes.

The case studies from the United Kingdom and Ontario Canada had illustrated the diverse challenges and approaches associated with PPP's. These insights highlighted the significance of PPP's in delivering infrastructures and driving innovation. By adopting collaborative, inclusive and flexible approaches, project managers and policymakers can increase the effectiveness of PPPs and realise its full potential.

Comparative Analysis between Design-Bid-Build and Public-Private-PartnershipIntroduction

In order to meet the demands of the infrastructure development, the construction industry uses different types of project delivery methods. Of which, design bid build and public private partnerships or the two prominent methods. DBB is a traditional approach which is mainly characterised by a sequential process where the construction and the design contracts are separate. On the other hand, PPP will involve a contractual agreement made between a private entity and a public sector by sharing rewards and risks. This comparative analysis will compare the performance of these two methods among several important factors, including time, cost, risk allocation, stakeholder involvement and cost of project.

Cost performance

Projects are a DB project delivery method will we usually experience higher cost growth because of its segmented nature. Overruns in project cost is very common in DBB, because the final project costs will not be fixed initially. Any changes during the construction stage of the project will lead to additional costs and does make budget control very challenging. Previous studies have proven that projects under DBB will typically have More overall costs when compared to other integrated approaches (Ng and Wong, 2006; Abukeshek et al., 2021).

Projects under PPP will usually exhibit better performance in overall costs. Involvement of the private entity from the initial stages of the project will ensure better budget control and accurate estimates of the project cost. PPP contracts will usually include performance-based payments an fixed price contracts, reducing the chances of budget overruns. The integration of construction and design stages under one contract will aid in streamlining the process and minimising any unexpected costs (Sastoque et al., 2016; Ng and Wong, 2006).

Time performance

Because of the sequential nature of DBB projects, it will usually have longer project duration. Typically, in projects under DBB project delivery system, construction phase will start only once the design phase is fully complete. This will lead to increased project duration if there are any issues in design the lack of communication between construction and the design teams significantly makes the completion of DBB projects much slower (Ng and Wong, 2006; Sastoque et al., 2016). Whereas projects and a PPP project delivery system will have a better performance in schedule. Because of the integrated approach of this system, it will allow for collaboration between construction and the design phases. This will aid for quicker project completion and will enable concurrent activities. Incentives based on performance in PPP contracts will also motivate contractors to complete the works according to timelines. Better streamlined coordination and collaboration between different phases and teams in a project will reduce time overruns and will exhilarate the delivery of the project (Abukeshek et al., 2021; Ng and Wong, 2006).

Innovation

Projects under DBB project delivery system will usually have less innovation because of its rigid structure. Separation of construction and the design stages in a project will limit the opportunities for innovative solutions and combined problem solving. In DB method, contractors are usually selected with the lowest bid, this process may discourage the participation of innovative materials and techniques which are potentially costlier. The focus on the detailed specifications can limit adaptability and creativity. Projects under PPP delivery system will be more adaptable to innovation. The collaboration among private entities and the public sector will facilitate a more creative and flexible approach for problem solving. Incentives are provided to private entities to bring innovative ideas our solutions to increase quality, efficiency and reduce costs. Because of the performance-based nature of PPP method, adoption of innovative construction methods an advanced technologies will be encouraged (Ng and Wong, 2006; Abukeshek et al., 2021).

Risk allocation

In DB method, project owner will bear most of the risks, especially which are related to build a performance and designers the separation of construction and design phases will lead to disputes regarding design responsibility, in which the builder will be claiming additional costs for change in orders and design errors. Owner of the project will also be responsible for changes during execution and unforeseen conditions, which will potentially increase the project risks and disputes (Sastoque et al., 2016). Projects under PPP method will involve more balanced allocation of risks between private entity and the public sector. Private entities will be held primarily responsible for construction, design and operational risks. This will include any risks associated with schedule delays, cost overruns and performance issues. This mechanism of risk sharing in PPP method will ensure that risks will be managed by the party that can best mitigate them. This will usually lead to reduced overall risk of the project and more effective risk management system (Abukeshek et al., 2021;)

Involvement of stakeholderDBB projects will have a clear separation of responsibilities and roles with separate contracts for construction and design. This operative nature may lead to miscommunication and lack of coordination among various stakeholders in a project. One of the projects will be responsible for managing multiple contracts and ensuring good communication between the builder and the designer. This fragmented system again damage stakeholder engagement and collaboration and can potentially lead to project delays and conflicts. Whereas PPP method will foster greater collaboration and involvement of stakeholders. Because of the integrated approach continuous coordination and communication will be encouraged among all the stakeholders throughout the life cycle of the project. Private entities are usually involved to make project better by providing the inputs and expertise help in improving project execution and design. This collaborative nature of PPP will improve project outcomes, reduce the chances of conflicts and increase stakeholder engagement (Abukeshek et al., 2021; Ng and Wong, 2006).

Adaptability and flexibilityBecause of the sequential and rigid nature of DBB method, projects are less flexible. Any changes intended after the design stage can be more time consuming and costly, thus leading to project delays and cost overruns. The separation in contracts between construction and the design stages will limit the ability to adapt to unfortunate circumstances and changes effectively. Because of this less flexibility with DBB method, can often result in reduce project performance and sub optimal solutions. Projects under PPP method will usually offer greater adaptability and flexibility. Because of the integrated nature of PPP contracts, it will allow for concurrent construction and design activities and will facilitate timely changes and adjustments. Involvement of the private entity from the initial stage stages will ensure that their professional expertise is used to the entire project, enabling adaptive and responsive management. This flexibility in PPP system will enhance the ability of a project to address unforeseen risks and evolving requirements.

Quality and efficiencyQuality and efficiency of the construction project under DBB method can be compromised because of the separation of construction and the design stages. The lack of communication and collaboration between contractors and the designers will often lead to construction rework, design errors and quality issues. Contractors responsible for construction of the project may focus on meeting fewer specifications rather than changing them for efficiency and quality. This separated approach will usually result in reduced quality and inefficiencies in the overall project (Ng and Wong, 2006). Projects under PPP method will generally achieve higher quality and efficiency. Performance based incentives and the collaborative approach of this system will encourage the private entities in delivering high quality projects efficiently. The integration of design maintenance and construction stages of a project under a single contract can ensure that the entire life cycle of the project is considered from the initial stages and therefore leading to high quality and sustainable outcomes. Expertise and innovation of the private sector will further enhance quality and efficiency of the project.

From this comparative analysis it can be clearly stated that both PPP and DBB delivery methods have their own weaknesses and strengths. In which, DB project delivery method is more suitable for projects which has a well-defined scope and minimum complexity and on the other hand PPP project delivery method can offer greater potential for efficiency, innovation and risk mitigation in complex and large-scale projects. The choice among these two delivery methods can be considered after analysing various project specific factors like stakeholder collaboration, innovation and risk tolerance.

Summary of FindingsThe comparative analysis of public private partnerships and design bid build project delivery method in construction projects had revealed potential variations in their time efficiency, cost performance, risk allocation, innovation potential and stakeholder involvement. DBB being a traditional project delivery method, involves a sequential process where construction and design are done through two separate contracts. This fragmentation will usually lead to longer schedules and higher cost overruns the need for completing the design stage before starting the construction may result in time overruns if there are any issues during design. Also, any change in orders during the construction stage has the potential to extend project deadlines and increased costs. Despite the clarity on budget during the initial stages of the project, lack of coordination between construction and the design will result in disputes over design responsibility and financial inefficiencies. The owner of the project will significantly bear all the risks that are in relation to design errors and builder performances.

In contrast, projects under PPP will exhibit superior performance in cost and time because of its integrated approach. The integration of construction, designing and financing under one contract will significantly generate more accurate estimates of cost and a better budget plan. Its ability to overlap construction and design phases will enable concurrent activities and thus leading to faster project completion. Incentives based on performance in PPP contracts will also motivate contractors to finish the project in estimated timelines and in stipulated budget. Also, PPP's will encourage collaborative environment that can encourage innovation. Involvement of the private entities and using performance-based contracts will promote the adoption of you never do construction methods and advanced technologies.

Projects under DBB project delivery method are less prone to innovation because of it rigid structure and separated nature. On the other hand, projects under PPP delivery system will encourage continuous communication and collaboration between various stakeholders throughout the life cycle of the project and this will enhance stakeholder engagement and reduce the change of conflicts will stop this combined approach will ensure that the private entities expertise is used from the initial stages of the project, thus improving the construction and design of the project. Because of the integrated nature of PPP, it will allow for greater adaptability and flexibility, promoting timely changes and adjustments. Location of risks in DBB method often places the project owner in challenging situation, bearing all the arrows from design and unforeseen circumstances. This will usually lead to increased costs and dispute. Whereas in PPP method risk is distributed evenly between both the parties. Private entities we will have more responsibility for construction, operational and design risks and this will eventually lead to reduced risks in overall and effective risk mitigation. Because of it balanced risk sharing methods, risks will be managed by the party that can best mitigate them.

In summary, DBB will best suit for the projects that has it defined scope and minimal complexity, whereas PPP has greater potential for efficiency, risk management and innovation. The choice between PPP and DBB project delivery methods should be based on assessing the project related factors, desired innovation, stakeholder collaboration and risk tolerance. Understanding the relative weaknesses and strengths of both the methods enables policymakers and the project managers in selecting the best suitable project delivery method for the project, eventually contributing for the successful completion of projects across the globe.

Recommendations for future researchBased on the findings and comparative analysis, to enhance the application and understanding of DBB and PPP project delivery methods, various areas of future research are recommended.

Sustainability and long-term performance: Future research should concentrate on investigating the sustainability and long-term performance of PPP and DBB projects. This will include the evaluation of environmental impacts, maintenance requirements and life cycle costs of the construction projects delivered through these methods. Understanding the performance of the project in long term will aid in identifying the best practises and help decision makers in selecting the best approach for the future projects.

Impact of regulatory frameworks: In the success of PPP and DBB projects, regulatory environment will play a very crucial role. Future research must examine how the project outcomes like cost, quality and time can be impacted by various regulatory frameworks. By comparative analysis across various regions with different regulatory conditions can assist in providing more insights in selecting the most effective regulatory practise in facilitating a successful delivery of project.

Strategies for risk management: As PPP delivery method is well known for its risk allocation, significant strategies on risk management and their impact in various contexts offer project will need deeper exploration. Future research should keep its focus on finding the most effective practises for risk management in both PPP and DBB projects bye considering various factors like complexity, risks and the size of the project.

Models for stakeholder engagement: there is still scope for future research in exploring various models for stakeholder engagement in DBB and PPP project delivery methods. By understanding the most significant systems to involve various stakeholders throughout the life cycle of a project William true project outcomes, reduce conflicts and enhance collaboration. By performing comparative studies on practises regarding stakeholder engagement in various regulatory and cultural contexts can at least valuable insights.

Comparative studies of hybrid models: Hybrid project delivery systems that can combine different aspects of PPP and BBB can offer a more balanced approach in addressing the demerits in each method. Further research should concentrate on exploring their effectiveness of various hybrid models in accordance with various contexts of the project, including its effect on quality, cost, time, stakeholder engagement and risk management.

Mechanisms in innovation: Investigating on the systems that can promote innovation in PPP and BBB project delivery methods can aid in identifying the barriers to innovation and best practises. Future research can be focused on how the performance incentives, contractual agreements and combine models can influence the adaptability of you know way too methods in large scale construction projects.

Case studies off unsuccessful and successful projects: more detailed case studies on both unsuccessful and successful completion of projects under PPP and DBB project delivery methods can provide valuable insights for future projects. This case studies must concentrate mainly on the factors that are contributed to the success or failure of a project, including innovation, stakeholder engagement, project planning and risk management.

ConclusionThe comparative analysis of Design-Bid-Build (DBB) and Public-Private Partnerships (PPP) reveals distinct strengths and weaknesses for each method in the construction industry. DBB, with its clear separation of design and construction phases, offers simplicity and defined roles but often suffers from time delays, cost overruns, and fragmented stakeholder engagement. In contrast, PPPs integrated approach fosters collaboration, innovation, and efficient risk management, proving more suitable for complex, large-scale projects requiring significant upfront investment and long-term maintenance. DBB is ideal for projects with well-defined scopes and minimal complexity due to its structured, sequential process. However, its rigidity can hinder adaptability and efficiency. PPP, on the other hand, promotes innovation and stakeholder involvement through its collaborative framework, resulting in higher quality and more sustainable project outcomes. Effective risk distribution between public and private sectors in PPP further enhances project stability and cost control. Ultimately, the choice between DBB and PPP should be based on project-specific factors, including risk tolerance, desired innovation, stakeholder collaboration, and project complexity. Understanding the relative merits of DBB and PPP enables policymakers and project managers to select the most appropriate delivery method, thereby ensuring the successful execution of construction projects globally.

ReferencesPEVuZE5vdGU+PENpdGUgSGlkZGVuPSIxIj48QXV0aG9yPkFsaTwvQXV0aG9yPjxZZWFyPjIwMTY8

L1llYXI+PFJlY051bT4xMDE2PC9SZWNOdW0+PHJlY29yZD48cmVjLW51bWJlcj4xMDE2PC9yZWMt

bnVtYmVyPjxmb3JlaWduLWtleXM+PGtleSBhcHA9IkVOIiBkYi1pZD0iNXJ6MnJ4OXgwcjJyNTll

ZmFmcDVzd3hleGRhNXQ1ZjlyNWVkIiB0aW1lc3RhbXA9IjE3MTUzMzA5ODYiPjEwMTY8L2tleT48

L2ZvcmVpZ24ta2V5cz48cmVmLXR5cGUgbmFtZT0iQ29uZmVyZW5jZSBQcm9jZWVkaW5ncyI+MTA8

L3JlZi10eXBlPjxjb250cmlidXRvcnM+PGF1dGhvcnM+PGF1dGhvcj5BbGksIEEuIEsuPC9hdXRo

b3I+PGF1dGhvcj5CYWRpbmVsbGksIFIuPC9hdXRob3I+PC9hdXRob3JzPjxzZWNvbmRhcnktYXV0

aG9ycz48YXV0aG9yPlRhbmcsIFAuPC9hdXRob3I+PGF1dGhvcj5DaG9uZywgTy48L2F1dGhvcj48

YXV0aG9yPkdyYXUsIEQuPC9hdXRob3I+PGF1dGhvcj5QYXJyaXNoLCBLLjwvYXV0aG9yPjxhdXRo

b3I+Q2hhbmcsIEouPC9hdXRob3I+PC9zZWNvbmRhcnktYXV0aG9ycz48L2NvbnRyaWJ1dG9ycz48

YXV0aC1hZGRyZXNzPlRleGFzIEFhbmRNIFVuaXZlcnNpdHksIERlcGFydG1lbnQgb2YgQXJjaGl0

ZWN0dXJlLCBDb2xsZWdlIFN0YXRpb24sIDc3ODQzLCBUWCwgVW5pdGVkIFN0YXRlcyYjeEQ7Vmly

Z2luaWEgVGVjaCwgUGFtcGxpbiBDb2xsZWdlIG9mIEJ1c2luZXNzLCBCbGFja3NidXJnLCAyNDA2

MSwgVkEsIFVuaXRlZCBTdGF0ZXM8L2F1dGgtYWRkcmVzcz48dGl0bGVzPjx0aXRsZT5Ob3ZlbCBJ

bnRlZ3JhdGlvbiBvZiBTdXN0YWluYWJsZSBhbmQgQ29uc3RydWN0aW9uIERlY2lzaW9ucyBpbnRv

IHRoZSBEZXNpZ24gQmlkIEJ1aWxkIFByb2plY3QgRGVsaXZlcnkgTWV0aG9kIFVzaW5nIEJQTU48

L3RpdGxlPjxzZWNvbmRhcnktdGl0bGU+UHJvY2VkaWEgRW5naW5lZXJpbmc8L3NlY29uZGFyeS10

aXRsZT48YWx0LXRpdGxlPlByb2NlZGlhIEVuZy48L2FsdC10aXRsZT48L3RpdGxlcz48cGFnZXM+

MTY0LTE3MTwvcGFnZXM+PHZvbHVtZT4xNDU8L3ZvbHVtZT48a2V5d29yZHM+PGtleXdvcmQ+QlBN

TiBQcm9jZXNzIE1hcHBpbmc8L2tleXdvcmQ+PGtleXdvcmQ+RGVjaXNpb24gU3VwcG9ydCBTeXN0

ZW08L2tleXdvcmQ+PGtleXdvcmQ+UmVzb3VyY2UgUmV1c2U8L2tleXdvcmQ+PGtleXdvcmQ+U3Vz

dGFpbmFibGUgRGVzaWduIGFuZCBDb25zdHJ1Y3Rpb248L2tleXdvcmQ+PGtleXdvcmQ+QXJjaGl0

ZWN0dXJhbCBkZXNpZ248L2tleXdvcmQ+PGtleXdvcmQ+QXJjaGl0ZWN0dXJlPC9rZXl3b3JkPjxr

ZXl3b3JkPkFydGlmaWNpYWwgaW50ZWxsaWdlbmNlPC9rZXl3b3JkPjxrZXl3b3JkPkF2YWlsYWJp

bGl0eTwva2V5d29yZD48a2V5d29yZD5CdWlsZGluZyBtYXRlcmlhbHM8L2tleXdvcmQ+PGtleXdv

cmQ+RGVjaXNpb24gbWFraW5nPC9rZXl3b3JkPjxrZXl3b3JkPkRlY2lzaW9uIHN1cHBvcnQgc3lz

dGVtczwva2V5d29yZD48a2V5d29yZD5Nb2RlbGluZyBsYW5ndWFnZXM8L2tleXdvcmQ+PGtleXdv

cmQ+UHJvamVjdCBtYW5hZ2VtZW50PC9rZXl3b3JkPjxrZXl3b3JkPlN1c3RhaW5hYmxlIGRldmVs

b3BtZW50PC9rZXl3b3JkPjxrZXl3b3JkPlN5c3RlbXMgZW5naW5lZXJpbmc8L2tleXdvcmQ+PGtl

eXdvcmQ+QWNjZXNzaWJsZSBpbmZvcm1hdGlvbjwva2V5d29yZD48a2V5d29yZD5CdWlsZGluZyBJ

bmZvcm1hdGlvbiBNb2RlbCAtIEJJTTwva2V5d29yZD48a2V5d29yZD5CdXNpbmVzcyBwcm9jZXNz

IG1vZGVsPC9rZXl3b3JkPjxrZXl3b3JkPkRlc2lnbiBhbmQgY29uc3RydWN0aW9uPC9rZXl3b3Jk

PjxrZXl3b3JkPlByb2Nlc3MgbWFwcGluZzwva2V5d29yZD48a2V5d29yZD5Qcm9qZWN0IGRlbGl2

ZXJ5IG1ldGhvZDwva2V5d29yZD48a2V5d29yZD5SZXNvdXJjZSBhdmFpbGFiaWxpdHk8L2tleXdv

cmQ+PGtleXdvcmQ+UmVzb3VyY2UgcmUgdXNlPC9rZXl3b3JkPjxrZXl3b3JkPlN0cnVjdHVyYWwg

ZGVzaWduPC9rZXl3b3JkPjwva2V5d29yZHM+PGRhdGVzPjx5ZWFyPjIwMTY8L3llYXI+PC9kYXRl

cz48cHVibGlzaGVyPkVsc2V2aWVyIEx0ZDwvcHVibGlzaGVyPjxpc2JuPjE4Nzc3MDU4IChJU1NO

KTwvaXNibj48d29yay10eXBlPkNvbmZlcmVuY2UgcGFwZXI8L3dvcmstdHlwZT48dXJscz48cmVs

YXRlZC11cmxzPjx1cmw+aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuc2NvcHVzLmNvbS9pbndhcmQvcmVjb3JkLnVyaT9l

aWQ9Mi1zMi4wLTg0OTk5NjIyNTE5JmFtcDtkb2k9MTAuMTAxNiUyZmoucHJvZW5nLjIwMTYuMDQu

MDM4JmFtcDtwYXJ0bmVySUQ9NDAmYW1wO21kNT1mMDlmMzc5ZDNkNzAxMmQyNDY5NGJlZDhjZGQx

MDZlZjwvdXJsPjwvcmVsYXRlZC11cmxzPjwvdXJscz48ZWxlY3Ryb25pYy1yZXNvdXJjZS1udW0+

MTAuMTAxNi9qLnByb2VuZy4yMDE2LjA0LjAzODwvZWxlY3Ryb25pYy1yZXNvdXJjZS1udW0+PHJl

bW90ZS1kYXRhYmFzZS1uYW1lPlNjb3B1czwvcmVtb3RlLWRhdGFiYXNlLW5hbWU+PGxhbmd1YWdl

PkVuZ2xpc2g8L2xhbmd1YWdlPjwvcmVjb3JkPjwvQ2l0ZT48L0VuZE5vdGU+AG==

ADDIN EN.CITE PEVuZE5vdGU+PENpdGUgSGlkZGVuPSIxIj48QXV0aG9yPkFsaTwvQXV0aG9yPjxZZWFyPjIwMTY8