Implementation of Design and Build on Development Bali Maritime Tourism Hub (BMTH)

(1)

You are free to: Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format, Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially

9

Implementation of Design and Build on Development Bali Maritime Tourism Hub (BMTH)

Praptono Nugroho, Ronny Durrotun Nasihien

Civil Engineering of Engineering and Computer Science Faculty of Narotama University of Surabaya, Indonesia

[email protected], [email protected]

Abstract

Choosing the right type of contract is one of the most important managerial decisions because it has a direct impact on project success, because it affects performance indicators such as cost, quality, times and safety.

Research steps to analyze technically about choosing the right type of work according to the perception of the owner of the job using Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) method. The hierarchical structure used is:

the choice of contract type (goal), technical aspect (criterion 1), financial aspect (criterion 2), legal aspect (criterion 3), project schedule (criterion 4) and risk aspect (criterion 5). Then three alternatives are used:

Design Bid Build (alternative 1), Design and Build (alternative 2) and Design and Management (alternative 3). From the result of the research, it can be concluded that the criteria for the largest legal aspect (26,90%) followed by technical aspects (23,34%) and risk aspect (20,14%). Meanwhile, the criteria for project schedule and financial aspect only get a weight of 13,83% for the project schedule criteria and 15,79% for the financial aspects supported by a consistency ratio of < 10% namely 9,10%. The results were then compared with data from interviews where most of the interviewees explained that the biggest issues that often occurred at project sites were social, political, legal and technical issues. Then based on the analysis of the contract type assessment using the scoring table, it was found that the lump sum (Design and Build) contract type with a total 50,12% is the highest total from the Owner’s point of view.

Keyword:

AHP, Design and Build, lump sum, contract type selection.

1. Introduction

Accelerating marine development is a challenge that must be pursued for the welfare of all Indonesian people considering the condition as an archipelagic country with a very wide sea area. The development of the marine industry, fishing industry, tourism and increasing the utilization of the potential of the seabed for the potential of the welfare of the Indonesian people are the main challenges for marine development. In line with this, efforts to maintain the carrying capacity and preservation of the function of the marine environment are also a challenge in marine development.

The Developing Trade in East Indonesia project is the development of infrastructure facilities in Eastern Indonesia. This project is one of the efforts to support government programs related to economic equality, reducing development gaps and inequality in Indonesia, and increasing trade in Eastern Indonesia.

Several Developing Trade in East Indonesia projects are classified as commercially moderate impact for the Bali area.

The development of Benoa port as a tourism hub Indonesia will make Benoa harbor the center of cruise shipping routes in Indonesia. Increasing the capacity of Benoa port as a maritime tourism hub will provide a multiplier effect on ports in the butterfly route cruise in Indonesia, such as the port of Tanjung Emas, Tanjung Perak, Gilimas, Labuhan Bajo, Raja Ampat, Makassar, Manado, Ambon, Kumai, Pontianak, etc. in addition cruise visits at these ports will also provide a multiplier effect on the economy of each region.

The location that is planned to be developed as a Bali Maritime Tourism Hub (BMTH) is Benoa Harbor which is located in Denpasar City, Bali. It is necessary to evaluate project performance on the work that has been running.

2. Methodology

1.1 Literature review

Choosing the right type of contract is one of the most important managerial decisions because it has a direct impact on the success of project as it affects performance indicators such as cost, quality, times and job safety. Indeed the contract type selection method has evolve over the years, and there are many

(2)

10

variations and alternatives introduced in the construction industry to meet various consumer demands (Ahmed & El-Sayegh, 2021).

According to Moon et al., (2011) this model really describes cases that occur in construction projects so that it can be used by job owners to accurately select the type of contract which accommodates the characteristics of the job owner, project characteristics and influences from the environment or external factors. Here we need some characteristics, namely cost, quality, duration control, experience and capacity, mutual trust, risk, complexity, innovation, flexibility, integrate design and construction, market condition, regulations and market competitiveness.

Selection of the right contract is the basis of success in any construction project and this is not an easy job because it is related to the characteristics of each procurement system. Apart from having several types of contracts available to choose from, each one varies in several aspects (Hosseini et al., 2016). It is not easy to manage projects from planning to implementation in terms of costs, time, human resources and quality that have been determined if they are still separate for each aspect. To get the results of a good planning analysis, a project manager must be able to analyze all components of the work. We need a system that is able to provide alternative solutions so that a project can be structured better in its implementation.

Along with the increasing number of projects being carried out at one time, determining project priorities becomes a problem in carrying out business strategies. So we need a system that can assist a manager in making decisions and considering project priorities based on wishes by taking into account the criteria they have (Kardila & Ranggadara, 2020).

Antoniou et al., (2013)provide nine criteria that are most often taken into account in choosing the type of contract against each criterion these criteria include: cost uncertainty, uncertainty of scope, process uncertainty, value of money, critically of schedule, performance critically, availability of extra resources, contracted difficulties and claims. The purpose of this study is to describe a complex section pattern as it relates to participant choice. Where the result of this study provide information about the origin of the respondent , current position profile, year and type of professional experience and how long the experience with each type of contract affect their perception of the suitability of each type of contract against each criterion and score of each type of contract (Antoniou et al., 2012).

Mahdi & Alreshaid, (2005) conducted research on various methods of selecting the type of contract (project delivery) that can be used with various types of work and type of job (owner). While no method is perfect, there may be one that is better than the other and first the requirements of the job. These requirements are further dictated to determine which are most likely to provide the best results for the job owner. Selection of the best contract (project delivery) is based on factors that have a high impact on technical aspects and low costs. They define the factors that most influence the contract type method (project delivery), they approach the optimal factors are project characteristics, owner needs, and owner preferences.

Barati et al., (2015) in their journal entitled “Selecting Optimal Project Delivery System for Infrastructural Projects Using Analytic Hierarchy Process”, they conducted research with correspondent objects consisting of project managers and consultant, especially those who had been involved in mega project.at the same time, also conducted interviews with several parties and experienced infrastructure project employees. From the results of the questionnaires and obtained 52 questionnaires and 12 opinions from the results of interviews which were then processed with the final results obtained 20 influential factors. Based on the literature 20 influential factors. Based on the literature that has been described above, the authors also conducted a review of several research results that have been carried out and can be presented in the following table 2.1.

1.2 Analysis Method

Analysis of the data used in this study is to use the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) method to determine the weight of value of the criteria that most influence the selection of contract types in the development of Bali Maritime Tourism Hub (BMTH). Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) is a decision support model developed by Thomas L.Saaty, (1993),hierarchy is defined as a representation of a complex problem in a multi-level structure where the first level is goal followed by factor level, criteria, sub-criteria and so on down to the last level of alternatives. With a hierarchy, a complex can be broken down into groups which are then arranged into a hierarchical form so that the problem will appear more structured and systematic.

In the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) method according to L.Saaty, (1993) in principle, it can be done with the main steps, that is compiling a hierarchy in the AHP hierarchical structure chart where in the preparation of the hierarchy aims to define the situation or problem carefully (formulating the focus of the problem). , enter as many details as possible elements (criteria). The hierarchy that has been created begin with the main goal (goal). After being carried out by the expert, the next step is to create a comparison

(3)

11

matrix that describes the relative contribution or influence of each element on the goals or criteria set on it.

Followed by calculating the eigenvalues and testing their consistency. If it is not consistent then the data collection is repeated repeatedly 3, 4, and 5 for all levels of the hierarchy. If consistency has been achieved (CI < 0.1) then it is carried out by doing global priority.

Table 1. Resume criteria for selecting the type of contract according to the reference

Criteria

Cost uncertainty Technical uncertainty Scope uncertainty Process Uncertainty Budget availability Backup Availability Resource Long Term Goals Critical schedule Performance Claim ContractorDifficulty Technology Risk Allocation Political factor

Hosseini et al., (2016) √ √ √ √ √ √ √

Kardila & Ranggadara, (2020) √ √ √ √

Antoniou et al., (2012) √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √

Antoniou et al., (2013) √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √

Moon et al., (2011) √ √ √ √ √

Mahdi & Alreshaid, (2005) √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Barati et al., (2015) √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √

Setiawan, (2005) √ √ √ √ √ √

Abed, (2015) √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √

Ahmed & El-Sayegh, (2021) √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √

Bhakti et al., (2013) √ √ √ √

Fauziyah et al., (2016) √ √ √ √ √ √

Suryadinata Hartono, (2016) √ √ √ √ √ √

DBIA, (2015) √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √

1.3 Methodology flow

It is a flow chart of the scope of work to be carried out in completing this research:

Figure 1. Final project completion flowchart 1.4 Result

In a study for problem solving, the existence of data is absolutely necessary in order to maintain or strengthen the research results to be achieved in accordance with the goals that have been previously set.

The data that is used as the basis for solving problems include:

1. Determination of very important factors (criteria) as the main factors in choosing the type of contract obtained from grouping the results of previous research, as has been presented in table 2.1, namely Technical Aspects (C1), Financial Aspects (C2), Legal Aspects (C3), Project Schedule (C4) and Risk Aspects (K5).

(4)

12 2. Assessment between criteria

3. Assessment between alternatives

d. Alternative 1 (A1) : Design Bid Build (DBB) e. Alternative 2 (A2) : Design and Build (DB) f. Alternative 3 (A3) : Design and Management (DM)

Figure 2. AHP Model Diagram 1.5 Discussion

1.5.1 Respondent Profile

Completion of an expert perspective assessment of attributes using the AHP method and requires an assessment from parties who are considered competent. The assessment is carried out in from of a pairwise comparison between each attribute contained in the model that has been made. The respondent’s (25 persons) profile can be seen in the figure 3

Figure 3. Respondent profile

Source: AHP questionnaire respondent data 1.5.2 Data Processing with AHP Method

1. Pairwise comparison questionnaire using a 9-point scale for the related attributes in the AHP model that has been made. The results of the respondents’ assessment are then carried out preliminary processing, namely to get the average value of several respondents before being include into the AHP matrix. The data processing uses the geometric mean with the formula:

GM = √nX1ⁿ ^′X2^′… ′Xn………1) Design Build

Contracts Contract type selection

Technical Aspect

Financial Aspect

Legal Aspect

Project schedule

Design – Bid – Build Contracts

Design and Management Contracts

Risk Aspect

Experiences Expert

(5)

13

Table 2. Paired Criteria Matrix

Criteria Technical

Aspect

Financial Aspect

Legal Aspect

Project Schedule

Risk Aspect

Technical Aspect 1.000 2.733 0.912 1.476 0.909

Financial Aspect 0.366 1.000 0.873 1.358 0.864

Legal Aspect 1.096 2.946 1.000 1.413 1.494

Project schedule 0.803 0.736 0.622 1.000 0.629

Risk Aspect 1.299 1.157 0.603 1.590 1.000

Amount 4.563 8.572 4.011 6.837 4.896

The same way is done for the alternative paired assessment matrix on each criterion, with the following results:

Table 3. Alternative paired matrices for technical aspect criteria

Alternative DBB DB DM

DBB 1.000 0.348 1.119

DB 2.870 1.000 1.585

DM 0.894 0.631 1.000

Amount 4.764 1.979 3.704

Table 4. Alternative paired matrix for the criteria of financial aspect

DBB 1.000 0.737 1.534

DB 1.566 1.000 1.632

DM 0.631 0.707 1.000

Amount 3.197 2.444 4.166

Table 5. Alternative paired matrix for the criteria of legal aspect

DBB 1.000 0.474 1.334

DB 2.108 1.000 1.853

DM 0.750 0.540 1.000

Amount 3.858 2.014 4.187

Table 6. Alternative paired matrix for the criteria of project schedule

DBB 1.000 0.428 1.820

DB 2.338 1.000 2.307

DM 0.570 0.450 1.000

Amount 3.908 1.877 5.127

Table 7. Alternative paired matrix for the criteria of Risk aspect

DBB 1.000 0.367 1.209

DB 2.728 1.000 1.960

DM 0.827 0.500 1.000

Amount 4.555 1.866 4.169

2. The next step is to normalize the matrix assessment of each cell by the number in each column, so that the relative value per cell will be obtained. Finally, each factor is summed horizontally and the priority weight is sough, and continued with testing its calculation results are presented as follows:

(6)

14

Table 8. Paired criteria assessment CRITERI

A

Technic al Aspect

Financia l Aspect

Legal Aspec

t

Project schedul

e

Risk Aspec t

Tota l

Weigh t priorit

y

ME

V CI CR

Technical

Aspect 0.219 0.319 0.227 0.216 0.186 1.16

7 0.233 5.40

7

0.10 2

0.09 1 Financial

Aspect 0.080 0.117 0.218 0.199 0.176 0.79

0 0.158 Legal

Aspect 0.240 0.344 0.249 0.207 0.305 1.34

5 0.269 Project

schedule 0.176 0.086 0.155 0.146 0.128 0.69

2 0.138 Risk

Aspect 0.285 0.135 0.150 0.233 0.204 1.00

7 0.201 Amount/

check 1 1 1 1 1 5 1

Table 9. Test the consistency of the alternative comparison matrix on each criterion Alternative to Criteria MEV CI CR Consistency (CR< 0.1)

Technical Aspect 3.056 0.028 0.048 Yes Financial Aspect 3.108 0.054 0.093 Yes Legal Aspect 3.019 0.010 0.017 Yes Project schedule 3.067 0.034 0.058 Yes Risk Aspect 3.022 0.011 0.019 Yes

From the results of the consistency test on the paired criteria matrix on each criterion, all of them show a CR < 0.1, which means the data is consistent. Then you can proceed to the next step.

3. Creating Global Priority

The step to create global priorities is done by multiplying the alternative priority weights by the criteria priority weights.

Table 10 Creating Global Priority Alternative priority weight

Weight priority Criteria

Global Priority

Technical Aspect

Financial Aspect

Legal Aspect

Project schedule

Risk

Aspect 0.233

DBB 0.229 0.328 0.271 0.280 0.235 0.158 0.264

DB 0.512 0.430 0.495 0.527 0.535 x 0.269 = 0.501

DM 0.259 0.242 0.234 0.193 0.230 0.138 0.235

0.201

4. Return to the hierarchical structure to provide the calculation results for each Criteria and Alternative.

Figure 4 Return to the hierarchical structure to provide the calculation results

(7)

15

2. Conclusion

1. Based on the analysis using the AHP method that the author has carried out on the criteria for selecting the type of contract which includes technical Aspect, financial Aspect, legal Aspect, project schedules, and risk aspect, it can be concluded that the criteria for legal aspect have the greatest weight (26,90%) followed by technical Aspect (23,34%) and risk aspect (20,14%). Meanwhile, the project schedule and financial Aspect criteria only received a weight of 13,83% for the project schedule criteria and 15,79%

for the financial aspects supported by a consistency ratio of < 10% namely 9,10%.

2. The results are then compared with the data from interviews where most of the expert explained that the biggest issues that often occur at project sites are social, political, legal and technical Issues. From this it can be concluded that the assessment or research carried out can describe the owner’s perception regarding the implementation of work at that location.

3. Based on the analysis of the contract type assessment table, it was found that the lump sum (Design and Build) contract type with a total score of 50,12% I the highest total from the owner’s point of view, it is concluded that the Fixed Price contract type for development projects. Bali Maritime Tourism Hub (BMTH) at Benoa harbor.

References

Abed, M. A. (2015). Selecting Appropriate Construction Contract Type. November 2019.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331976770_SELECTING_THE_APPROPRIATE_CONST RUCTION_CONTRACT_TYPE_BY_USING_THE_ANALYTICAL_HIERARCHY_PROCESS_A PPROACH

Ahmed, S., & El-Sayegh, S. (2021). Critical review of the evolution of project delivery methods in the construction industry. Buildings, 11(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings11010011

Antoniou, F., Aretoulis, G. N., Konstantinidis, D., & Kalfakakou, G. P. (2012). Selection Criteria Used for the Choice of Contract Type for Major Highway Construction Projects. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 48, 3508–3517. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.06.1314

Antoniou, F., Aretoulis, G. N., Konstantinidis, D., & Kalfakakou, G. P. (2013). Complexity in the Evaluation of Contract Types Employed for the Construction of Highway Projects. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 74, 448–458. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.03.048

Barati, K., Reza Shiran, G., & Sepasgozar, S. M. (2015). Selecting Optimal Project Delivery System for Infrastructural Projects Using Analytic Hierarchy Process. American Journal of Civil Engineering and Architecture, 3(6), 212–217. https://doi.org/10.12691/ajcea-3-6-4

Bhakti, S., Wiguna, P. A., & Susanto, A. (2013). Penentuan Risiko Jenis Kontrak Pada Proyek Pembangunan Gedung di Lingkungan Total E & P Indonesie Dengan Metode Analytic Hierarchy

Process. 1–7.

https://doi.org/http://mmt.its.ac.id/download/SEMNAS/SEMNAS%20XVII/MP/2.%20%20Semidang

%20Bhakti.pdf

DBIA. (2015). Choosing a Project Delivery Method. A Design-Build Done Right Primer, April, 1–8.

https://dbia.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Primers-Choosing-Delivery-Method.pdf

Fauziyah, S., Wibowo, M. A., & Suliantoro, H. (2016). Analisis Perbandingan Kontrak Tradisional dan Kontrak Berbasis Kinerja (KBK) Berdasarkan Risiko Persepsi Kontraktor dengan Metode Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP). MEDIA KOMUNIKASI TEKNIK SIPIL, 22(1), 13.

https://doi.org/10.14710/mkts.v22i1.12402

Hosseini, A., Lædre, O., Andersen, B., Torp, O., Olsson, N., & Lohne, J. (2016). Selection Criteria for Delivery Methods for Infrastructure Projects. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 226, 260–268.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.06.187

Kardila, D., & Ranggadara, I. (2020). Analytical Hierarchy Process Untuk Menentukan Prioritas Proyek.

JOINS (Journal of Information System), 5(1), 95–101. https://doi.org/10.33633/joins.v5i1.3490 L.Saaty, T. (1993). Pengambilan Keputusan Bagi Para Pemimpin (K. Peniwati (ed.); Seri Manaj). LPPM &

PT Pustaka Binaman Presindo.

Mahdi, I. M., & Alreshaid, K. (2005). Decision support system for selecting the proper project delivery method using analytical hierarchy process (AHP). International Journal of Project Management, 23(7), 564–572. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2005.05.007

Moon, H., Cho, K., Hong, T., & Hyun, C. (2011). Selection Model for Delivery Methods for Multifamily- Housing Construction Projects. Journal of Management in Engineering, 27(2), 106–115.

https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)me.1943-5479.0000038

(8)

16

Setiawan, M. I. (2005). Faktor-faktor Penentu dalam Pemilihan Jenis Kontrak Untuk Proyek Pembangunan Gedung Pertokoan. 49–54. https://doi.org/Faktor-faktor Penentu dalam Pemilihan Jenis Kontrak Untuk Proyek Pembangunan Gedung Pertokoan

Suryadinata Hartono, S. (2016). Pemilihan Tipe Kontrak Pada Proyek Gudang Pabrik Pt . Dewata Industrindo Forestry - Lamongan Contract on the Project Factory Warehouse Pt. Dewata Industrindo Forestry-Lamongan. https://doi.org/https://repository.its.ac.id/72933/1/3111100096- Undergraduate_Thesis.pdf