Scoping study for an AASHTO Guide on Accelerating Project Delivery

Requested by:

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)

Standing Committee on Highways

Prepared by:

Benjamin G. PerezPB Consult Inc.

March 2006

The information contained in this report was prepared as part of NCHRP

Project 20-07, Task 211, National Cooperative Highway Research Program,

Transportation Research Board.

Acknowledgements

This study was requested by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), and conducted as part of National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Project 20-07. The NCHRP is supported by annual voluntary contributions from the state Departments of Transportation. Project 25-07 is intended to fund quick response studies on behalf of the AASHTO Standing Committee on Highways. The report was prepared by Benjamin Perez of PB Consult Inc, with review and other contributions provided by Hal Kassoff, Stephen Lockwood, and Wayne McDaniel. The work was guided by a project panel chaired by Ken Leuderalbert with the Florida Department of Transportation (DOT) and also included Gary Schuburt, New Mexico DOT; Lisa Choplin, Maryland State Highway Administration; Rick Smith, Washington DOT; and Steve Dewitt, North Carolina DOT. The project was managed by Christopher Hedges, NCHRP Senior Program Officer.

Disclaimer

The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied are those of the research agency that performed the research and are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board or its sponsors. This report has not been reviewed or accepted by the Transportation Research Board's Executive Committee or the Governing Board of the National Research Council.

1

Table of Contents

1. Summary of the Research Process……………………………………………….. 3

2. Problem Statement………………………………………………………………. .6

3. Estimated Level of Effort and Timeframe to Complete the Research……….......15

4. Implementation Plan for an AASHTO Guide on Accelerating Project Delivery..17

5. Identification and Summary of State Efforts to Accelerate Project Delivery……18

5.1 Florida Department of Transportation Project Acceleration Experience………...18 5.2 New Jersey Department of Transportation Project Acceleration Experience

with the Hyperbuild Program………………………………………………… …21 5.3 North Carolina Department of Transportation Acceleration Experience………...26 5.4 Oregon Department of Transportation Acceleration Experience………………...29 5.5 South Carolina Department of Transportation Project Acceleration Experience

with the 27 in 7 Program…………………………………………………………32 5.6 Policy Assessment of State DOT Experience with Project Acceleration………...35

6. Review of Useful Existing Literature on Project Acceleration…………………..38

Appendix A TRIS and RIP Database Searches of Acceleration Terms………………..47

A1. TRIS Search Results...…………………………………………………………....47

A2. RIP Search Results……………………………………………………………….83

2

1. Summary of the Research ProcessThe objective of this scoping study is to outline the tasks and resources necessary to develop an AASHTO Guide on Accelerating Project Delivery. The scoping study lead to the submission of the problem statement found in Chapter 2 of this Final Report to the NCHRP for a project to develop the full Guide in FY2007.

A kickoff teleconference was held with the Project Panel on October 31, 2005. The Panel provided helpful direction to the research team, which is reflected in the scope of work and problem statement found in Chapter 2 of this report. Key guidance from the Project Panel included the following points:

The study must focus on the means to accelerate project delivery throughout the entire delivery cycle and avoid getting bogged down in particular acceleration techniques for discrete phases.

The research will not need to address acceleration techniques have been used for some time in detail. References and information on where to get the proper documentation will be adequate.

The study should identify best practices for moving from one phase of project development to the next for both traditional procurements as well as those using alternative delivery methods.

The study will need to address DOT organizational structures, which often involve silo-based disciplines. Delays arise when these groups protect their own interests. This syndrome is often overcome when the driver is a project rather than internal department interests.

The research should investigate “bracketing,” which combines the planning and NEPA processes. This effort should identify accelerated models for addressing purpose and need and land use and right of way issues.

The research should identify reasonable timeframes for the delivery of highway projects using both traditional and alternative delivery approaches. It should provide an understanding of why these timeframes prevail, and then look at steps that have been taken to improve delivery times both with design-bid-build and design-build delivery.

The research should identify average conception-to-completion implementation timeframes for a “typical” project, such as a multilane highway widening, assuming environmental approvals ranging from categorical exclusions to findings of no significant impact and full-blown environmental impact statements.

The research should also explore the costs involved with acceleration. These could involve construction costs and perhaps ongoing maintenance and operation costs. There are often trade-offs involved that can justify the use of acceleration techniques even if they affect costs.

The project should investigate accelerated emergency response reconstruction projects, such as the I-10 Lake Pontchartrain Bridge replacement in Louisiana or the I-10 Escambia Bay crossing reconstruction in Florida as models for acceleration. It also needs to be recognized that it would be unrealistic to expect this level of acceleration on

3

a regular basis. However, it is likely that there are valuable lessons to learn from these situations

The scope for the Manual should not grow too large. The effort will involve more applied than new research.

The research team addressed these points in the draft Problem Statement, which was submitted to the Project Panel on December 1, 2005 for their review and comment. In addition to the guidance received from the Project Panel, the research team also benefited from a series of telephone interviews with transportation professionals from around the country with extensive experience in accelerating project delivery. Chapter 5 of this report summarizes the interviews with transportation officials in Florida, New Jersey, North Carolina, Oregon, and South Carolina. A number of additional aspects have been incorporated into the Problem Statement as a result of these discussions.

The Problem Statement was well received by members of the Project Panel and Chair Ken Leuderalbert forwarded it to NCHRP Manager Crawford Jencks for review and ranking on December 8, 2005 on behalf of the AASHTO Standing Committee on Quality. The Problem Statement was included in the NCHRP workbook and circulated to the AASHTO Standing Committee on Research (SCOR) and the Research Advisory Committee (RAC). Initial feedback provided to Ken Leuderalbert has been positive.

Mr. Leuderalbert also circulated the Problem Statement to all members of the AASHTO Standing Committee on Quality and invited principal investigator Benjamin Perez to participate in a conference call with the Committee on January 24, 2006. Committee members found the Problem Statement to be clear, comprehensive, and well laid out. They agreed with the research team that the heart of the research would be completed in Task 5. Committee members then discussed their own experiences with acceleration issues and suggested that the background section of the Problem Statement should identify a few more challenging issues. Topics identified by committee members included:

Interaction with external partners and permitting agencies during the environmental review period

Failure to clearly scope a project early in the development process: “murky” projects lead to confusion and delay

Cumbersome procurement requirements for consultant acquisitions and supplements

Funding unpredictability

Committee members also found that it might be difficult for the research team selected to complete the Guide to quantify the cost of project delays to DOTs. They also advised that the research should investigate the techniques that are used to accelerate both individual projects and multi-project construction programs, with the assumption that they often differ.

Finally the group discussed the need for the research and suggested that the background section of the Problem Statement cite language from the AASHTO 2005-2010 Strategic Plan, identifying its goal of providing state DOTs with a comprehensive framework for improved delivery of all transportation projects. In particular, this includes the priority of, “Assisting state DOTs in addressing ways and means to improve and accelerate project

4

delivery of all transportation projects from ’cradle to grave‘ (planning and programming through construction and maintenance and operations).”

The research team has incorporated all of these suggestions in the Final Problem Statement found in Chapter 2 of this report. In addition, per the subsequent instruction of Mr. Leuderalbert, the Problem Statement has also been expanded to include site visits by the selected research team to as many as six state and local transportation agencies for first hand investigation of their experience with accelerating projects. The Final Problem Statement calls for recommendations on agencies to be visited to be included in the Interim Report. These recommendations will be discussed at a meeting with the selected research team and the project panel. Final selection of the site visit locations will ensue from that discussion.

5

2. Problem Statement

National Cooperative Highway Research ProgramRESEARCH PROJECT STATEMENTProject 20-07 Task 211

AASHTO Guide on Accelerating Project Delivery(Posted Date: xx/xx/06)

BACKGROUND

The transportation demands of the 21st Century will require state departments of transportation (DOTs) to continually improve their managerial, organizational and operational effectiveness. One of the main goals articulated in the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) 2005-2010 Strategic Plan is to provide state DOTs with a comprehensive framework for improved delivery of all transportation projects. AASHTO’s priority is to assist state DOTs in addressing ways and means to improve and accelerate project delivery of all transportation projects from “cradle to grave” (planning and programming through construction and maintenance and operations). This will include addressing environmental review issues, developing a project delivery acceleration too box and establishing a program to monitor project delivery timeframes and impediments.

It is not unusual for major projects to take five to seven years in the development phase – planning, environmental assessment and design – and then three to four years to construct. Many projects take far longer if significant community or environmental issues are involved. Delayed projects exacerbate the social and economic costs of congestion and safety problems.

Elected officials and transportation professionals recognize that traveler/customers are less tolerant of delayed transportation projects. The public’s lack of tolerance is true with new highway projects, as they await the reductions in congestion and other benefits that major capacity enhancements may afford. However, their frustration is far greater with projects involving the rehabilitation or improvement of existing highways. These projects represent an increasing percentage of the typical DOT’s workload and progress on these projects – or the lack thereof – is plainly visible to the thousands of motorists passing by each day. More importantly, because construction projects on existing highways often reduce capacity, drivers endure congestion-related delays throughout the construction period. As congestion on the nation’s transportation system increases, it is essential for state DOTs to fulfill the public’s expectations by implementing badly needed transportation improvements more quickly and efficiently.

A good deal of recent research on accelerated project delivery has focused on tools and business practices that can be used to accelerate the completion of different phases of the project implementation process. However, few, if any, of these efforts address the subject of project acceleration from a holistic perspective – looking at the issue from initial conception to the completion of construction. Most DOTs are organized by functions that

6

correspond to the different phases involved in project implementation: planning, environmental review; design; right-of-way acquisition; utility relocation; and construction. These functions are typically grouped into units that are administered separately; an organizational arrangement that requires formal handoffs to take place as projects move from phase to phase. While the need to examine the tools and procedures that have been used to expedite the completion of the individual phases remains, there is a more important need for research of ways in which the different phases can be coordinated in a better and more concurrent manner to eliminate the frequent transition delays that arise as projects progress.

Several DOTs are looking at these issues in an attempt to modify their business procedures and develop projects faster. Some have handed the management of large construction programs over to private sector program managers in an attempt to expedite delivery when sufficient in-house staff is not available. There are also a growing number of self funding toll road enterprises in the United States that are managed as for-profit businesses and are developing procedures intended to foster acceleration. This research project will provide an opportunity to identify tools and procedures that these emerging project developers are using to accelerate project delivery that may enable state DOTs to achieve similar success.

Certain states have addressed the problem of funding shortages and delayed project implementation by passing referenda to create new revenue streams to support the implementation of a strategic group of projects. In such cases DOTs often feel a strong responsibility to uphold the public’s vote of confidence by expediting the delivery of these projects and often engage private sector program managers to over see the program and achieve this goal.

It is widely recognized that many DOTs have achieved impressive results in expediting projects when there is a clear and compelling need to do so, such as responding to damage caused by natural disasters or meeting aggressive deadlines driven by upcoming events such as the Olympic Games. In these cases DOTs have proven that they can abandon business as usual and get critical projects built quickly. There is a need to develop a better understanding of what DOTs do differently in order to accelerate projects under these circumstances and determine whether and how this culture of acceleration might extend – at least in part – to their full complement of projects.

There is also a great need to identify reasonable timeframes for the implementation of typical highway construction projects in an accelerated environment. The identification of these timeframes will enable DOTs and other transportation owners to benchmark their own performance and compare their implementation records with accepted industry standards for accelerating the delivery of highway improvement projects.

It is also essential to develop a nuanced understanding of the constraints to project acceleration and recognize that they extend beyond engineering and organizational challenges. Projects are often delayed by environmental, political and public acceptance issues that are beyond the control of DOTs. Interaction with other agencies and external partners can lead to delays in implementation. In addition, poorly defined project descriptions can cause confusion and precipitate delays early on in the planning process when projects are first added to local Transportation Improvement Plans (TIPs).

7

In many states delays often arise as a result of internal processes or legislative requirements associated with the procurement of consulting services and awarding supplemental work to contractors.

Funding for transportation projects is limited and often unpredictable. In addition, there is often a requirement for a specified geographic distribution of funding with a states. As a result, sub-optimizations may take place – both formally and informally – to distribute available funds in a politically acceptable manner within required timeframes.

Finally, it should be noted that when there is a critical need to accelerate the completion it usually happens. The question of what would happen if all of a DOT’s projects were accelerated needs to be asked. Would funding quickly become exhausted, bringing future work to a halt? Funding constraints may dictate the pace of construction programs even if the capability for accelerated project delivery exists. The research will investigate best practices in expediting project delivery in spite of this underlying reality.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this research is to develop an AASHTO Guide on Accelerating Project Delivery. The Guide will address acceleration issues throughout the lifecycle of project delivery from initial conception to completion. The Guide will describe proven acceleration techniques and provide detailed reference information on this body of work. More importantly, it will also fill gaps in the literature, focusing on organizational issues within departments of transportation and identifying best practices to avoid delays as projects move from one phase of delivery to the next.

The Guide will be a comprehensive source of information on the different techniques and approaches that may be used to accelerate project development throughout the entire delivery process. The Guide must be user friendly and provide readers with an appreciation of the timesavings that can be gained by using different acceleration techniques successfully. With many acceleration tools in place, the Guide should encourage transportation departments to address the cultural issues underpinning the way in which they conduct business and consider accelerating the delivery of most, if not all of their projects.

Accomplishment of the project objective will require the following tasks:

TASKS

Task descriptions are intended to provide a framework for conducting the research. The NCHRP is seeking the insights of proposers on how best to achieve the research objectives. Proposers are expected to describe research plans that can realistically be accomplished within the constraints of available funds and contract time. Proposals must present the proposers' current thinking in sufficient detail to demonstrate their understanding of the problem and the soundness of their approach

8

Task 1: Identify the different motivations for accelerating project delivery

There are many reasons why transportation owners may wish to accelerate the delivery of highway projects. These may include opening a facility by a critically important milestone date; taking advantage of a funding situation that may expire; minimizing construction period disruptions; avoiding costly stop-and-start situations; and taking advantage of the innate benefits of saving money by moving at a faster pace. The Guide should explore the various motivations for accelerating project delivery and also investigate to what extent they may engender different acceleration techniques and end results. This initial analysis will provide valuable context for the remainder of the research, which will include identifying different acceleration strategies for different types of projects and situations.

Project programming is not a simple matter and often involves tradeoffs between cost and price controls and stakeholder satisfaction. The reality is that state DOTs serve many different constituencies and this often leads to delays in project implementation and over programming. Given the uncertainties of projects that become bogged down in environmental reviews or controversy, state DOTs often feel the need to have additional projects in the development pipeline. If a project gets stalled the DOT must be flexible and able to move a different project forward in order to avoid vulnerability of the loss of funds. The research should identify the different stakeholders that DOTs strive to satisfy and investigate how they shape a DOT’s ability to accelerate project delivery.

As part of the analysis of acceleration motivations, the research should also attempt to determine what the cost of doing business is for DOTs and, if possible, extrapolate from that to estimate the cost of delayed project implementation. Providing owners with a better appreciation of the cost savings afforded by accelerated project delivery should encourage them to implement improvements in a more timely and efficient manner.

Task 2: Identify constraints to accelerated delivery

It is important to understand the many constraints that state DOTs face in accelerating their work programs. This task will explore these different constraints in order to provide context for the remainder of the study. The research will investigate both the internal and external constraints facing DOTs. Internal constraints include the organization of most DOTs, which are invariably structured by discipline: planning, design, right-of-way, construction, etc. While function-related delineations are natural, they also create barriers when groups of silo-based disciplines allow their own interests to trump progress on a project. However such forces can be mitigated when projects become the driving force motivating individual departments.

Arguably, the most fundamental constraint all DOTs face is the availability of funding. It is not possible for DOTs to spend resources faster than they are made available. As a result, their basic objective is to keep the project pipeline full, their available money spent, and their staff gainfully employed. While acceleration affords economic efficiency, it is not clear whether a DOT’s entire construction program could be accelerated. The research should investigate the ways in which DOTs address this reality.

The research should also summarize the external constraints and challenges DOTs face in accelerating project delivery. This is particularly true during the environmental review

9

phase. In addition to environmental challenges themselves, projects can be delayed when environmental resource agencies and local and regional planning departments lack the resources or capacity to complete their reviews in a timely fashion. Transportation projects are more often than not the subject of public and political debate and this reality often results in schedule uncertainty. While outreach and streamlining efforts can help to mitigate these issues they remain important causes of delay.

Task 3 Identify reasonable timeframes – absent significant project-specific barriers – for implementing projects from concept to completion

The goal of this task is to identify reasonable timeframes for the delivery of an assortment of “typical” highway projects – from the simple to the complex – for the entire delivery cycle from conception to completion. In addition to identifying timeframes, the analysis should provide an understanding of why these timeframes prevail. Separate consideration should be given to projects using traditional design-bid-build delivery approaches, as well as those using design-build procurement. The analysis should identify both normal and accelerated implementation timeframes for projects requiring different levels of environmental approvals including:

Categorical Exclusions Findings of No Significant Impact (FONSI) Environmental Assessments Environmental Impact Statements

The analysis should also identify timeframes for each of the project development phases including:

Planning Environmental Approvals Final Design Right-of-way Acquisition Utility Relocation Construction

Task 4: Identify measures to improve delivery timeframes within given phases of the project delivery process

This task will involve identifying the different acceleration techniques that can be employed in the main phases of project development: planning; environmental review, final design; right-of-way acquisition, utility relocation and construction. Many of these techniques have been used for some time. In cases where there is an existing body of knowledge detailed research will not be necessary. References and information on where to obtain further documentation will be adequate. A quantified assessment of the potential timesavings these techniques can afford will also be required. Whenever possible, the timesavings assessments should be based on actual experience. The research should also identify gaps in the existing literature on phase-specific acceleration methodologies.

The following acceleration techniques, among others, may be explored:

10

Environmental Streamlining Bracketing Planning and Environmental Analyses Engineering Quality Survey Mapping Constructability Design Reviews Milestone Reviews Substantial Completion Reviews Proactive Right-of-Way Acquisition Design-Build Procurement A + B Contracting Incentive Payments / Disincentive Penalties Lane Rental No Excuse Completion Dates Innovative Construction Techniques

Task 5: Identify measures to avoid delays between delivery phases and expedite the overall project delivery process from conception to completion.

The Guide should explore opportunities for interactive, interdisciplinary, collaborative, cross cutting approaches in which different units and different disciplines work together throughout the development process. This type of concurrent, collaborative approach encourages design, right-of-way, utility, environmental and constructability teams to work together and improve the likelihood of arriving at more creative, cost-effective and contextually compatible solutions. A concurrent and collaborative approach can also help to minimize handoff delays as projects progress from phase to phase. The Guide should identify best practices for utilizing dedicated, multifunctional work teams throughout the development process. It should also be recognized that this is not always possible. Under such circumstances the Guide should also document best practices on avoiding delays when there are staff and management changes as projects transition from one development stage to the next.

In addition, the Guide should investigate tools and procedures that DOTs are using to improve their understanding and management of internal funding issues. These include preparing regular updates of capital cost estimates as projects become better defined. Many states are also inputting updated cost information into powerful cash-flow models that allow them to have a more precise understanding of their future cash needs. With the right modeling tools and lines of communication in place, many DOTs are able to make strategic decisions that can accelerate the delivery process. These decisions may include re-engineering projects to reduce construction costs or recognizing the need to direct additional funding to priority projects.

Also, the Guide should investigate such programs as the Louisiana Transportation Infrastructure Model for Economic Development (TIMED) Highway and Bridge Projects, South Carolina’s 27 in 7 initiative, and Washington State’s recently approved program and identify procedures that have been put into place to move these major initiatives forward in an accelerated environment.

11

Task 6 Within the 7th month of the contract start, submit an interim report documenting the work performed in Tasks 1 through 5.

The interim report should summarize the research conducted in Tasks 1 through 5. For Tasks 4 and 5, the interim report should identify those acceleration practices for which good documentation already exists. Brief summaries of these practices should be prepared, together with references where further analysis is available. The interim report should then identify gaps that exist within current literature and suggest a plan for prioritizing and filling these voids. The research plan shall provide a 2-month period for review and approval of the interim report.

The study team will meet with the project panel to discuss the findings of the interim report and further research to be prepared through the auspices of the current research project. The intent is to focus on areas with the potential to provide the highest benefits to the transportation sector. Together the study team and project panel will agree upon those acceleration practices for which further documentation will be prepared, as well as the level of effort of this analysis. This research will involve in-person interviews with transportation professionals in up to six states who have first hand experience with the selected acceleration practices, together with a review of available resource documents and telephone communications with other practitioners, as appropriate. The intent is to identify best practices and reasonable estimates of the potential timesavings these techniques may afford in accelerating project delivery.

Based on the findings of Tasks 1 through 5, the research team will make recommendations in the Inception Report of up to 12 transportation agencies around the country that would be suitable for site visits. The recommendations should identify the particular acceleration experience that makes each of these agencies of interest, with particular focus on new knowledge that would be beneficial to disseminate. The research team will discuss its recommendations with the project panel and together agree on a subset of up to six agencies to be visited as part of the Task 7 research effort.

Task 7 Conduct Site Visits

In order to develop the best possible understanding of the issues involved in accelerating project delivery, the research team will conduct site visits of up to six transportation agencies around the country that have been successful in expediting the delivery of projects from conception to completion. Site visits should be undertaken by two person teams and should be made to a variety of institutions such as state DOTs, toll enterprises, and private sector program managers. It is assumed that interviews would be scheduled over a one- to two-day period and would focus on each of the issues addressed in Tasks 1 to 5. The research team will develop the finding from the site visits into case studies illustrating the challenges associated with acceleration and lessons learned from some the of the nation’s most successful experiences with accelerating project delivery. The information garnered from the site visits will be assembled in to case studies that will be included in the Guide. The focus of the visits and ensuing case studies will be to identify new methodologies and tools that transportation departments around the country can use to expedite the delivery of projects.

12

Task 8 Prepare the AASHTO Guide on Accelerating Project Delivery.

The study team will prepare an initial draft of the Guide. The organization of the Guide will largely follow that of the research tasks set forth in this research statement. The Guide will contain chapters summarizing the research prepared in Tasks 1 through 7, together with the further analysis agreed upon following the review of the interim report.

The Guide should provide summaries of well documented acceleration techniques, together with reference information, and more expansive discussions of those promising practices identified in Task 6 that are less well documented. The Guide should identify owners that have implemented acceleration techniques successfully, convey lessons learned, and provide detailed descriptions of best practices. In particular, the Guide should identify different acceleration strategies for different types of projects and situations. The Guide should also estimate the timesavings potential of the different acceleration and management techniques. The Guide should conclude with recommendations for future project acceleration research needs. These recommendations will be informed by the dialogue with the project panel following the delivery of the interim report. The Guide will also contain an executive summary describing key findings and a glossary of acceleration terms.

A draft of the Guide should be submitted to the project panel at the end of the 16th month from the contract start. Consolidated comments from the project panel will be provided to the study team one month later. The study team will then submit the revised final Guide one month following receipt of the project panel’s comments.

Task 9 Prepare Final Report

In addition to the Guide, the study team will prepare (1) a final report documenting the entire research effort; (2) an executive summary; (3) a PowerPoint presentation summarizing the research findings; and (4) a CD-ROM containing the final report, executive summary, Guide, and a PowerPoint presentation.

Funds Available: $500,000

Contract Time: 18 months (includes 2 months for NCHRP review and approval of the interim report and 2 months for NCHRP review and contractor revision of the final report)

Staff Responsibility:

Authorization to Begin Work: xxx, 2006 (estimated)

Proposal Due Date: xxx xx, 2006

13

14

3. Estimated Level of Effort and Timeframe to Complete the Research

The research team has prepared an estimate of the level of effort that will be required to complete the AASHTO Guide on Accelerating Project Delivery. The estimate is found in Table 1, and includes assumptions on the classifications of labor inputs needed to complete the research together with hourly billing rates. The following rates and labor categories have been assumed:

Senior Experts: $300 per hour Principal Investigator: $250 per hourPolicy Researcher: $165 per hourEngineering Researcher: $150 per hourJunior Research Staff: $100 per hour

An estimate of the number of hours needed to complete each task was compiled, and the work effort was distributed across the different labor types. We estimate that the research will require a total of 2,986 labor hours. In order to complete the work as economically as possible, approximately 53 percent of the labor hours have been leveraged to mid-level research staff, and 21 percent to junior staff. Seventeen percent of the overall labor effort will be provided by the principal investigator. Senior staff will contribute approximately two percent of the work effort reviewing work products and guiding other members of the research team. A graphic designer will be needed to format the report and other work projects. This effort will consume approximately five percent of the labor effort. As shown in Table 1, this labor distribution equates to a labor cost of $484,340. Direct expenses, including site visit travel costs are estimated at $15,120, bringing the total project cost to $499,460.

The research, site visits, report writing and reviews and interface with the project panel can be completed comfortably within an18-month period.

15

  Senior Principal PolicyEngineeri

ngJunio

r Graphic Cost

Labor Category ExpertsInvestigat

orResearch

erResearche

r StaffDesign

er                 

Tasks Hourly Rate $300 $250 $165 $150 $100 $80                    1. Identify Motivations for Accelerating 8 24 60       $18,300              2. Identify Constraints to Accelerating 8 40 80       $25,600        3. Identify Reasonable Timeframes for Project implementation 4 24 80   120   $32,400              4. Identify Measures to Improve Delivery Timeframes 8 40 80 80 120   $49,600              5. Identify Measures to Avoid Delays Between Delivery Phases 8 80 160 80 80   $68,800     6. Interim Report 8 40 80 80 120 40 $52,800               7. Conduct Site Visits   136 232       $72,280               8. Prepared AASHTO Guide on Accelerating Project Delivery 16 100 320 120 120 80 $119,000 9. Prepare Final Report             9.1 Final Report 4 16 40 40 80 24 9.2 Executive Summary 4 8 40 8   8 9.3 PowerPoint 2 4 24     8 Task Totals 10 28 104 48 80 40 $45,560

Labor Subtotals 70 512 1,1

96 408 640 160$484,34

0               

Total Labor Hours             2,986

               

Direct Costs Unit Cost Quantity        Direct

CostField Visit Airfare 500 12         $6,000Field Visit Car Rental 60 12         $720Field Visit Hotel and Per Diem 200 24         $4,800Project Panel Meeting Airfare 500 3         $1,500Project Panel Meeting Per Diem 200 3         $600Shipping 1,000 1         $1,000Miscellaneous 500 1         $500

16

               Direct Cost Subtotals $15,120                              

Total Project Cost            $499,46

0

17

4. Implementation Plan for an AASHTO Guide on Accelerating Project Delivery

A strategy needs to be established for disseminating the information contained in the AASHTO Guide on Accelerating Project Delivery and for implementing standard metrics and procedures to track project acceleration. This will involve a multi-pronged effort including outreach to inform transportation professionals of the Guide’s existence; creation of an Internet-based version of the Guide, as well as hard copy; an educational effort with possible training workshops based on the Guide to convey its findings to transportation officials in an interactive classroom environment; and perhaps the organization of a dedicated conference on project acceleration sponsored jointly by AASHTO and TRB. Follow-up sessions and/or longer workshops sessions on the subject of acceleration should also be included at the annual TRB and AASHTO conferences.

As part of the distribution plan the following documents should be produced: Distribution letter to the FHWA Resource Centers and Division Offices Electronic notice of the availability of the document with information on where to

obtain hard copies and access electronic versions Distribution list of agencies, organizations, web sites, listserves, and other parties

that should be notified of the availability of the products produced as a result of the research

Members of the AASHTO Standing Committee on Quality, working together with staff from the National Academies and AASHTO, will play an important role in formulating the details of the implementation plan for the Guide.

5. Identification and Summary of State Efforts to Accelerate Project Delivery

As part of its research effort to prepare the Problem Statement for the AASHTO Guide for Accelerating Project Delivery, the research team investigated recent state DOT efforts to accelerate project delivery. The primary vehicle for conducting this research was detailed telephone interviews with staff from state and local transportation agencies who have been directly involved with acceleration efforts. Members of the project panel recommended that the research team contact most of these individuals, many of whom are actually serving on the project panel. In many cases the interviewees also suggested additional contacts. Interviewees that have been recommended but not yet contacted have been to facilitate discussions at a later date with the research team selected to complete the Guide.

The sections below summarize the interviews conducted by the research team. They reflect the individual opinions of the people interviewed and provide an understanding of the acceleration experience of the states and agencies that they are associated with. Each of these agencies has made important contributions to the collective understanding and experience with project acceleration.

5.1 Florida Department of Transportation Project Acceleration Experience

Kenneth Leuderalbert, Manager of the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Project Management, Research & Development Office and chair of the scoping study Project Panel, reported that FDOT has had success in merging the planning and environmental processes with the goal of expediting the time needed to complete them. Here reports that this also involved undertaking some conceptual engineering work so that cooperating agencies could have a better understanding of what the projects entail and then decide whether or not to support them. When projects do not require an Environmental Assessment or an Environmental Impact States FDOT advances them straight from planning into preliminary design and engineering. Mr. Leuderalbert reported that most projects in Florida are built with categorical exclusions, so this model is quite common.

Mr. Leuderalbert notes that when it comes to accelerated delivery things happen on a project-by-project basis and that those perceived as priorities are more likely to be accelerated. One way that a district is able to deliver projects more quickly is by eliminating phase reviews that often take place at 30, 60, and 90 percent completion. Concurrent activities and overlapping of functions is also helpful. He also notes that if one were to ask the district staff if cutting a review affects overall project quality the consensus is that it generally does not. FDOT also uses a complete array of construction procurement tools to expedite delivery including: design-build delivery, A+B procurements; no excuse bonuses, and incentive / disincentive contracts. When you apply all of these tools together a DOT is able to accelerate and deliver projects more quickly.

19

Mr. Leuderalbert believes the question one needs to ask is that since we have the tools, why can’t they be used on a more regular basis to accelerate delivery across the board? How long should a normal design phase or preliminary design and engineering phase take? How do we overlap the different phases to implement projects as efficiently as possible? Mr. Leuderalbert believes that FDOT’s schedules are padded and allow more time than is necessary.

Mr. Leuderalbert believes that it would be beneficial to determine what the cost of doing business is for a DOT and then to extrapolate from that to estimate the cost of delayed project implementation. What is the cost of taking 20 years to implement a project rather than five years? Even if staffing resources dedicated to the project are doubled, the net savings are still there when the project is in the ground sooner. These cost savings are real and should make acceleration a real selling point with state DOTs.

DOTs get bogged down in trying to identify the optimum answer rather than a good answer. Sometimes you can develop a good answer in one year when it would take four years to be sure the optimum answer had been obtained. The benefit of such analysis is often a case of diminishing returns.

DOTs are also often not used to making real-time decisions and working in a concurrent fashion. For example, right-of-way staff might be reluctant to begin working on a project that has not been completely designed because there could be a change that would force them to throw away their work and start over again. However, possible delays are often overshadowed by the benefits of a concurrent approach. In developing areas it is typically best to purchase needed land as soon as possible. Mr. Leuderalbert notes, “If you don’t do it concurrently you don’t get real time answers and a parcel that may have been available could be developed and then force a design change – i.e. more delay – further on down the road.”

Fiscal constraints are also used as an argument for not accelerating project delivery. In many cases a DOT will want to complete a design so that it is “ready to go” once the funds are available. However, if too much time has passed, the designs may need to be revisited, particularly in developing regions. Mr. Leuderalbert thinks that it is better not to start design on projects that do not have funding. He believes that it is more important to for DOTs to devote their resources to accelerating the delivery of those projects for which it actually has the funding. This goes against the usual way in which many DOTs conduct their business, but this type of paradigm shift will ultimately result in greater efficiencies.

In terms of Florida acceleration programs Mr. Leuderalbert believes that FDOTs Efficient Transportation Decision Making (ETDM) process summarizes the Departments approach. This is essentially the environmental streamlining process that he outlined earlier in the conversation. These documents are reviewed in the Chapter 6 of this report.

Mr. Leuderalbert also suggested that the I-10 Escambia Bay crossing reconstruction project would likely provide interesting information. This is a bit of an anomaly because it was an emergency response situation; however, there are still lessons to be learned. The old crossing is carried on two two-can bridges, which were damaged by hurricane Ivan. There are currently speed and vehicle size restrictions on the bridges and one has

20

only a single lane open to traffic. FDOT expedited the environmental approvals process to replace the existing structures with two three-lane bridges. When completed, the first will provide two lanes of travel in each direction and will then be converted to three-lane, one-way service with ample shoulder widths once the second bridge is completed. The replacement bridges have been procured using a design-build model to expedite implementation. Four lanes of traffic will be opened in late fall 2006 on the new eastbound bridge. The westbound bridge should be completed in August of 2007.

Mr. Leuderalbert believes that the tools are there to accelerate project development, but that DOTs have not addressed the cultural issues behind the way in which they conduct business. The industry does not look at projects in a holistic way; rather it looks at the individual phases involved in implementing them. A change in mindset is needed for DOTs to be able to accelerate their development programs.

5.1.1 Florida’s Turnpike Enterprise Experience with Project Acceleration

At Mr. Leuderalber’s suggestion, the research team also interviewed Will Sloup, District Design Engineer with Florida’s Turnpike. As a self-financing venture, the Turnpike only studies projects that they intend to build. As a self-sufficient business enterprise the Turnpike tends to have a better understanding of the financial implications of delays in implementing projects than typical state DOTs.

Mr. Sloup pointed out that given that Florida’s Turnpike does not use any Federal funding it has the liberty to deviate from Federally mandated processes, such as receiving approvals at the end of each phase in the development of a high way improvement. He observed that the motivation behind such approvals is to avoid repeating work, but that they often lead to unnecessary delay.

Mr. Sloup reported that when the Turnpike designs an improvement it does not evaluate multiple design alternatives. It either builds per a standard design or it does not build the project at all. For example, given that the many of the Turnpike’s facilities are urban expressways with no available median right-of-way, Mr. Sloup reported that their typical widening involves adding lanes to the outside.

Mr. Sloup also explained that the Turnpike has capitalized on an opportunity for concurrent data collection for planning, preliminary design, and engineering. As a result it collects field data and commission aerial photography a single time and uses the same data for each of these activities. This practice is different from the rest of Florida DOT and saves the Turnpike Enterprise time and money.

Mr. Sloup explained that Florida’s Turnpike Enterprise is viewed as an “innovative experiment in governance.” Public-sector managers direct the State’s largest revenue-producing asset like a private-sector business from within the Florida Department of Transportation. With the introduction of private sector practices, the Enterprise continues to operate the Turnpike in the public interest, but with improved efficiency and effectiveness. The Legislature and the Governor have mandated this new management approach for the Turnpike. This means that the Turnpike is run like a business for Florida.

These changes came about after the Governor challenged the Turnpike to justify why it should not be sold to the private sector. The Turnpike stepped up to the challenge and

21

has redefined its business practices. Mr. Sloup reports that the Turnpike is actively seeing private investment partners and looking at developing new types of revenue streams and business opportunities. This innovative environment is also likely to encourage Florida’s Turnpike to find new ways to accelerate the delivery of its improvement projects.

Kenneth LeuderalbertManagerProject Management, Research & Development OfficeFlorida Department of TransportationOffice: (850) 414-4792ken.leuderalbert@dot.state.fl.us

Will SloupDistrict Design EngineerFlorida’s Turnpike EnterpriseOffice: (407) 532-3999

Mr. Leuderalbert suggested that Steve Benak with FDOT District 3 in Pensacola would be a helpful contact who could provide additional information on the Escambia Bay Crossing Reconstruction His number is 850-638-0250 extension 249. Additional information is available on the project website at http://www.escambiabaybridge.com/ .

5.2 New Jersey Department of Transportation Project Acceleration Experience with the Hyperbuild Program

The genesis of the Hyperbuild program came two years ago when a dam breach led to the collapse of a bridge. On July 12, 2004 13 inches of rain fell in a 12 hour period in New Jersey, which was equivalent to a 1,000 year storm. Six dams were breached and the ensuing floods and scour led to the collapse of the Rt. 70 Friendship Creek Bridge the following day at 5 a.m. Six days later the New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT) opened a new temporary bridge to traffic at 2:30 a.m. The state then moved quickly to build a permanent replacement structure. The first half of the replacement bridge was completed on September 9, 2004 and the remaining lanes were opened in October.

New Jersey’s exemplary response to the loss of the Friendship Creek Bridge lead some public officials to suggest that this type of accelerated delivery could be applied all the time. As a result of this interest, NJDOT established its innovative Hyperbuild program. The Hyperbuild program represents an attempt to change traditional mindsets and develop project faster. It fosters a concurrent approach to completing designs, utility relocations, and permits, and awarding construction contracts.

Brian Strizky, Director of the Division of Quality Management Services for NJDOT provided the research team with valuable, first-

22

hand information on the Hyperbuild program. He reported that New Jersey DOT currently has 12 projects in its Hyperbuild program. The goal of the program is to expedite project implementation and complete design and construction of priority projects within one year. The approach has been to identify an end date for completing these projects and then working backward to determine what needs to be done in order to meet these aggressive goals.

Mr. Strizky cited a recent Hyperbuild project involving the replacement of a small bridge that began in February with an end completion date of the opening of school in September. He explained that working backwards from that date NJDOT compressed all the necessary activities from replacement permits to design and construction to meet the end date. Mr. Strizky reported that the Hyperbuild program has also included some fairly complex projects, including the $30 million reconstruction of a section of I-78. However, to date no Hyperbuild projects have required environmental impact statements.

Mr. Strizky said that it is NJDOT’s goal to accelerate project delivery across the board and observed that this will allow NJDOT to reduce the cost of implementing these improvements. Mr. Strizky observed that NJDOT has very sophisticated cost tracing capabilities that actually allows it to quantify what these potential cost savings are. As a general rule, NJDOT tracks actual versus budgeted costs and schedules for all of its projects. This is documented in what is known as the “Blue Book,” which tracks planning, design, and construction performance. Three years ago NJDOT prepared a report for AASHTO in collaboration with Connie Yew of the Federal Highway Administration. Mr. Srizky believes that NJDOT’s cost tracking abilities are more advanced than other DOTs.

As far as contracting timeframes are concerned, Mr. Strizky stated that NJDOT’s goal for procuring consultant services is to have new consultants on board no more than eight months after issuing n request for proposals (RFP). Like other departments of transportation NJDOT is also making greater use of task order contracts bid as general engineering services.

NJDOT has also recently used a “pool” procurement approach where it issues bid documents for a generic bridge replacement contract, with the statement that six similar projects will be put out for bid within the year. NJDOT then awards these contracts to the six lowest bidders responding to the pool procurement.

In addition to the information Mr. Strizky conveyed in his interview with the research team, he also forwarded two power point presentations describing the Hyperbuild program, as well as a white paper describing the philosophy behind the Hyperbuild program, a

23

description of how the process is applied, and descriptions of Hyperbuild projects and the innovations applied to expedite their implementation.

The research team has included the NJDOT white paper in the final report in the following section because of the helpful and informative nature of its contents.

5.2.1 New Jersey Department of Transportation Capital Program Management Hyperbuild Implementation White Paper

The “Hyperbuild Philosophy,” is slowly becoming “just the way we do business”. Hyperbuild is a project approach that values time above all other factors, bringing a sense of urgency to the completion of construction - an end date focus. This approach can be applied to one or more phases of a project life cycle; scoping, design and construction, by limiting the scope of work to what satisfies the “Problem Statement,” minimizing design process requirements and seeking innovative construction techniques and materials.

Hyperbuild is a regular item at Capital Program Management staff meetings where ideas are encouraged and lessons learned are discussed and presentations of the Hyperbuild concept and project successes are given. These measures are utilized to bring Hyperbuild into the fabric of what we do everyday, however, without the freedom to take risks, this cannot be successfully employed. It is critical to change the mindset of staff and industry professionals that creativity, risk taking, and “outside the box” thinking will be rewarded. This is being accomplished by celebrating successes, i.e., Rt. 1 Olden Avenue/Mulberry Street Bridge replacements. Unanticipated setbacks are being analyzed through a “Lessons Learned” approach and changes/improvements and being incorporated immediately on ongoing construction projects and other projects under design using this approach.

This eliminates perceived negativity with risk taking and allows for information sharing in a positive environment. Creativity (within and outside the organization) is emphasized by promoting a team focus towards innovation and efficiency. The message is also being delivered through presentations at various professional organizations and through communication with other State DOT’s. CPM is currently working to establish a web site through the NJDOT home page and visiting the metropolitan planning organizations to show case successes and bring about greater understanding of the benefits for the public of utilizing this philosophy.

Project Management receives projects via three sources, projects graduated from the Division of Planning and Project Development, projects generated from the Department’s management systems, and priority/emergency projects. For projects that emanate through the scoping pipeline, scope teams are encouraged throughout the feasibility assessment phase to identify, early on, any opportunity for implementation of Hyperbuild concepts. Projects originating through management systems, such as bridge deck replacements, are analyzed for complexity, type of review process needed, urgency of the required improvement, method of construction and contracting methods that make sense.

24

When scoping a project or analyzing purpose and need, a “Toolbox” of innovations has been developed that may be applied to decrease delivery time of the project or minimize impacts to the motoring public. When determining a compelling public need or severe safety conditions, it is imperative that an end date determines the schedule. This end date approach, which is the very essence of Hyperbuild, is more prominent under certain conditions. CPM is urging recognition of these conditions and requiring utilization of this approach when deemed appropriate.

Other “tools” include staged acquisitions, such as, advanced utilities and smart approach to right-of-way purchases. Breaking projects into multiple contracts where it makes sense, such as a need to rectify drainage issues that ordinarily would be held hostage within a bigger project.

Receiving local support in the beginning of the process is critical to achieving desired results of providing a better product in a more efficient manner to the public. Because of this early outreach and our commitment to the public, municipalities and counties have supported our use of detour routes, as just demonstrated on the Route 179 Alexauken Bridge Deck Replacement project. This provides the contractor with an unimpeded work zone and allows for better and quicker construction.

In the field, preparations are made to accommodate various weather conditions rather than stopping work in adverse conditions. Round the clock work is demanded by the schedule along with multiple crews. Maximum pre-work and preparation is demanded.

Additional ways of providing the contractor “more roadway” is to construct off-line, such as the I-280/GSP ramp, and ramping traffic over, as will be done on the I-78 rehabilitation project where we will be taking advantage of the local/express lane configuration. Pre-cast bridge components are being utilized when possible, along with rubblization for pavement rehabilitation projects.

Applying creativity does not only apply to delivery/design innovation or construction techniques. To truly implement an initiative that maximizes efficiencies, process improvements and innovative contracting must be part of the equation. An initial pilot program of projects will rely on the designer’s quality assurance and eliminate the design review process. Rt. 9 Jake Brown Road Drainage, Route 9 Lacey Road Drainage, and I-95 Lawrence Township Noise Walls are the recommended projects for this pilot. For projects that may be too complex for the aforementioned pilot, we are investigating limiting the number of reviews, utilizing on-board reviews, or eliminating design submissions.

Different means of contracting for both design and construction are being identified. Lump sum design contracts are utilized for task order agreements and are currently being evaluated for two intersection projects that will soon be graduating from the Division of Planning and Project Development. The use of multiplier agreements for design is also being evaluated for implementation. A factor comprised of overhead plus fixed fee is then multiplied with the anticipated salary to yield the contract amount. This method eliminates the need for fixed fee calculation, allows for more efficient bookkeeping by reducing entries into our FMIS system, and rewards consultants that demonstrate efficiency by lowering overhead rates.

25

Two construction projects were awarded in Fiscal Year 2005 that utilized innovative contracting practices; these include: Route 46(48) DL&W Railroad Bridge using lump sum bidding and Route 130 Kinkora Branch Bridges which employed A+B bidding and the use of recycled tires as roadway fill to reduce cost. A+B bidding ties liquidated damages to the contractors bid. Currently Route 48 Game Creek Bridges is being considered for A+B bidding. CPM will continue to identify other projects for innovative contracting as well as other methods, such as performance specifications and contractor warranties. Hyperbuild is a growing process, as we grow, so will our toolbox.

Provided below are examples of projects and processes with a brief description of the Hyperbuild ingenuity applied:

I-280 Eastbound over Morristown/Erie Railroad

When critical failures were discovered via our bridge inspection forces, In-house design worked with project management to quickly come up with an alternative that will address the urgency. A pre-cast bridge component will be utilized will ramping traffic over to I-280 Westbound. The problem was identified this summer and the project was currently awarded October 4, 2005.

Route 202 over Mine Brook

This project was reformatted from a Pipe 2 to a Pipe 3 project by revisiting a project detour with the town and utilizing a pre-cast bridge in lieu of cast in place. The DOT proposed an innovative approach to detouring traffic - 1 for cars & 1 for trucks. Utilizing these detours will allow a pre-cast structure to be used. The net result is that right of way is no longer needed and there are fewer environmental and utility impacts caused by having to maintain traffic during construction

West Oak over I-287 and Garretson Road over Rt. 202/206

Both projects benefited from reconsidering and then approaching the towns with detour proposals. Municipal buy-in will allow these projects to be constructed in about 12 weeks without traffic vs. 8 months with staging construction to accommodate traffic

Route 36 Flat Creek Bridge Replacement

A creek dredging portion of the contract has been broken out so that that construction work can begin while right of way is purchased for the roadway project.

Route 48 Game Creek

The structural plans were revised to keep the existing abutment while replacing the deck and wing-wall. This revision cut back the design delivery time by two months. This also cut the structure cost in half and construction time by two months. A utility relocation scheme to avoid the conflict between pile driving and water main is proposed. The water main will be relocated outside of the pile driving location in advance of the construction, thereby reducing the construction duration by two months. A detour is proposed during construction which will reduce the construction duration by six months. This project is under consideration for A+B bidding.

Rapid implementation of New Technologies

26

New Technologies and product that have a high potential for cost savings and/or increased life cycle performance are being incorporated into construction projects for evaluation such as the evaluation of three concrete bridge deck treatments being applied to 14 bridges on the I- 295 resurfacing project currently under construction. These treatments have a potential of substantially extending the life the bridge deck at a minimal cost.

Manpower Management/Cross training of staff

CPM staff is being trained to perform multiple functions covering design and construction and project management. Staff is then available to be shifted to cover manpower need based on workload. Over the next 6 months staff from several units within CPM will be shifted to cover construction inspections needs of priority bridge repairs.

Mr. Brian StrizkiDirector, Division of Quality Management ServicesNew Jersey Department of Transportation1035 Parkway Avenue, CN-600Trenton, NJ 08625Office: (609) 530-6363brian.strizki@dot.state.nj.us

5.3 North Carolina Department of Transportation Acceleration Experience

The North Carolina DOT previously had a reputation of mixed performance in the delivery of improvement projects. As a result, the North Carolina General Assembly engaged Dye Management to conduct a study of North Carolina DOT’s project delivery process. This study was completed in 2004 and led to a major reorganization.

Stephen Dewitt, Director of Construction for North Carolina DOT, and a member of the Project panel for the NCHRP Project Acceleration Scoping Study, indicates that part of the rationale behind the reorganization was to improve coordination and move past the silo mentality. The vision is excellent but Mr. Dewitt reports that many cultural hurdles remain.

In the new organization, there are three major positions below the Chief Engineer. These include the Director of Pre-Construction, who is responsible for planning and project development, the Director of Construction, and the Director of Operations. It is the responsibility of these three senior staff members to facilitate communications among their respective disciplines. As Director of Construction, Mr. DeWitt manages a group of six departments. These include the:

Construction Unit Contractual Services Unit (handles alternative contracting, design-build, etc) Materials & Tests Unit Project Services Unit (procurement, etc) Utilities Coordination Unit Work Zone Traffic Control Unit

27

Mr. Dewitt reports that NCDOT has had good success with design-build and is trying to incorporate positive aspects of design-build delivery into its operating procedures.

NCDOT has developed a powerful cash management model that uses historic and current information to project expected payouts. The model is used by a Financial Planning Committee and is an important planning tool. Based on the projected cash flows, the startup dates for different projects may be adjusted as a result of cash flow constraints. In addition to construction projects, these can also include planning and environmental work, design, and right-of-way purchases. Mr. Dewitt reports that projects are delayed due to cash flow constraints “all the time.” This is particularly true at the present time due to the dramatic increases in construction costs in the past two years. With costs escalating faster than revenue, projects have to be delayed.

NCDOT has a talented Chief Financial Officer who plays a very important role within the department that extends well beyond the office of finance. He comes from a private sector background and is an integrator within the department who helps facilitate strategic decisions.

Mr. Dewitt stated that in his experience there are three major issues that can result in delays in project implementation: organizational constraints, financial constraints, and environmental approvals. Mr. Dewitt stated that by far the financial and environmental factors play a much more important role in precipitating project delays than organizational issues. He noted that these processes are also often beyond the direct control of DOTs and cautioned that it is important to recognize these dynamics when studying acceleration best practices.

One organizational aspect that Mr. Dewitt did mention is the fact that a number of DOTs are migrating a portion of their construction staff into design teams. This trend recognizes the importance of introducing construction concerns into the design process as early as possible. This has happened in NCDOT, as well as in Washington State, New York, and other locations.

There is a NCDOT working group that is looking at best practices for developing scope, schedule and budgets for its projects. Absent that report and the Dye Management study, Mr. DeWitt believes that documentation describing organizational issues and the recent structural changes within NCDOT is non-existent.

Mr. DeWitt reported that the timing of the Dye Management Group, Inc. study of NCDOT’s Project Delivery practices for the North Carolina General Assembly was interesting as it followed a period during the late 1990s where the department encountered a number of difficulties completing environmental reviews for major projects in a timely fashion. This resulted in serious delays in the Department’s ability to implement projects. That situation was in the process of improving at the time the study was being conducted.

Mr. DeWitt reports that a variety of work groups have been established to follow through with the recommendations put forth in the report. All recommendations have been considered and most are being implemented. As far as the overall effect of these recommendations is concerned, Mr. DeWitt states that their implementation has coincided with a drastic reduction in funding availability in North Carolina. As a result,

28

there are fewer projects to develop and this has enabled the department to focus on these projects and move them forward in a more efficient manner. He does believe, though, that the study is creating cultural changes within NCDOT that are fostering efficiency and an emphasis on timely project delivery. Mr. DeWitt believes that as the funding situation recovers and as more projects are developed that there will be a lasting improvement in the department’s success in accelerating the delivery of projects.

The following section contains a description of NCDOT’s use of cash flow financing. It was prepared by the Department and is included in the Final Report because of the useful nature of its contents.

5.3.1 Background Information on North Carolina Use of Cash Flow Financing

Faced with a problem confronting many States of where to find money to maintain highways North Carolina improved its cash management capabilities in order to better manage its existing resources and win approvals for additional allocations. The North Carolina's General Assembly passed a special provision in September 2001 authorizing the DOT to use $470 million in State Highway Trust Fund cash balances to restore primary routes that range from fair or poor condition to good condition.

Although North Carolina is only 11th in the Nation in population, it has the second largest State-maintained road system at 78,000 miles. More than 14,000 miles of the system are primary highways carrying 60 percent of vehicle miles traveled in the State. Forty-one percent of the State's road system is currently rated at "fair" or "poor." Because it was crucial to improve safety and mobility for North Carolina's drivers, the State budget bill (SB1005) directed a portion of the Highway Trust Fund's cash balance to be spent on pavement preservation efforts, which include the strengthening, shoulder widening, and resurfacing of the State's primary (non-Interstate) highway system. In all, $150 to $170 million has been allocated each year for three years to North Carolina's 14 highway divisions for needed road work.

Essentially, cash flow financing allows State DOTs to tap into funds to which they previously did not have access. In North Carolina's case, it took a legislative act to free up money for pavement preservation. At the end of the 1999-2000 fiscal year, the Highway Trust Fund had reserves of $858 million and the Highway Fund had a cash balance of $270 million. The State's Joint Legislative Oversight Committee, seeking to divert some of that money into projects that could immediately help fulfill the State's highway maintenance needs, contracted with Dye Management to study the matter. Dye recommended that North Carolina use the cash balance for road repair projects if the General Assembly passed legislation making the funds available. According to Dye's David Rose, "This idea is not unique in that several other states have done it in recent years. However, the approach isn't foolproof – states must implement sound financial management and planning or else run the risk of depleting highway funds."

The North Carolina legislation directs the DOT to use "cash flow financing to the maximum extent possible to fund highway construction projects" and addresses the inherent risks by mandating a number of controls, including the establishment of a financial planning committee, monthly financial reports, fund cash level targets, revenue forecasting procedures, reorganization of preconstruction functions to expedite project delivery and maximize use of cash flow financing of projects, and the designation of a

29

person to be responsible for project delivery. The law also empowers the State Treasurer to combine the balances of the Highway Trust Fund and the Highway Fund and to make short-term loans between the Funds to facilitate cash flow financing.

In addition to $470 million to be used for primary route pavement preservation, the legislation specifies two other smaller provisions: $15 million per year for 3 years is to be used for the planning and design of projects so that money can be saved over the long run in maintenance costs. And another $15 million per year for 3 years is designated for installing electronic signal and traffic management systems that will improve the operational efficiency of the State's road system by reducing delays and facilitating traffic flow. The new provisions also stipulate that the DOT must ensure that improvements made using cash balance funds will not interfere with the delivery of Highway Trust Fund projects on the 2002-2008 Transportation Improvement Program schedule.

In an announcement of the special provision, North Carolina Transportation Secretary Lyndo Tippett called the law a "landmark" move that is "undoubtedly the most significant transportation legislation since the Highway Trust Fund in 1989." In illustrating the importance of the provision, Tippett added, "Under [the previous] funding system, it might be 10 to 20 years before some of these roads would ever be resurfaced. In fact, some of these projects would not have been completed for many generations."

Stephen Dewitt, PEDirector of ConstructionNorth Carolina DOTOffice: (919) 715-4458 sdewitt@dot.state.nc.us

5.4 Oregon Department of Transportation Project Acceleration Experience

The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) is recognized for its achievements in accelerating the delivery of transportation projects. Former director of the ODOT Office of Project Delivery Mike Wolfe conveyed that the department’s accomplishments are the result of a decade long effort to understand and improve the project delivery process. Back in the mid 1990s ODOT officials found it unacceptable that from conception to completion it took 12 years to deliver a typical improvement project.

Mr. Wolfe reported that the Department’s initial improvements in expediting project delivery garnered the confidence of the state legislature, which passed the Oregon Transportation Investment Act (OTIA) in 2001 providing $400 million in bonding authority. In February 2002, the Oregon Transportation Commission approved $400 million statewide bridge improvement program in response to the OTIA. Later in July 2002, an additional $100 million in bonding authority was authorized for OTIA project expenditures.

In an effort to be as transparent as possible and demonstrate to the state’s tax payers the OTIA program was being implemented as efficiently as possible, the legislature established rigorous performance goals for the program and required that ODOT prepare monthly reports documenting its progress. The ODOT Office of Project Delivery , that

30

Mr. Wolfe headed until February 2006, is tasked with implementing the program and monitoring progress on the delivery of the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) and OTIA projects, focusing on improving on-time and on-budget performance. The Office of Project Delivery is comprised of three units: the Bridge Delivery Unit; the Design-Build Unit; and Project Delivery Unit.

Mr. Wolfe reports that the OTIA program was modeled after the 27 in 7 program in South Carolina and Louisiana’s TIMED program. He explained that the initial $500 million bridge improvement package led to the need to outsource the management of the program. This was confirmed by the state legislature in 2003, when it expanded the OTIA program to $2.5 billion in value and added the requirement that the management of whole portions of the program be outsourced to private sector partners.

Mr. Wolfe explained that the 2003 expansion of the OTIA program led to the “holistic outsourcing” of entire program components, including the expanded $1.3 billion bridge improvement program, which includes over 300 state bridges. Furthermore, he explained that the only way the implementation of a program of this scale could be expedited was by dealing with common critical path issues on a programmatic basis. In response the Office of Project Delivery has developed a programmatic environmental permitting process for the bridge improvement program.

ODOT’s past experiences demonstrated that obtaining permits and approvals for a single bridge project typically took several months and costs tens of thousands of dollars. To avoid the difficulty of repeating this process over 300 times, ODOT worked with state and federal agencies to develop a streamlined, programmatic approach to environmental regulatory compliance. As a first step, ODOT took a programmatic approach to bridge assessment and permitting.

Environmental assessments were done up front, for every bridge in the bridge program, using common data collection methods and a common reporting format. Permitting requirements and performance specifications were also established for the entire bridge program. If the design and construction proposed for a particular bridge meets the programmatic requirements, the permits or approvals addressed by those requirements are assured.

Mr. Wolfe explained that this environmental streamlining approach does not avoid or short-cut any regulations. Rather, it coordinates the requirements of multiple agencies, eliminates the confusion and duplication of effort that can result from attempting to meet conflicting agency requirements, and ensures comprehensive environmental protection. While each bridge must still be reviewed individually, the programmatic permits are already in place and the requirements to obtain those permits have already been defined. As a result, permitting for individual bridges is cheaper and faster, and the associated design efforts are more efficient.

Mr. Wolfe explained that 95 percent of the bridge projects included in the OTIA program have used programmatic permits and that the process it has developed has recognized with prestigious awards from both FHWA and AASHTO.

The Office of Project Delivery’s Bridge Delivery Unit supports the bridge program including coordination with Oregon Bridge Delivery Partners, the private-sector program

31

management firm is overseeing the $1.3 program. The company was awarded this position in April 2004 maintains an excellent website providing detailed information on its progress, including a “Dashboard” feature which allows users to track the progress on individual projects across the state. Much of the information on the site is updated on a monthly basis. http://www.obdp.org/

The state legislature established some notable goals for its private sector program management partners. Oregon Bridge Delivery Partners is tasked with developing a strategy to complete the bridge repair and replacement program that maximizes the following:

Ease of traffic movement — contracting strategies that keep traffic moving will minimize effects on other industries and the public.

Expedient delivery — quick project delivery will allow freedom of freight movement and ensure that products can be delivered throughout the state.

Involvement of Oregon construction firms and employees — the use of Oregon firms and employees, emerging small businesses and minorities will result in economic stimulus that will benefit the state overall.

An additional mandate for the program is to develop a strategy that considers a range of contract sizes and uses effective contracting techniques to expedite delivery (i.e., accelerated construction schedules, design-build, CM/GC). The program employs a “Get In, Get Out, and Stay Out” approach to minimize, to the greatest extent possible, the negative effects that construction work zones can have on traffic flow and commerce.

The use of design-build project delivery is another important component of ODOT’s acceleration strategy for the OTIA program. As of March 2006, three design-build projects have been completed, replacing seven bridges. Six additional design-build procurements are under way and involve repairing or replacing sixty bridges around the state and constructing seven miles of new roadway. Nine additional OTIA III design-build procurements are planned for 2006-2008 period, resulting in improvements to over 70 bridges. ODOT contracted with Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Quade and Douglas in 2003 to support management of the Design-Build Program.

While ODOT’s acceleration accomplishments are impressive, Mr. Wolfe reports that process has been painful and that it is a struggle to extend the culture of acceleration across the departments work as a whole. He believes that education is essential if this is going to happen and that the department’s staff must be well versed in the tools that are critical to the process, such as standardized scheduling and budgeting software. In addition to preparing regular reports required by the state legislature, the Office of Project Delivery’s Project Delivery Unit has also developed a project management curriculum and is training ODOT project management staff. Mr. Wolfe explained that at the same time that this effort to standardize project management practices within ODOT is underway, the department has also implemented a decentralization policy, affording more independence to hear of its five regions. Mr. Wolfe cautions that the state’s progress in developing standard programmatic approaches to managing common risk elements could be compromised is the regions are afforded too much independence in these areas.

32

Mr. Wolfe believes that when a DOT pays particular attention to a high profile program such as the OTIA it is easy to get a decent result. However, if a DOT wants to change the dynamics of delivering projects across the boards it needs strong leadership that is willing and able to step up to the plate and make it happen. He believes that a DOT must identify the common issues and challenges associated with delivering projects and then address them on a programmatic basis. This requires establishing standard performance metrics and the holding people accountable.

In order to accelerate project delivery Mr. Wolfe believes that DOTs need to see themselves as project delivery organizations and develop standard programmatic approaches to managing their work. He believes that every DOT should have an Office of Project Delivery that owns the delivery process and has the authority to affect change. Such an office would be staffed with 15 to 20 full time employees who would develop standard practices for navigating critical path issues and train DOT staff in these standardized approaches. Among others, critical path issues likely to delay project delivery include:

Gaining environmental approvals from external agencies;

Establishing independent testing authority;

Passing enabling legislation;

Acquiring right-of-way; and

Executing railroad agreements

Mr. Wolfe admitted that it is “fun” to have a billion dollar program and that is provides focus and legislative attention that stimulate project acceleration. He stated that mega projects such as the Columbia River Crossing between Washington State and Oregon are on their own paths and are more difficult to approach on a programmatic basis. However he believes that the opportunity exists to leverage the culture of acceleration to these types of projects. When asked if there were any unique lessons to be learned from Oregon’s acceleration experience, he mentioned that while the OTIA program was modeled after South Carolina’s 27 in 7 program, it has also learned from its challenges. In particular, he described that the 27 in 7 program became saturated with a preponderance of smaller projects. This eventually led to delay because they were not of interest to larger contractors. In order to avoid this situation in Oregon, ODOT has bundled the OTIA projects in packages of different sizes that reflect the size of the available pool of contractors with operations in Oregon. In addition to this particular innovation, Mr. Wolfe believes that DOTs can expedite project delivery by relying to a greater extent on design-build procurement, incorporating the greater use of performance specifications in design-bid-build procurements, and through the expanded use performance incentives. DOTs need a process owner that sets standard state-wide project delivery procedures. Establishing this level of rigor at the state level is essential.

Michael WolfeOregon Department of Transportation355 Capitol St. N.E.Salem, Oregon 97301-3871Office: (503) 986-3451

33

5.5 South Carolina Department of Transportation Project Acceleration Experience with the 27 in 7 Program

The South Carolina Department of Transportation’s (SCDOT) 27 in 7 Program is a state-wide effort to accelerate the implementation of 200 highway improvement projects worth over $5.0 billion from 27 to 7 years. It combines significant increases in federal fund allocation from TEA 21 with bonds against future state and federal revenues. The program would have required 27 years to deliver using traditional methods and this was reduced to seven years. SCDOT entered into partnerships with two private construction and resource management (CRM) firms to undertake strategic planning and financial management and coordinate design and construction activities, all without augmenting the size of the state agency. The state was divided into two regions, with Flour Daniel responsible for improvement projects in the West and Parsons Brinckerhoff for the East. The CRMs act as an extension of SCDOT staff.

The 27 in 7 Program encompassed interstate widening projects and interchange improvements. As such, the 27 in 7 projects were limited to those requiring environmental approvals no more complicated than an environmental assessment. No projects involving environmental impact statements were not included in the 27 in 7 CRM program.

Derek Piper, one of Parsons Brinckerhoff’s Preconstruction Project Managers for the CRM program reports that most of the 40 projects in Parsons Brinckerhoff’s CRM program were in the $5 million range. A few were as small as $300,000 and some exceeded $20 million. Most of the CRM projects were implemented within a four-year period. Mr. Piper described that Year One generally involved preliminary mapping and environmental approvals; final design reviews were generally completed in Year Two, together with the procurement documents; and construction was completed in Years Three and Four. Mr. Piper believes that these timeframes provide a useful benchmark for the implementation of highway projects of this magnitude and complexity.

Mr. Piper reports that the implementation of larger projects took longer. The most complex was the largest project, a $42 million project, which included the acquisition of 250 right-of-way tracts. The right-of-way purchases for this project alone took approximately 15 to 18 months. The 40 projects comprising Parsons Brinckerhoff’s CRM engagement included some for which design was already complete and just needed to be bid and overseen. Funding had been approved for others, but they had yet to be designed.

Mr. Piper reports that three primary project team members were assigned to each project in the CRM program:

the Preconstruction Project Manager the Right-of-Way Manager the Construction Project Manager

The Right-of-Way Manager would attend internal project meetings during the development stage in order to facilitate communications and identify early on which tracks were sensitive. Once a project progressed to the final right-of-way stage, the

34

Construction Project Manager would also attend project meetings and briefings. The construction manager would focus on construction phasing and environmental permitting issues. Mr. Piper reports that it was always important to have the right people in the room to resolve issues as they arose. Regular, interdisciplinary project reviews were held every other month for the each of the CRM projects. The Preconstruction Manager would lead the CRM effort until such time as a construction contract was awarded. After this point authority was passed on to the Construction Project Manager.

Mr. Piper reports that the CRM program was particularly effective in dealing with right-of-way issues and in coordinating up front utility work. These are often sticking points that result in delays. With regard to utilities, CRM staff were particularly diligent in identifying utility conflicts and coordinating relocations prior to the start of construction contracts. Mr. Piper reports that unforeseen relocations are a chronic source of delay for highway construction projects.

Mr. Piper notes that the CRM program actually had a lower condemnation rate that that of traditional SCDOT projects. He credits this to the fact that the CRM right-of-way team listened to the concerns of property owners and was actually able to gain their trust and demonstrate that the DOT was responsive to their needs. As an example, he cited coordination with the owner of a local funeral home who was initially opposed to giving up a portion of his land to the state. However, after discussions with him the state understood his needs and got him to agree to give up the land by widening the sidewalk in front of his building from 5 to 10 feet. This gave people attending services at the funeral home a place to congregate after events, which was something that he would otherwise have lost due to the taking.

Mr. Piper noted that many times delays arise when approvals are required to move to the next phase or to solve a design issue. The CRM staff developed an effective solution in documenting decisions that might normally require some sort of formal permission. CRM would document the issue in a communication to SCDOT, together with whatever alternatives were. The communication would also explain which solution was selected together with the rational for the decision. CRM would then communicate that the solution would be implemented unless directed otherwise by SCDOT.

Mr. Piper reported that this approach was very helpful, but that it is likely that it would not always working within the confines of a DOT. DOTs need decisions to be correct, but with the case of the CRM would be held responsible if a decision were subsequently questioned. Decisions within DOTs take time and invariably involve a fair amount of processing. Mr. Piper finds that when you peel back the layer even with traditionally developed projects many “decisions” are actually made by consultants rather than DOT staff.

Mr. Piper believes that it was easier for the CRM team then SCDOT to accelerate project delivery because they were responsible for a smaller number of projects and had the benefit of a dedicated staff all under one roof. CRM also had a different mentality and would never change a let date for a contract no matter what the circumstances were. This type of culture was quite different to that of the DOT. Derek reports that SCDOT has tried to apply lessons learned from their CRM experience to expedite project delivery, but that there are challenges. Fewer DOT staff multitask, so a larger number of people are

35

required to get things done. Approvals processes are also more complicated and involve multiple departments often operating in a silo mentality.

The budgeting and cost estimating process at many DOTs also result in delays in implementation. Mr. Piper reports that cost estimates for CRM projects were continually updated as their design moved forward. Often times with traditional projects budgets are based on early cost estimates. When detailed designs are finally completed costs can often change. If significant increases occur then the implementation of projects can be put on hold until the resources are available. Mr. Piper reported that when cost increases came up in the CRM process, the Preconstruction Manager would make a recommendation to the SCDOT program manager (There was one SCDOT program manager responsible for projects within the jurisdiction of each COG or MPO in the state, usually working with two assistants). These would either involve design modifications to reduce cost, or in certain cases a recommendation to allocate additional funds. Mr. Piper reports that a “design to budget” culture was very much part of the CRM program and helped expedite project delivery. As projects more forward it is essential to refine cost estimates and then either find any additional monies that may be needed or make modifications to reduce cost.

Mr. Piper reports that one of the reasons that good cost estimates were a priority for the CRM is that the program was financed by bond proceeds. In order to avoid arbitrage, the DOT needed detailed information about spending curves and when monies would be drawn down. As a result, the CRM team developed a sophisticated cash flow model that was based on construction schedules. SCDOT found the CRM cash management software and procedures so helpful that they adopted the same approach for the 27 in 7 construction projects that remained under their own responsibility. As a result SCDOT changed their own mode of operation and adopted their contractor’s cash management procedures because of their ability to help expedite project delivery. As a result, DOT leadership was making informed decision based on detailed information rather that by the seat of their pants. Derek cautions, however, that one size does not fit all and that there is a risk of applying complex procedures to projects that may not warrant them.

Mr. Piper believes that SCDOT has done an admirable job in breaking down barriers and implementing projects more efficiently. However the process is difficult, slow to evolve, and often required staff changes or retirements. SCDOT is now often resorting to design-build as a way to accelerate the delivery of projects.

Derek Piper, PEParsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc/CRM East500 Taylor Street, Suite 100Colombia, South Carolina 29201Office: (803) 227-3423piper@pbworld.com

Mr. Piper Derek suggested that the following two SCDOT contacts would be helpful in further investigation of the department’s project acceleration efforts:

John Walsh, P.E.State Administrator for Engineering DesignSouth Carolina Department of Transportation

36

955 Park StreetColumbia, SC 29201Office: (803) 737-7900

Morgan (Moe) F. DennySenior Financial AnalystSouth Carolina Department of Transportation 955 Park StreetColumbia, SC 29201Office: (803) 737-1240DennyMF@scdot.org

5.6 Policy Assessment of State DOT Experience with Project Acceleration

The research team interviewed Mr. Stephen Lockwood of PB Consult to obtain his assessment of the multiple issues DOTs face as they try to expedite the implementation of projects. His opinions were particularly helpful to the research team. Mr. Lockwood observed that state DOTs serve many different constituencies and this often leads to over programming and delays in project implementation. The worst possible sin for a state DOT is not spending Federal aid matching funds. Due to the uncertainties of projects that can become hung up in the environmental review and right-of-way assembly phases, among others, state DOTs often feel the need to have more projects in the development pipeline than they may have money to implement. If a project gets stalled out the DOT must be nimble and move a different project forward in order to not miss out on Federal aid matching funds.

Mr. Lockwood believes that the next worse sin for a DOT is not delivering projects on time and within budget. As a result of increased public scrutiny, some DOTs have developed sophisticated computer tools to track project implementation. VDOT has a real-time schedule and budget tracking system available on its website at: http://dashboard.virginiadot.org/default.aspx

DOTs also need to be careful to spread their spending around geographically. As a result, they often break projects into smaller pieces that are funded separately.

It would be interesting to develop a matrix identifying the different stakeholders that DOTs are trying to please. Programming is not a simple matter and often involves tradeoffs between cost and price controls and stakeholder satisfaction that can result in delays.

There are a number of parallel arenas where streamlining can occur. One can think of these as concentric circles.

1. Phase Streamlining involves accelerating an individual phase in the project delivery process, such as environmental approvals, or construction.

2. Project Streamlining involves putting the pieces together in a more efficient manner to get individual projects implemented faster from conception to completion.

37

3. Program acceleration involves cultural changes within DOTs to implement all projects an accelerated environment. This is often achieves with “cradle to grave” management teams rather than handing a project off from team to team as it moves through the delivery process.

It must be recognized that if a state DOT is understaffed, the cradle to grave approach to project management may result in staff being under utilized. When the workforce is constrained DOTs need to employ their staffs as efficiently as possible. It is important to recognize that there are internal and external constraints facing DOTs and their attempts to accelerate project delivery. The notion of project streamlining is naïve in some ways because individual projects are not isolated. Rather, projects are like an instrument in an orchestra and have a role to play in a larger whole.

It is important to recognize that costs get embedded in a state DOTs planning and programming process at many different junctures. A certain cost figure may be used in the long range plan. However, it is not certain that that initial figure will be updated as the project evolves. This can lead to delays later on if costs have increased and the needed funds are not available.

Stephen C. LockwoodPrincipal ConsultantPB Consult3206 Tower Oaks Blvd.Rockville, MD 20852Office: (301) 816-1848lockwoods@pbworld.com

38

6. Review of Useful Existing Literature on Project Acceleration

In support of the preparation of the Problem Statement and associated work plan for the preparation of an AASHO Guide on Accelerating Project Delivery the research team has identified a number of existing reports, seminars and other research on project acceleration the should be useful to the Project Panel and the research group selected to prepare the guide. Many of these resources were suggested to the research team by members of the project panel and other acceleration practitioners contacted by the research team as part of the state analysis described in Chapter 4.

The remainder of this chapter of the Final Report for the Acceleration scoping study provides descriptive reviews of these resources, analyzing and critiquing these efforts, on the basis of applicability, conclusiveness of findings, and usefulness related to the on-going research effort. In addition to the information in this chapter, Appendix A provides further information on other research efforts that may be helpful to the ongoing research process found through searches of the Transportation Research Boards Transportation Research Information Services (RIS) and Research in Progress (RIP) databases.

6.1 Performance Based Contracting for the Highway Construction Industry: An Evaluation of the Use of Innovative Contracting and Performance Specification in Highway Construction, Final Report submitted to Koch Industries Inc., prepared by Battele, February 2003.

This report summarizes the numerous limitations in traditional methods of highway construction and maintenance contracting. It also identifies alternatives such as incorporating performance based outputs to current innovative contracting approaches. Reported results were based on a literature review and a survey of state DOT officials, representatives of highway construction industry, and experts in highway construction management. The report is organized as follows: first, it provides an overview of the numerous contracting methods for highway construction including traditional design-bid-build and innovative approaches (some of which are summarized below); Next, it discusses specifications for highway construction, relationships between specification and contracting methods, and current practices by state DOTs; Finally, it describes performance based outcome contracting with the use of several case studies.

The innovative contracting approaches listed in the report would reduce construction time, construction cost, and reduce impacts on the public (i.e. congestion, safety, environmental, etc.). Some of the innovative contracting methods that are pertinent to project delivery acceleration, as discussed in the report include:

Design-Build - this approach directs a single company (or partnership of companies) to design and construct the project. Several varieties of design-build have evolved including design-build-maintain, design-build-operate-maintain, and design-build operate-maintain-warrant. Design-Build provides the government

39

(project owner) with one source of responsibility for the project. Moreover, as a result of the overlap between the design and construction phases (i.e. construction can begin at 0-50% design level), coordination between the design and construction teams, and other interchanges between the two groups, this approach considerably reduces overall project duration.

Cost-Plus-Time (A+B Bidding) - this contracting method incorporates the initial construction cost with the time needed to complete the project. The contract is awarded to the lowest cost bid, which is the combined cost of time and construction material and services. Other variants such as safety, quality, social impacts, and other factors can be incorporated into this contracting method. Moreover, this method can be combined with the Incentives/Disincentives provision, which encourages the contractor to finish the project ahead of the contract bid time.

Lane Rental - this contracting provision accelerates the completion of the project by assessing the contractor a fee for occupying lanes or shoulders during construction. Specifically, there are three types of lane rentals that are in use: (1) Lane-by-Lane rental, where the contractor is charged for each time lanes are closed based on a predetermined fee in the bidding package; (2) Continuous Site Rental, which is based on a lane rental fee for each day lanes are occupied; and (3) Bonus/Rental Charge method, which is similar to the A+B bidding, where it awards the contract based on a combined cost of work items cost and cost of time (where the cost of time is based on the duration of lane closures and lane rental fees).

These innovating contracting methods reduce time and resources from project planning through construction. In order to ensure quality of the project, the report also recommends the use of performance based specifications as an added provision to the afore-described contracting methods. Such provisions would shift the risks of ensuring a high quality product to the contractor.

6.2 Accelerated Construction Technology Transfer (ACTT) Interim Report, FHWA, spring 2004.

With the aim of minimizing impacts of highway construction on the public, the Accelerated Construction Technology Transfer (ACTT) was established in 1999. This was initiated by the Transport Research Board (TRB) and later passed over to the Technology Implementation Group (TIG) of the American Association of State Highway and Transport Officials (AASHTO) and to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).

ACTT strives to streamline project schedules and contain costs, while enhancing safety and improving quality. To this end, ACTT applies its' 'process' (i.e. complete accelerated construction approach) to a specific corridor or project via a 2-day workshop where a multidisciplinary team of 20 to 30 national transportation experts1 works with local

1 Experts with the following skill sets - Innovative Financing/Innovative Contracting; Right-of Way/Utilities/Railroads; Roadway/Geometric Design; Geotechnical/Materials; Structures; Long Life

40

agency professionals to assess and provide guidelines to accelerate project delivery. This 'process' encourages a framework for informed consideration of innovations and facilitates the removal of barriers to innovation.

The interim report provides detailed summaries of the various ACTT workshops. These workshops explore a broad variety of highway projects, with unique environmental, historic, and cultural implications. See below for highlights of a few workshops, as they pertain to accelerating project delivery.

Indiana: The project, with an estimated cost of $400 million would reconstruct a 12-mile stretch of I-465. The planned construction time for the project was 6-9 years, after the ACTT workshop the project completion goal was reduced to 3 years.

Pennsylvania: The project, with an estimated cost of $140 million would upgrade a 3.2km stretch of SR-28 in Pittsburg. The planned construction time for the project was 4 years, after the ACTT workshop the project completion goal was reduced to 2 years.

Texas: The project, with an estimated cost of $760 million would redesign and improve two major interstate freeways that serve downtown Dallas, I-30 and I-35E. The planned construction time for the project was 7 years, after the ACTT workshop the project completion goal was reduced to 4 years. Some recommendations that enabled this project acceleration include - the constructing of a project segment ahead of schedule (so that it can be used as a detour); employing innovative construction methods that minimize traffic impact (such incremental launching, lateral slide, and heavy lift methods); developing an onsite plant to minimize congestion; setting up a dedicated incident management system to quickly locate incidents throughout the project site; delegation of greater authority to the Dallas District for accelerated response purposes; the use of contractor incentives to minimize traffic disruptions; and the use of design-build contracting.

New Jersey: The project, with an estimated cost of $10 million would the westbound of Overpeck Creek Bridge on Bergen County's Rt. 46. The planned construction time for the project was 18 months, after the ACTT workshop the project completion goal was reduced to 3 months (primarily through innovative material substitutions).

Montana: The project, with an estimated cost of $100 million would upgrade an 80km stretch of US-93 north of Missoula. The planned construction time for the project was 5 years, after the ACTT workshop the project completion goal was reduced to 3 years. Some recommendations that enabled project acceleration include - the establishment of a corridor management team (which includes all three governments) with a single point contact; change in the sequence of the project construction to allow more efficient use of resources; making use of new construction methods and materials; the use of prefabricated structural components (which allows for the prefabrication to occur during off-season); use of pre-approved sites to minimize inspection time; and the creation of a database accessible to all that track right of way/utility progress.

Washington: The project, with an estimated cost of $1.5-$3.4 billion includes the replacement of 40-year old floating bridge across Lake Washington. The planned

Payments; Traffic Engineering/Safety/ITS; Environment; Construction; and Public Relations.

41

construction time for the project was 6 years, after the ACTT workshop the project completion goal was reduced to 4.5-5 years.

Overall, ACTT approach has had success in reducing construction time via the cumulative effects of the multi-disciplinary panel of experts and local professionals. Although most of the recommendations are project specific, some (as described above) have broader application to other projects. It appears that interactions (i.e. overall coordination/management) between and among silos in the project delivery process (silos such as initial planning, environmental approvals, final design, right of way acquisition, utility relocation, and final construction) is a necessary component of accelerating project delivery; and as such, this report provides ample evidence to the fact.

6.3 Best Practices for Project Construction Streamlining Final Report, submitted to the Minnesota DOT, prepared by SRF Consulting Group Inc., September 2005.

This report [which was initiated by the Local Road Research Board's (LRRB) Research Implementation Committee (RIC)] identifies project construction streamlining techniques that have been used in Minnesota. The best practice methods, which were identified based on interviews with practitioners include: smart compact technology; new testing devises; quality contract awarding; contractor milestone incentives; value engineering; road or lane closure; oscillatory compactors; design-build; A+B contracting; performance rated specifications; utility relocation; and lane rental. In addition to these methods, other potential streamlining techniques are identified as part of a secondary review of strategy.

The study process consisted of a literature review of construction streamlining techniques; a technical characterization of the pertinent techniques; an initial survey of Minnesota City and County Engineers (to determine the depth of experience in using the streamlining techniques); a follow up survey of Minnesota City and County engineers (to determine benefits or drawbacks of the streamlining techniques); and an in-depth review of streamlining techniques (based on an intensive technique specific literature review).

After the initial survey, the report identifies a number of techniques which are defined as Level One Techniques. The following is a list of these techniques, as categorized by the report.

Equipment Innovations: Smart Compaction Technology; Oscillatory Compactors; and New Testing Devises

Construction Processes: Design-Build

Contractor/Contracting Processes: Quality Contract Awarding; A+B Contracting; Contractor Milestone Incentives;

Performance Rated Specifications; and Value Engineering

Utility Relocation: Utility Relocation

Traffic Control/Construction Staging: Road or Lane Closure; and Lane Rental

42

Subsequently the report identifies a further list of techniques that have detailed summaries. These techniques, which are deemed as Level Two Techniques, include

Equipment Innovations: Automated Pavement Testing Techniques; and Double Drum/Triple Drum Mixers.

Human Resource Innovations: Incentive Pay; and 'Streamline' Project Development.

Materials Usage: Drying Agents; In-Place Recycling; and Geo-Textiles or Geo-Fabrics.

Construction Processes: Pre-Cast/Modular Components

Advanced Technology Applications: 'Smart' Database Creation; Web-Based Team Collaboration System; Project Management

Software; and Bid-Preparation Software.

The report annex provides a detailed literature review (i.e. abstracts) of studies detailing the afore-listed methods.

Following the description of these Level One and Two Techniques the report presents results of a survey of Minnesota City and County Engineers, which was intended to identify and glean in-depth information from agencies with experience in using these techniques.

6.4 Project Management Handbook, Florida Department of Transportation, Project Management Office. http://www.dot.state.fl.us/projectmanagementoffice/PMhandbook/Handbook.pdf

This handbook presents managerial guidelines for FDOT projects throughout the project delivery process, i.e. from planning to maintenance. It provides an overview of the Department's project development and implementation process and outlines the steps that should be considered in the execution of an FDOT project. Descriptions of project management and development processes for those phases prior and subsequent to the phase being coordinated provides a better understanding of the overall process. The handbook is organized into two parts: Part 1, Issues Common to All Project Managers and Part 2, Phase-Specific Project Management Issues.

The initially the handbook presents step by step guide to successful project management. Afterwards it identifies the key to a successful project, which is the development of a Project Work Plan (which includes job scope, defines the work product and establishes task sequencing, budget, resource allocation, and the schedule). Such a work plan would promote the efficient, organized, and timely completion a project to schedule, budget and contract requirements. Once a work plan is developed (i.e. benchmarks are established), the report illustrates the importance of project monitoring and control - i.e. to identify and correct problems before they jeopardize the success of the project. Furthermore, the handbook makes note of several key responsibilities that fall under the purview of the

43

project manager. These include: a clear definition of the scope (project objectives); manage contracts to ensure that all contract provisions are completed; keep costs within budget; completing the work on time; delivering a product of a quality that meets or exceeds the standards the client; and the efficient and effective use of labor. The report also provides guidelines to dealing with professional services and contractual services (construction and maintenance contracts), contract negotiations, contract management, scheduling, quality assurance, quality control. Moreover, it provides guidance on effective management techniques at each successive project delivery silos - i.e. planning project management, project development and environment (PD&E) project management, right of way, construction project management, design-build project management, maintenance project management, and local agency program project management.

Though this handbook doesn't explicitly address methods of project delivery acceleration, it provides detailed guidelines to project management, which is the cornerstone for improving project efficiencies thereby accelerating the delivery of projects.

6.5 Get In, Get Out, Stay Out! Proceedings of the Workshop on Pavement Renewal for Urban Freeways, February 16–19 1998, The Beckman Center, Irvine, California.

http://gulliver.trb.org/publications/sp/getin_getout_stayout.pdf

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), California Department of Transportation, and the Transportation Research Board (SHRP Committee) jointly sponsored a workshop focusing on innovations to urban freeway pavement renewal. The workshop consisted of a national panel of public and private sector specialists, who were asked to propose innovative approaches for the speedy, long-lived renewal of the pavement while minimizing adverse traffic and community impacts. The workshop objectives, as stated in the proceedings were to: (1) synthesize and publicize effective solutions drawn from the mutual experience of the participants; (2) highlight the existence of available but underused technologies and research results, as well as innovative approaches to project management and contract administration; (3) point out barriers, both technical and procedural, to cost-effective and time-efficient designs and construction approaches; (4) identify pressing needs to be addressed in local and national research agendas; and (5) to identify needed technologies. To ensure that the workshop would be more than a theoretical exercise, the participants focused on a proposed but as yet un-designed Caltrans project to reconstruct a 15.7-mile (25 km) portion of Interstate 710, also known as the Long Beach Freeway.

Based on the overarching objectives listed above, the workshop participants were divided into four teams and were given the following criteria to develop innovative solutions:

– Provide a renewed pavement with a service life of at least 40 years (twice that of a typical pavement)

– Minimize traffic disruptions– Provide a safe environment for workers and highway users– Minimize short- and long-term user costs– Minimize agency life-cycle costs

44

– Minimize community and environmental impacts.

To provide a baseline against which the teams’ proposals could be measured, Caltrans staff prepared a straw proposal based on their customary practices and recent experiences.

Strategies developed by the four teams shared many common attributes, despite their unique approaches. The most ubiquitous theme among all teams was the provision of a safe and efficient facility, which minimizes community impacts, maintenance costs, and construction time. Due to the high volumes of truck traffic, majority of teams focused on ITS technologies to control traffic. In addition, the initiation of a public information campaign was deemed mandatory. Everyone also agreed that the full width of the Route I-710 freeway should be reconstructed now, and that addressing only the two outside lanes at this time would require rehabilitation of the remainder within the next 10 years. Also, a complete incident management program was considered important for mitigating potential traffic snarls in the event of an incident or stalled vehicle during construction. All groups believed this particular project would lend itself well to the use of incentive/disincentive provisions within the contract. Offering bonuses for expeditious project completion would inspire creativity and ingenuity on the contractor’s part and benefit the traveling public in the form of reduced delays. Current contract management procedures were also recognized as a barrier. The innovations proposed required more mobilization time, substantial equipment redundancy, and contractor access to extensive or numerous staging areas along the margins of the project (some of the innovations include early completion incentives or lane rental clauses, A+B contracting). In order to further minimize construction time, all four teams recommended that the project should feature a fully empowered on-site dispute resolution team.

Conclusions derived from the workshop were clearly benefited by the experience base of the workshop participants. Moreover, they offered numerous innovations over standard practices that would normally be applied on such reconstruction projects, primarily by providing a shorter construction period and extended pavement performance. The mix of expertise found on each team proved to be synergistic. The construction contractors and other industry professionals brought an aggressive practicality that neatly supplemented the agency professionals’ demand for safe, durable designs at reasonable cost. The transportation researchers and specialists supplied a spirit of innovation.

The workshop report has many other project specific innovations that would play a role in accelerating project delivery. Overall, the workshop demonstrates the need for such cooperation among multi-disciplinary/multi-sectoral teams representing all parts of the industry (i.e. these were not just interdisciplinary teams but it also included government and non-government interests, owners and contractors, suppliers and users, academics and project engineers). Such cooperation at the project planning phase can yield innovative approaches for accelerating project delivery.

6.6 North Carolina Department of Transportation Project Delivery Study, prepared by Dye Management Group, Inc., July 19, 2004

45

This report, which analyzes NCDOT’s highway construction delivery process, was commissioned by the Joint Legislative Transportation Oversight Committee of the North Carolina General Assembly. The primary objectives of the report were to:

1. Examine policymaker’s trepidation towards contemporary NCDOT project delivery methods;

2. Provide an impartial evaluation of the factors affecting project delay;

3. Identify processes that are efficient (i.e. successful) and areas that need improvement;

4. Estimate the project delay impacts on NCDOT’s ability to efficiently manage other Trust Fund projects; Recommend areas which may yield tangible benefits and cost savings

5. Examine the most significant barriers to project completion (such as permitting, environmental review, right-off-way utility relocations or others); and

6. Evaluate NCDOT’s project delivery processes wit best practices processes in other institutions (public or private).

To this end, Dye Management conducted extensive interviews with NCDOT, Federal state, private consultants and construction industry representatives. Based on these interviews they reviewed existing documentation on policies, procedures and standard practices. Finally, by analyzing vast amounts of empirical data, conducting a literature review and interviews, the report developed a number of recommendations. These recommendations were categorized according to the following criteria:

1. Predictability, accountability and communication for project delivery

2. Overall project delivery process

3. Addressing the causes of delay – environmental process

4. Addressing the causes of delay – consultant procurement management

5. Overall project management

6. Overall project level human resource management and planning

7. Organizational development to strengthen the application of project management principals and practices

8. Project management information metrics, standardized methods and project management tools, and

9. Utility and right-off-way.

Of all the recommendations listed (all of which significantly reduce project delivery time), the overarching theme throughout the report was for an introduction of a top-down, department-wide organizational and business improvement process, which would increase accountability and provide for an “end-to-end” management oversight and control of project delivery. Such an organizational structure would improve efficiencies

46

between and among the numerous project delivery silos, which would ultimately accelerate project delivery.

6.7 Outsourcing of State DOT Capital Program Delivery Functions, prepared for the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP), Science Applications International Corporation and Transportation Policy and Analysis Center, Vienna, Virginia, November 2003http://trb.org/publications/nchrp/nchrp_w59.pdf

This report was directed by NCHP for the American Association of state Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). The document was prepared as part of the NCHRP Panel on Administration of Highway and Transportation Agencies. This report was targeted towards state DO personnel (chief executive officers and other top management) involved with the planning, funding, and execution of capital highway programs.

The study’s primary objective was to develop a se of guidelines for state DOTs on the outsourcing of major program responsibilities. In developing such guidelines, the report’s primary focus was to identify innovative practices in the management and outsourcing of program delivery functions.

To this end, the consultants initially contacted the AASHTO Standing Committee on Research (SCOR) members and conducted a survey of the current practices by DOTs for outsourcing program delivery functions. Additionally, and e-mail survey of the international community was completed with the assistance of the U.S. DOT members of the World Road Federation (PIARD) Committees on Economic development and performance of Road and Administration. Based on the survey results and a literature search on references on state DOT outsourcing programs, a list of sates and projects were identified fur further analysis. These case studies evaluated the effectiveness of outsourcing state transportation functions and studied the effectiveness, benefits and concerns associated with outsourcing of projected delivery functions. The conclusions derived from this exercise provide appropriate guidelines for outsourcing of capital programs and identify areas for future research.

Since capital program delivery outsourcing is the subject of relatively few research efforts, the findings of this report are unique. The principle types of outsourced capital program delivery processes described in the report are:

Asset management – based on large scale maintenance programs, utilizing performance measures as a key basis of program control (Florida, Virginia and the District of Columbia

Variants of the design-build project delivery, including operations, usually with some form of warrantee (South Carolina, Louisiana, Virginia, Maryland, Utah)

The use of general engineering consultants for design, construction contract letting, an contractor supervision, seen as another variant of the design-build approach.

47

These processes contribute towards accelerated project delivery, and as such the report provides an extensive analysis of existing capital program delivery outsourcing approaches and project examples.

48

Appendix A TRIS and RIP Database Searches of Acceleration Terms

In advance of the project kickoff teleconference, the research team completed a search of the Transportation Research Boards Transportation Research Information Services (RIS) and Research in Progress (RIP) databases to identify existing and on going research efforts that may be helpful in the preparation of AASHTO Guide on Accelerating Project Delivery. The findings of these searches are summarized below in Table 1, which identifies the terms that were searched and the number of matches in the two databases. The remainder of the appendix provides information on these resources from the databases.

Table 1

Summary of TRIS and RIP Database Searches of Acceleration Terms

Acceleration Terms Searched TRIS Matches RIP Matches

Design Build 15 0Constructability Reviews 9 1Environmental Streamlining 6 7Incentive Disincentive 2 2Lane Rental 2 0Delivery n.a. 3Delivery Acceleration 0 0Construction Acceleration 0 0Milestone Incentive 0 0A + B 0 0Variable Lead Time 1 duplicate 0Substantial Completion 1 duplicate 0

A.1 TRIS Database Search Results

No matches for: “Milestone Review”“Delivery Acceleration”“Construction Acceleration”“Milestone Incentive”“A + B”“Variable Lead Time” one duplicate“Substantial Completion” one duplicate

BEST LOOKING RESOURCE

49

ID: 00962076Title: STRATEGIES USED BY STATE DOT'S TO ACCELERATE HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS. IN: COMPENDIUM: PAPERS ON ADVANCED SURFACE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS, 2002Author(s): Ibarra, CEditor(s): Dudek, CLLanguage: EnglishPublication Date: 08/00/2002 Pagination: pp 83-125 Report No: SWUTC/02/473700-00003-4Features: FIGS: 15 Fig. TABS: 13 Tab. REFS: 12 Ref. APPS: 1 App. Publisher/Corporate Author(s):

Texas Transportation Institute Texas A&M UniversityCollege Station, TX 77843-3135 USA Southwest Region University Transportation Center Texas Transportation Institute, Texas A&M UniversityCollege Station, TX 77843-313 USA

Abstract: Every day motorists are faced with driving through construction work zones throughout the state of Texas. Some construction projects due to their location and type of traffic control increase congestion and delays. There is a need to speed up construction on all types of projects using accelerated construction strategies. To determine the extent of accelerated construction strategies usage in the United States, the author conducted a literature review and a state department of transportation (DOT) survey. The results of the survey indicate that most states that responded are using accelerated construction strategies in some form or fashion, especially on large projects that impact the highway travel lanes. Based on the research, the following techniques were determined to be applicable to address the problem of accelerating construction time: calendar day definition for working day; incentive using contract administrative cost; milestones with incentive/disincentive (I/D); substantial completion I/D; lane rental disincentive; A+B provision; variable lead time; and design-build. Each of the techniques was classified by level of acceleration; however, the most widely used and most liked by DOTs and contractors as well, are the I/D techniques. They are win-win situations for both parties and they result in shorter construction times and monetary gain to contractors. Several techniques were applied to example projects in the Atlanta District in order to test the guidelines developed from this report. The results indicate that, depending on the type of project, size and location, there is always going to be an available technique that can be utilized to accelerate it. Guidelines for various levels of acceleration were developed from this report and the results of these guidelines appear to be applicable to all projects depending on the level of acceleration desired and warranted by a particular project.

50

Supplemental Information: This study was supported by a grant from the U.S. Department of Transportation, University Transportation Centers Program.

Index Terms: State departments of transportation, Strategic planning, Traffic control, Road construction, Literature reviews, Surveys, Incentives, Disincentives, Guidelines Accelerated construction strategies

Available from: National Technical Information Service 5285 Port Royal RoadSpringfield, VA 22161 USA

Read Document Online

“INCENTIVE DISINCENTIVE”

ID: 00983454Title: EVALUATION OF CURRENT INCENTIVE/DISINCENTIVE PROCEDURES IN CONSTRUCTIONAuthor(s): Rister, B; Wang, YLanguage: EnglishPublication Date: 10/00/2004 Pagination: 41p Report No: KTC-04-27/SPR243-01-1F,; Interim ReportPublisher/Corporate Author(s):

University of Kentucky, Lexington Kentucky Transportation CenterLexington, KY 40506-0281 USA Kentucky Transportation Cabinet State Office Building, 501 High StreetFrankfort, KY 40622 USA Federal Highway Administration 400 7th Street, SWWashington, DC 20590 USA

Abstract: This study was initiated to take an in-depth look at the current time and material incentive/disincentive program associated with highway construction projects in Kentucky. The current incentive/disincentive program was first initiated in the mid to late 1990s. However, not until recently had some of the original

51

mechanisms of the program been revisited and/or up-dated. From the early stages of this study it was anticipated that many of the concerns regarding the use of both time/material incentives and disincentives on highway construction projects in Kentucky would be addressed. Therefore, at the onset of this project the study advisory committee made a tremendous effort to devise a working plan for this study that would evaluate both the time and material incentive and disincentive program. In addition to the evaluation of the program, tremendous effort was also undertaken to answer some age old questions regarding the quality of projects that have received time incentive bonuses in the past.

Index Terms: Road construction, Incentives, Disincentives, Time, Materials, Quality control Kentucky

Available from: National Technical Information Service 5285 Port Royal RoadSpringfield, VA 22161 USA

Acknowledgement of Document Source: University of Kentucky, Lexington

ID: 00963488Title: CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT INCENTIVE ALTERNATIVESAuthor(s): Sewell, WH; Fromherz, TALanguage: EnglishJournal Title: APWA ReporterVolume: 69 Issue: 7 Publication Date: 07/00/2002 Pagination: pp 34-36 ISSN: 00924873 Publisher/Corporate Author(s):

American Public Works Association 2345 Grand Boulevard, Suite 500Kansas City, MO 64108-2625 USA

Abstract: This article describes four alternative contract options that are available to public agencies in search of bidding alternatives to the "low-bidder" method traditionally used for awarding construction contracts. The four alternative bidding options include: 1) Bid plus Time (A+B); 2) Design/Build (A+B/C)-Design/Build With Warranty; 3) Lane Rental (A+B+L); and, Incentive/Disincentive. Both advantages and disadvantages of each bidding option are discussed. The article also describes a successful street reconstruction project completed in the New Orleans area that was bid and constructed as an alternative contracting project.

Index Terms:

52

Contracts, Competitive bidding, Design build construction, Incentives, Penalties, Construction management

Available from: American Public Works Association 2345 Grand Boulevard, SuiteKansas City, MO 64108-2625 USA

LANE RENTAL

ID: 01004336Title: Cost Effectiveness of Design-Build, Lane Rental, and A + B Contracting TechniquesAuthor(s): Strong, Kelly C; Tometich, James; Raadt, NolanLanguage: EnglishConference Title: Proceedings of the 2005 Mid-Continent Transportation Research SymposiumSponsored by: Iowa Department of Transportation; Iowa State University; Midwest Transportation ConsortiumLocation: Ames, Iowa, United StatesDate Held: 08/18/2005 - 08/19/2005 Publication Date: 00/00/2005 ISBN: 9780965231084Features: REFS: 9 Publisher/Corporate Author(s):

Iowa State University Center for Transportation Research and Education, 2901 S. Loop Drive, Suite 3100Ames, IA 50010 USA

Abstract: Many state DOT specifications are generally prescriptive, in that they describe how contractors should conduct certain operations using minimum standards of equipment and materials. These prescriptive specifications, known as method specifications, have performed admirably in the past. However, rehabilitation and reconstruction projects, especially in a rapid renewal scenario, demand more creativity and innovation. Prescriptive specifications, used in conjunction with traditional procurement and contracting, do not properly foster this innovation. This study compares relevant performance criteria for three alternative contracting techniques (A + B, lane rental, design-build) and for traditional contracting. The research methodology involved surveying national experts who rated each innovative contracting method for each performance factor on each of the project types. Results indicate that design-build and A+B contracts are the most effective methods when time is the primary driver of cost or when complex design issues require interdisciplinary coordination. Because design-build appears

53

to hold much promise for dramatically accelerating schedules, we utilized in-depth personal interviews of project team members involved in a design-build urban corridor reconstruction project in Minnesota. Interview data suggest the following issues need to be addressed as use of design-build contracting continues to gain acceptance: (1) Determination of appropriate level of design completion prior to issuance of the request for proposal; (2) Co-location of project team members; (3) Definition of responsibilities for quality control and quality assurance; (4) Adaptation of traditional state procedures, procurement systems, forms, and project information handling methods to better fit design-build delivery philosophy.

Index Terms: Contracting out, Cost effectiveness, Design build construction, Quality assurance, Reconstruction, Rehabilitation (Maintenance), Rent, Specifications, State departments of transportation, Traffic lanes, Transportation planning

Available from: Iowa State University Center for Transportation Research and Education, 2901 S. Loop Drive, Suite 3100Ames, IA 50010 USA

ID: 00985977Title: INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES ON DALLAS HIGH FIVE PROJECTAuthor(s): Khwaja, N; Nelson, JLanguage: EnglishJournal Title: Transportation Research RecordIssue: 1900 Publication Date: 00/00/2004 Pagination: pp 107-113 ISBN: 0309094941ISSN: 03611981 Features: FIGS: 2 Fig. TABS: 4 Tab. PHOT: 2 Phot. REFS: 10 Ref. Publisher/Corporate Author(s):

Transportation Research Board 500 Fifth Street, NWWashington, DC 20001- USA

Abstract: The $262.9 million Dallas High Five project is reconstructing the busiest freeway interchange in the largest metropolitan area in Texas. The five-level, fully directional interchange between US-75 (North Central Expressway) and I-635 (Lyndon B. Johnson Freeway) is being reconstructed to replace the existing three-level partial cloverleaf interchange built in the mid-1960s. It was the single largest contract ever let by the Texas Department of Transportation and was more than double the previous largest contract. The project site is in the middle of a highly

54

developed commercial zone of the city and poses all the challenges associated with urban freeway reconstruction. Almost 500,000 vehicles pass through the construction site every day, and extraordinary care was taken to minimize the impact on traffic and abutting businesses by instituting innovative strategies in the construction contract, including lane rental, windowed milestones, and no-excuse incentives. The financing concept adopted for this project has since become a statewide criterion. Details about contracting strategies and the thought processes involved in their development and application are presented, along with results from their application so far.

Supplemental Information: This paper appears in Transportation Research Record No. 1900, Construction 2004.

Index Terms: Reconstruction, Interchanges, Metropolitan areas, Innovation, Construction management, Strategic planning, Contracts, Financing Dallas (Texas)

Available from: Transportation Research Board Business Office 500 Fifth Street, NWWashington, DC 20001- USA

“CONTRUCTABILITY REVIEWS”

ID: 01001022Title: Assessing State Transportation Agency Constructability ImplementationAuthor(s): Dunston, Phillip S; Gambatese, John A; McManus, James FLanguage: EnglishJournal Title: Journal of Construction Engineering and ManagementVolume: 131 Issue: 5 Publication Date: 05/01/2005 Pagination: pp 569-578 ISSN: 07339364 Features: FIGS: 2 REFS: References Publisher/Corporate Author(s):

American Society of Civil Engineers 1801 Alexander Bell DriveReston, VA 20191-4400 USA

Abstract: Although guidance is available for state transportation agencies to establish constructability review processes (CRPs), nationwide implementation has been

55

slow due, in part, to a lack of clarity regarding related costs and benefits and a perception that CRPs are resource intensive. This study, funded by the National Cooperative Highway Research Program , reveals that while numerous states have attempted implementation in various forms, obstacles have frequently either hindered or halted progress. Four elements appear to be essential for the successful implementation and continuance of a CRP: 1) institutionalization of the CRP champion; 2) an emphasis on a quality driven as opposed to a schedule driven design process; 3) clear yet flexible guidelines for executing constructability reviews across the broad range of project types and sizes, and 4) a vehicle for meaningful expert input from construction contracting professionals. A benefit cost model, founded on the proposition that CRP implementation provides efficiencies that result in significant cost and schedule reductions, is demonstrated using case studies. A need for more precise identification of costs and quantifications of benefits is noted.

Index Terms: Assessments, Benefit cost analysis, Construction industry, Construction management, Project management, State departments of transportation Constructability National Cooperative Highway Research Program

ID: 00977207Title: MANAGEMENT REVIEW STUDY OF HAMPTON ROADS DISTRICT FOR THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION - EXECUTIVE SUMMARYLanguage: EnglishPublication Date: 08/06/2004 Pagination: 34p Features: FIGS: Figs. Publisher/Corporate Author(s):

Deloitte and Touche LLP 707 E Main Street, Suite 500Richmond, VA 23219-2802 USA Virginia Department of Transportation 1401 East Broad StreetRichmond, VA 23219 USA

Abstract: The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) engaged Deloitte and Touche to perform a management assessment of the Hampton Roads District, focusing on its administration of the construction program and the detailed management of construction projects. The Hampton Roads District construction program is the second largest construction program in the State and the largest urban construction program in the State. This executive summary report

56

summarizes the major issues identified during the course of the study, and the recommendations developed to address these issues. The major issues identified and evaluated fall into two categories: Program Issues and Project Issues. Program Issues include organization, project management, ownership/accountability, communication, work order/claims resolution, scheduling/estimating, management reporting, and human resources. Project Issues include design constructability review, construction inspection, project documentation, quality control, project-level staffing, and contractor evaluation process. The study yielded a number of observations and recommendations, with the suggestion that the initial focus should be on the following major modifications: (1) Redesign the organization as proposed to streamline reporting lines, distribute authority for the successful delivery of the construction program to the appropriate parties, ensure that the necessary controls and oversight are in place within the District, and encourage teamwork; (2) Implement a project management strategy that provides a seamless transition from design to construction and sufficient oversight and accountability at all stages of the project life cycle; (3) Implement a project controls process to strengthen oversight of the construction program by consolidating and enhancing the District's estimating, schedule, work order review, contract administration and management reporting functions; and (4) Improve District communications internally and externally to ensure that roles and responsibilities are clearly understood and to facilitate the execution of the construction program.

Index Terms: Road construction, Program management, Project management, Evaluation and assessment, Recommendations Hampton Roads District (Virginia DOT)

ID: 00985980Title: KENTUCKY TRANSPORTATION CABINET'S STATEWIDE SYSTEM FOR LESSONS LEARNEDAuthor(s): Goodrum, P; Yasin, M; Hancher, DLanguage: EnglishJournal Title: Transportation Research RecordIssue: 1900 Publication Date: 00/00/2004 Pagination: pp 132-139 ISBN: 0309094941ISSN: 03611981 Features: FIGS: 7 Fig. REFS: 5 Ref. Publisher/Corporate Author(s):

Transportation Research Board 500 Fifth Street, NWWashington, DC 20001- USA

57

Abstract: A system for collecting, archiving, and disseminating lessons learned is a critical component of experienced-based processes, such as the design and construction of roadway and bridges. The construction section of the Kentucky Transportation Center developed a centralized, web-based lessons learned system for the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet. Other state transportation agencies have recognized the importance of formally documenting lessons learned that result from post construction and constructability reviews. The cabinet believes it is critical to expand its efforts of capturing lessons learned on all projects and to make that information available to current and future project participants anywhere and at any time. Thus a web-based lessons learned system that can receive text and any form of multimedia data was developed for cabinet personnel, designers, contractors, and other project participants. The project also (a) developed a process for maintaining the lessons learned system that includes the role of a gatekeeper to ensure the quality and accuracy of the submitted and stored lessons and (b) addressed implementation of the system into the cabinet's project development process.

Supplemental Information: This paper appears in Transportation Research Record No. 1900, Construction 2004.

Index Terms: Construction management, Websites (Information retrieval), Information dissemination Lessons learned Kentucky Transportation Cabinet

Available from: Transportation Research Board Business Office 500 Fifth Street, NWWashington, DC 20001- USA

ID: 00968681Title: CONSTRUCTABILITY REVIEWS SPEED BRIDGE PROJECTAuthor(s): Kerins, TFLanguage: EnglishJournal Title: Better RoadsVolume: 73 Issue: 11 Publication Date: 11/00/2003 Pagination: pp 34-36 ISSN: 00060208 Publisher/Corporate Author(s):

James Informational Media, Incorporated 2720 South River Road, Suite 126

58

Des Plaines, IL 60018- USA

Abstract: The use of constructability reviews as an integral component of the design and construction process in the Fort Pitt Bridge and Tunnel project in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania enhanced the design and construction of the project, provided a significant return on investment, and kept the project on time and within its budget. Critical to the project was the need to keep traffic closure time to a minimum while the 43 year old bridge and tunnel system was upgraded. The article outlines a number of components forming a framework for the constructability review process. These include: document review, site investigations, utility coordination reviews, preliminary construction schedule review, biddability and estimate reviews, and constructability review meetings and reports.

Index Terms: Reviews, Bridges, Construction scheduling Pittsburgh (Pennsylvania) Fort Pitt Bridge and Tunnel

Available from: James Informational Media, Incorporated 2720 South River Road, Suite 126Des Plaines, IL 60018- USA

Acknowledgement of Document Source: UC Berkeley Transportation Library Source Data: BTRIS Record Number 3832

ID: 00931389Title: CALTRANS REBUILDS SACRAMENTO RIVER BRIDGEAuthor(s): Stidger, KLanguage: EnglishJournal Title: Better RoadsVolume: 72 Issue: 8 Publication Date: 08/00/2002 Pagination: pp 36-41 ISSN: 00060208 Features: PHOT: 4 Phot. Publisher/Corporate Author(s):

James Informational Media, Incorporated 2720 South River Road, Suite 126Des Plaines, IL 60018- USA

Abstract: A major bridge replacement over the Sacramento River in California near the Oregon border used the constructability review process to meet concerns of a

59

wide range of partners. Meeting environmental concerns, including protecting migratory fish, maintaining highway and river traffic and containing noise pollution were among the constraints. The new structure includes Modified California bulb tee girders, high-strength concrete and a reduced number of piers in the water from three to two. It is a three-year project, expected to be complete by August 2004.

Index Terms: Girder bridges, Precast concrete, Scour, Environmental design, Environmental protection, Bridge design, Wildlife, Bridge engineering California Bulb tee girders

Available from: James Informational Media, Incorporated 2720 South River Road, Suite 126Des Plaines, IL 60018- USA

Acknowledgement of Document Source: UC Berkeley Transportation Library Source Data: BTRIS Record Number 2098

ID: 00923052Title: CONSTRUCTABILITY ANALYSIS IN THE DESIGN FIRMAuthor(s): Arditi, D; Elhassan, A; Toklu, YCLanguage: EnglishJournal Title: Journal of Construction Engineering and ManagementVolume: 128 Issue: 2 Publication Date: 03/00/2002 Pagination: pp 117-126 ISSN: 07339364 Features: FIGS: 5 Fig. TABS: 2 Tab. REFS: Refs. APPS: 1 App. Publisher/Corporate Author(s):

American Society of Civil Engineers 1801 Alexander Bell DriveReston, VA 20191-4400 USA

Abstract: Timely execution of a construction project is very important to the owner, who plans and makes commitments based on the project's anticipated completion date. Failure by design professionals to consider how a builder will implement the design can result in scheduling problems, delays, and disputes during the construction process. Constructability of design is a subjective scale that depends on a number of interdependent project-related factors. Many design firms have a formal constructability program that is launched as early as the conceptual planning stage of the project. This research examines design professionals' efforts to pursue constructability and gives recommendations for performing constructability reviews in an efficient and effective manner.

60

Index Terms: Construction industry, Construction management, Design methods, Design practices, Highway transportation, Project management, Construction scheduling, Transportation planning

Available from: American Society of Civil Engineers 1801 Alexander Bell DriveReston, VA 20191-4400 USA

ID: 00930164Title: EXPANDED CONSTRUCTABILITY REVIEWSAuthor(s): Berthelsen, GLanguage: EnglishJournal Title: California Department of Transportation JournalVolume: 2 Issue: 4 Publication Date: 01/00/2002 Pagination: pp 42-45 Features: PHOT: 9 Phot. Publisher/Corporate Author(s):

California Department of Transportation 1120 N Street, Room 1200, Mail Stop 49Sacramento, CA 95814 USA

Abstract: In an effort to reduce the costs and delays of change orders requested after design is completed and construction has begun, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) has begun using expanded constructability reviews. These reviews ask a team of engineers from all facets of the transportation system, including maintenance, to evaluated how well the design will hold up to actual conditions. Among the elements the review examines are traffic handling, which involves staging materials, weather conditions and local geographic features. A resident engineer teams with the design engineer to provide analysis of the plans. Caltrans is also making reviews available to contractors before bidding for suggestions. They can view the plans on the Web and forward comments electronically.

Supplemental Information: January-February 2002

Index Terms: Design engineering, Planning stages, Estimates, Multidisciplinary teams, Project management, Process control, Contractors

61

Constructability, Change orders Available from:

California Department of Transportation Publications Unit 1900 Royal Oaks Drive, Mail Stop 16Sacramento, CA 95815-3800 USA

Acknowledgement of Document Source: UC Berkeley Transportation Library Source Data: BTRIS Record Number 1949

ID: 00794004Title: INTEGRATING CONSTRUCTABILITY INTO PROJECT DEVELOPMENT: A PROCESS APPROACHAuthor(s): Anderson, SD; Fisher, DJ; Rahman, SPLanguage: EnglishJournal Title: Journal of Construction Engineering and ManagementVolume: 126 Issue: 2 Publication Date: 03/00/2000 Pagination: pp 81-88 ISSN: 07339364 Features: FIGS: 6 Fig. TABS: 2 Tab. REFS: 14 Ref. APPS: 1 App. Publisher/Corporate Author(s):

American Society of Civil Engineers 1801 Alexander Bell DriveReston, VA 20191-4400 USA

Abstract: The National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) initiated a research project to develop a constructability review process (CRP) for transportation facilities. The basic objective of this research was to develop a systematic approach and methodology for constructability reviews. This paper describes the development of a CRP that meets the NCHRP's research objectives. A process approach is followed to integrate constructability improvements into project development for transportation projects. A function modeling tool is used to portray the interface between the CRP and the project development process. The function modeling tool captures constructability functions and information necessary to perform these functions. The research method to develop the CRP is presented. The CRP has three phases corresponding to planning, design, and construction of a transportation project. Seven constructability functions are performed in each phase. The model was tested using two transportation projects of different complexity.

Index Terms: Construction, Transportation, Infrastructure, Planning, Design, Project management, Reviews, Case studies Constructability

62

National Cooperative Highway Research Program Available from:

American Society of Civil Engineers 1801 Alexander Bell DriveReston, VA 20191-4400 USA

ID: 00794005Title: INTEGRATING CONSTRUCTABILITY TOOLS INTO CONSTRUCTABILITY REVIEW PROCESSAuthor(s): Fisher, DJ; Anderson, SD; Rahman, SPLanguage: EnglishJournal Title: Journal of Construction Engineering and ManagementVolume: 126 Issue: 2 Publication Date: 03/00/2000 Pagination: pp 89-96 ISSN: 07339364 Features: FIGS: 6 Fig. TABS: 2 Tab. REFS: 21 Ref. APPS: 2 App. Publisher/Corporate Author(s):

American Society of Civil Engineers 1801 Alexander Bell DriveReston, VA 20191-4400 USA

Abstract: This paper describes research to develop a constructability review process (CRP) for transportation facilities. This process must incorporate tools to aid in performing constructability reviews. A comprehensive review of literature and existing constructability practices provided the basis for identifying and developing 52 analytical tools for use in a CRP. Detailed descriptions of each tool were developed. Tools were classified by whether they were used to understand/communicate constructability, were used to implement/measure constructability, or were cutting edge technology/computing based. Tools were integrated into the CRP by linking one or more tools to each constructability function of the review process. Twenty-one constructability functions were included in the final CRP model, supported by 27 basic tools. These 27 selected tools were integrated into the CRP in a user-friendly format, using tables to communicate tool concepts, rather than by merely using text. Another 25 review tools were identified as advanced tools for future application. Road maps were used to indicate the linkage between basic and future tools and the constructability functions the tools support.

Index Terms: Construction, Reviews, Transportation, Infrastructure, Computers, Surveys, State departments of transportation, Project management, Planning, Design

63

Constructability National Cooperative Highway Research Program

Available from: American Society of Civil Engineers 1801 Alexander Bell DriveReston, VA 20191-4400 USA

“ENVIRONMENTAL STREAMLINING”

ID: 00977697Title: STREAMLINING ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEWS OF HIGHWAY AND TRANSIT PROJECTS: ANALYSIS OF SAFETEA AND RECENT LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITIESAuthor(s): Luther, LGLanguage: EnglishPublication Date: 06/02/2004 Pagination: 18p Publisher/Corporate Author(s):

Congressional Research Service Library of Congress, 101 Independence Avenue, SEWashington, DC 20540 USA

Abstract: Before final design activities, property acquisition, or construction for a federally funded surface transportation project can proceed, the Department of Transportation (DOT) is required by law to comply with environmental review provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq.). In addition, any surface transportation project will potentially require compliance with a variety of federal, state, and local environmental laws, rules, and regulations, in turn requiring the cooperation of federal, state, and local agencies. Some Members of Congress have expressed concerns that the interagency coordination required to complete the environmental review process for large, complex transportation projects can lead to project delays. To address this concern, "Environmental Streamlining" provisions were included in legislation that reauthorized federal surface transportation programs for FY1998-2003 in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21; P.L. 105-178). Those streamlining provisions required DOT to implement a "coordinated environmental review process" to encourage full and early participation of all agencies required to participate in determining the environmental impacts of certain highway projects. Legislation to reauthorize surface transportation programs for FY2004-2009 passed in both the House and Senate included further provisions intended to streamline the environmental review process. On February

64

12, 2004, the Senate approved the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2004 (SAFETEA; S. 1072). On April 2, 2004, the House passed the Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (TEA-LU; H.R. 3550). Elements related to the environmental review process common to each bill include the designation of DOT as the "lead agency" in the environmental review process; the designation of authority to the lead agency to define a project's purpose and need, and to determine the range of alternatives to be considered; the creation of a dispute resolution process to address issues of concern between agencies; and amendments to current statutory requirements to potentially allow for the use of certain public lands or historic sites for transportation projects. The Senate bill would authorize states to assume federal authority to determine if certain projects could be categorically excluded from the more onerous requirements of the NEPA process. It would also establish a "surface transportation project delivery pilot program" that could delegate additional federal environmental review responsibilities to no more than five states, including Oklahoma. The House bill would establish a 90-day statute of limitations on final agency actions and set comment deadlines applicable to agencies and the public.

Index Terms: Highways, Public transit, Environmental impacts, Environmental policy, Ground transportation, Federal aid, Interagency relations, Coordination, Legislation, Project management United States, Oklahoma Environmental review SAFETEA, Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, U.S. Dept. of Transportation, United States Congress

Available from: Congressional Research Service Library of Congress, 101 Independence Avenue, SEWashington, DC 20540 USA

ID: 00943849Title: A TOOLBOX FOR ENVIRONMENTAL STREAMLINING: WHAT WORKED FOR PENNSYLVANIA'S CORRIDOR OAuthor(s): Farrow, KMLanguage: EnglishConference Title: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) 2003 Technical Conference and ExhibitSponsored by: Institute of Transportation EngineersLocation: Fort Lauderdale, Florida, USADate Held: 03/23/2003 - 03/26/2003 Publication Date: 03/00/2003

65

Pagination: 11p Report No: CD-020ISBN: 0935403752Publisher/Corporate Author(s):

Institute of Transportation Engineers 1099 14th Street, NWWashington, DC 20005-3438 USA

Abstract: Over the last several years, particularly since the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), people have been discussing environmental streamlining and its implications on transportation projects. Too often, the initial reaction is of concern that environmental analyses will be compromised. However, we have come to learn that environmental streamlining is about coordination and review, not an attempt to shortchange the fulfillment of environmental laws and regulations. Environmental Streamlining is defined as "a cooperative and coordinated process that assures timely, cost effective, and environmentally sound transportation planning and project development based upon concurrent, multi-agency review." The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PENNDOT) has been following many of the guiding principles of environmental streamlining since 1992 with the Integrated NEPA/Section 404 process and has worked with the resource agencies in cooperative agreements that promote active participation by the agencies throughout a given project. However well this process worked in the past, it has been clear over the last several years that the coordination and project development process could and should, be improved. Feelings of distrust and a general lack of cooperation often stood in the way of sound transportation planning. In addition, PENNDOT realized that a key component was missing from the table - the local perspective. Corridor O was selected as a model project by PENNDOT to implement environmental streamlining principles and the project achieved its goal of obtaining consensus on the endorsed alternative in only three years. As part of the project, a toolbox was developed containing a variety of streamlining techniques that were used successfully on Corridor O. The techniques with the most success are discussed in the paper.

Index Terms: Environmental protection, Transportation planning, Cooperation, Coordination, Transportation corridors, Project management Pennsylvania Environmental streamlining Pennsylvania Department of Transportation

Available from: Institute of Transportation Engineers 1099 14th Street, NWWashington, DC 20005-3438 USA

66

ID: 00950606Title: SUCCESSFUL EFFORTS IN ENVIRONMENTAL STREAMLINING EIGHT CASE STUDIES IN PROJECT DEVELOPMENT.Language: ENGLISHPublication Date: 00/00/2003 Publisher/Corporate Author(s):

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION, WASHINGTON, D.C.:

Abstract: No abstract provided.

Supplemental Information: 1 CD-ROM: COL. ILL., COL. MAPS, PLANS; UNITED STATES. TITLE FROM CONTAINER INSERT. "JUNE 2003."

Index Terms: Roads, Environmental impact analysis, Design, Environmental impacts, Management United States Design and construction, Environmental aspects

Acknowledgement of Document Source: UC, BERKELEY, INSTITUTE FOR TRANSPORTATION STUDIES

Document available for interlibrary loan or document delivery

ID: 00968494Title: FLORIDA'S EFFICIENT TRANSPORTATION DECISION-MAKING PROCESS: LAYING THE TECHNOLOGY FOUNDATIONAuthor(s): Bejleri, I; Roaza, R; Thomas, A; Turton, T; Zwick, PLanguage: EnglishJournal Title: Transportation Research RecordIssue: 1859 Publication Date: 00/00/2003 Pagination: pp 19-28 ISBN: 0309085969ISSN: 03611981 Features: FIGS: 5 Fig. REFS: 14 Ref. Publisher/Corporate Author(s):

Transportation Research Board 500 Fifth Street, NWWashington, DC 20001- USA

Abstract: In response to environmental streamlining legislation passed by the U.S. Congress as part of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Florida has

67

undertaken efforts to implement more efficient transportation planning and environmental review. These efforts have led to the development of the Efficient Transportation Decision-Making Process (ETDM Process), which redefines how Florida will accomplish planning and project development. A rather unique aspect of Florida's streamlining approach is the integration of information technology as a vital foundation for the process. The development of Florida's ETDM Process is described and evaluated, focusing on the information technology component. This component was developed as an interactive Internet-accessible geographic information system database. It integrates resource and project data from multiple sources into one standard format, provides quick and standardized analysis of the effects of the proposed projects on the human and natural environment, and supports the effective communication of results among all stakeholders, including the public. The use of technology is expected to reduce the cost of agency participation in the process and produce better, timely transportation decisions that reflect the proper balance among land use, mobility, and environment. Main topics include application design and development methodology, its integration in the ETDM Process, and how it has been received by the user community to date. Its benefits are evaluated, and recommendations for developing integrated technologies in support of streamlining efforts are provided.

Supplemental Information: This paper appears in Transportation Research Record No. 1859, Sustainability and Environmental Concerns in Transportation 2003.

Index Terms: Transportation planning, Environmental impact analysis, Information technology, Geographic information systems, Databases, Communication, Stakeholders, Decision making, Land use, Mobility, Environment Florida Environmental streamlining, Data integration Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century

Available from: Transportation Research Board Business Office 500 Fifth Street, NWWashington, DC 20001- USA

ID: 00939741Title: ENVIRONMENTAL STREAMLINING AND STEWARDSHIP: RESOURCE PAPERAuthor(s): Bach, J; Myers, JLanguage: EnglishJournal Title: CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS 28Conference Title: Environmental Research Needs in Transportation

68

Sponsored by: Federal Highway Administration; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Center for Transportation and Environment, North Carolina State University; and Transportation Research Board.Location: Washington, D.C.Date Held: 03/21/2002 - 03/23/2002 Publication Date: 00/00/2002 Pagination: pp 99-106 ISBN: 030907715XISSN: 10731652 Features: REFS: Refs. Publisher/Corporate Author(s):

Transportation Research Board 500 Fifth Street, NWWashington, DC 20001- USA

Abstract: Environmental streamlining and environmental stewardship represent two of the fastest-growing forces in the transportation field. Environmental stewardship in transportation, in its most fundamental terms, is the effective management and protection of the natural and human environment through informed decision making about transportation projects and programs. Environmental streamlining is the term given to efforts, spearheaded by the U.S. Department of Transportation, to improve transportation project delivery and enhance environmental protection by means of improved interagency coordination. Among the commonalties between environmental stewardship and environmental streamlining are the need for more information on existing practices, the development of innovative tools for improving practices, improvements in data resources and data analysis techniques, and the establishment of metrics for measuring results. Because both topics involve shaping human behavior, there also is a demand for techniques for creating and managing cultural change in state and federal agencies involved in transportation. Effective research in each of these areas is critical to the future success of environmental streamlining and environmental stewardship in transportation.

Index Terms: Conferences, Environmental protection, Research, Strategic planning, Decision making, Interagency relations, Coordination Environmental streamlining, Environmental stewardship

Available from: Transportation Research Board Business Office 500 Fifth Street, NWWashington, DC 20001- USA

ID: 00925813 Quite good. Title: ENVIRONMENTAL STREAMLINING PROCESSES

69

Author(s): Overman, JH; Phillips, KLLanguage: EnglishPublication Date: 11/00/2001 Pagination: 124p Period Covered: 0009-0109 Report No: FHWA/TX-02/4015-1,; Research Report 4015-1,; TTI: 0-4015Features: FIGS: 8 Fig. TABS: 1 Tab. REFS: 23 Ref. APPS: 2 App.

Publisher/Corporate Author(s): Texas Transportation Institute Texas A&M UniversityCollege Station, TX 77843 USA Texas Department of Transportation Office of Research and Technology Transfer, P.O. Box 5080Austin, TX 78763-508 USA Federal Highway Administration 400 7th Street, SWWashington, DC 20590 USA

Abstract: Section 1309 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) is intended to promote streamlining in the environmental review processes for transportation project development. Environmental streamlining refers to various processes, interagency coordination, technology and communications tools used to improve transportation project development by reducing project delays, duplicated efforts, and increased costs associated with environmental reviews. This research project examined the environmental clearance process at the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT), its transportation development partners, and other state departments of transportation (DOTs) in order to identify opportunities and examples of streamlining. The research results were developed into a guidebook for use in streamlining the project development process at TxDOT.

Supplemental Information: Research Project Title: Streamlining the Environmental Approval Process.

Index Terms: Transportation, Project management, Environmental impact analysis, Streamlining, Guidelines Project development process Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Texas Department of Transportation

Available from:

70

National Technical Information Service 5285 Port Royal RoadSpringfield, VA 22161 USA

DESIGN-BUILD

Criteria: DESIGN BUILD Search Period: 2000 - present

ID: 00989124Title: SUPERSIZING DESIGN/BUILDAuthor(s): Saenz, A, Jr.; Fuller, DA; Gookin, SE; Stevens, B; Wiste, DLanguage: EnglishJournal Title: Civil EngineeringVolume: 75 Issue: 4 Publication Date: 04/00/2005 Pagination: pp 46-53 ISSN: 08857024 Features: PHOT: 5 Phot. Publisher/Corporate Author(s):

American Society of Civil Engineers 1801 Alexander Bell DriveReston, VA 20191-4400 USA

Abstract: Interstate 35 in the Austin, Texas area has experienced serious congestion issues for many years. This article describes how the Texas Department of Transportation (DOT) plans to alleviate this congested area with the construction of a new network of roads called the Central Texas Turnpike System (CTTS). The main component of the system is the 90 mi long Highway 130. To expedite the construction of the CTTS, the Texas DOT developed innovative economic and procedural strategies. A nontraditional financing package was adopted to fund design and construction of the first phase of the project. The financing package includes funds from a state fuel tax, city and county funding, revenue bonds and a federal loan. To streamline the project, the northern portion of Highway 130 was structured as the Texas DOT's first design/build highway contract. Groundbreaking for the project occurred in October 2003 and completion is scheduled for December 2007.

Index Terms: Design build construction, Interstate highways, Road construction, Financing, Government funding, Case studies Austin (Texas) Texas Department of Transportation, Central Texas Turnpike System

Available from:

71

American Society of Civil Engineers 1801 Alexander Bell DriveReston, VA 20191-4400 USA

ID: 01004336Title: Cost Effectiveness of Design-Build, Lane Rental, and A + B Contracting TechniquesAuthor(s): Strong, Kelly C; Tometich, James; Raadt, NolanLanguage: EnglishConference Title: Proceedings of the 2005 Mid-Continent Transportation Research SymposiumSponsored by: Iowa Department of Transportation; Iowa State University; Midwest Transportation ConsortiumLocation: Ames, Iowa, United StatesDate Held: 08/18/2005 - 08/19/2005 Publication Date: 00/00/2005 ISBN: 9780965231084Features: REFS: 9 Publisher/Corporate Author(s):

Iowa State University Center for Transportation Research and Education, 2901 S. Loop Drive, Suite 3100Ames, IA 50010 USA

Abstract: Many state DOT specifications are generally prescriptive, in that they describe how contractors should conduct certain operations using minimum standards of equipment and materials. These prescriptive specifications, known as method specifications, have performed admirably in the past. However, rehabilitation and reconstruction projects, especially in a rapid renewal scenario, demand more creativity and innovation. Prescriptive specifications, used in conjunction with traditional procurement and contracting, do not properly foster this innovation. This study compares relevant performance criteria for three alternative contracting techniques (A + B, lane rental, design-build) and for traditional contracting. The research methodology involved surveying national experts who rated each innovative contracting method for each performance factor on each of the project types. Results indicate that design-build and A+B contracts are the most effective methods when time is the primary driver of cost or when complex design issues require interdisciplinary coordination. Because design-build appears to hold much promise for dramatically accelerating schedules, we utilized in-depth personal interviews of project team members involved in a design-build urban corridor reconstruction project in Minnesota. Interview data suggest the following issues need to be addressed as use of design-build contracting continues

72

to gain acceptance: (1) Determination of appropriate level of design completion prior to issuance of the request for proposal; (2) Co-location of project team members; (3) Definition of responsibilities for quality control and quality assurance; (4) Adaptation of traditional state procedures, procurement systems, forms, and project information handling methods to better fit design-build delivery philosophy.

Index Terms: Contracting out, Cost effectiveness, Design build construction, Quality assurance, Reconstruction, Rehabilitation (Maintenance), Rent, Specifications, State departments of transportation, Traffic lanes, Transportation planning

Available from: Iowa State University Center for Transportation Research and Education, 2901 S. Loop Drive, Suite 3100Ames, IA 50010 USA

ID: 00979269Title: FAST-TRACKING AND TEAMWORKAuthor(s): Heydorn, ALanguage: EnglishJournal Title: PavementVolume: 19 Issue: 6 Publication Date: 08/00/2004 Pagination: pp 15-17 ISSN: 10910158 Features: PHOT: 1 Phot. Publisher/Corporate Author(s):

Cygnus Publishing, Incorporated 1233 Janesville Avenue, P.O. Box 803Fort Atkinson, WI 53538-0803 USA

Abstract: This article describes a paving project to construct a new rail/auto transfer center in Oklahoma. The contractor had four months to complete the 52-acre paving job. By fast-tracking the design-build project, the deadline was met. The railroad company, primary contractor and paving contractor worked closely together to ensure that good, efficient and safe construction practices were followed. Since the land was low and unusually swampy, the subgrade had to be improved and the site had to be raised 5 feet to get above the flood plain. Twelve inches of cement stabilization was added to the elevated subgrade, followed by 8 inches of aggregate base for the foundation and 4 inches of hot mix asphalt surface course. The low-lying nature of the site required installation of 10,000 feet of corrugated

73

metal pipe to collect storm water and bring it to the holding ponds. The contractor had crews working 60 hours a week to complete the project by the deadline.

Index Terms: Paving, Transfer centers, Contractors, Design build construction, Subgrade (Pavements), Drainage, Construction management, Construction engineering, Case studies Oklahoma

Available from: Cygnus Publishing, Incorporated 1233 Janesville Avenue, P.O. Box 803Fort Atkinson, WI 53538-0803 USA

ID: 00984940Title: EVALUATING DESIGN-BUILD VS. TRADITIONAL CONTRACTING METHODS FOR STIP PROJECTSAuthor(s): Martin, PT; Mitra, A; Stevanovic, ALanguage: EnglishPublication Date: 06/00/2004 Pagination: 70p Report No: UT-04.21; UTL-0604-76; Final ReportFeatures: FIGS: Figs. TABS: Tabs. REFS: Refs. APPS: 1 App. Publisher/Corporate Author(s):

University of Utah, Salt Lake City College of Engineering, Department of Civil EngineeringSalt Lake City, UT 84112 USA Utah Department of Transportation 4501 South 2700 WestSalt Lake City, UT 84114-8410 USA

Abstract: Highway construction impacts travel time and causes vehicular delays for road users. Innovative construction techniques like the design build, or fast track method can reduce the time of construction activity when compared to traditional build methods, thus resulting in reduced network delay. The faster the construction activity occurs, the lower the impact on users and the higher the savings in delay cost. This study assesses the travel and cost impacts due to traditional build and fast track techniques for the Utah Department of Transportation's five-year road improvement programs which are a part of the Statewide Transportation Improvement Plan. The build scenarios were modeled from 2004 until 2010 using a macroscopic transportation planning simulation model called VISUM. A partial network algorithm was developed to run traffic assignments on reduced networks that represented the project areas. Five Statewide Transportation Improvement projects were identified and grouped into

74

three analysis areas to analyze the impact comprehensively. The simulation results were quantified in terms of measures of effectiveness viz. vehicle miles of travel, vehicle hours of delay and vehicle hours of delay/vehicle miles of delay (second delay). Finally, the delay was converted into daily delay cost to assess the cost savings and suggest the best contracting technique for the projects.

Index Terms: Design build construction, Contracting, Improvements, Project management, Travel time, Traffic delay, Construction, Construction scheduling, Simulation, Algorithms, Vehicle miles of travel, Savings, Costs Vehicle hours of delay, Vehicle miles of delay VISUM

Available from: Utah Department of Transportation Research Division, Box 148410Salt Lake City, UT 84114-8410 USA

ID: 00971457Title: DESIGN-BUILD CUTS STREET-WIDENING PROJECT TIMEAuthor(s): Goodwin, ALanguage: EnglishJournal Title: Better RoadsVolume: 74 Issue: 2 Publication Date: 02/00/2004 Pagination: pp 42-45 ISSN: 00060208 Features: PHOT: 3 Phot. Publisher/Corporate Author(s):

James Informational Media, Incorporated 2720 South River Road, Suite 126Des Plaines, IL 60018- USA

Abstract: A design-build approach and a rental service partnership proved to be key cost-effective and time-reducing elements in a road-widening project in Tucson, Arizona. The focus of the project was to increase traffic capacity and driver visibility near a new mall featuring an open-air village. This article outlines why the design-build process, which is a fairly new approach to roadway construction, offered a more efficient construction process and a higher quality resulting product. Renting the equipment for the project also proved to be beneficial, as it enabled the construction crew to have access to equipment on an as-needed basis as well as making maintenance available at anytime. In addition, the project involved using pot holing as a method for quickly and safely locating

75

underground utilities as well as solving stabilization problems with a reinforced earth retaining wall.

Index Terms: Design build construction, Road construction, Equipment leasing, Construction scheduling

Available from: James Informational Media, Incorporated 2720 South River Road, Suite 126Des Plaines, IL 60018- USA

CONSTRUCTIBILITY REVIEWS

ID: 00969584Title: MANAGING CONSTRUCTIBILITY REVIEWS TO REDUCE HIGHWAY PROJECT DURATIONSAuthor(s): Ford, DN; Anderson, SD; Damron, AJ; de Las Casas, Language: EnglishJournal Title: Journal of Construction Engineering and ManagementVolume: 130 Issue: 1 Publication Date: 01/00/2004 Pagination: pp 33-42 ISSN: 07339364 Features: FIGS: 6 Fig. REFS: Refs. Publisher/Corporate Author(s):

American Society of Civil Engineers 1801 Alexander Bell DriveReston, VA 20191-4400 USA

Abstract: Highway project durations that are longer than necessary delay the delivery of benefits to road users. Budget constraints often preclude the use of additional funds to shorten total project duration. Therefore, state highway agencies seek ways to decrease construction project durations without increasing costs. Research has recommended formal constructability reviews as an effective approach to meeting this goal. Formalized constructability reviews have been effective in isolated cases but only about 25% of state highway agencies currently have formal constructability review programs. An inadequate understanding of implementation issues, including the effective use of resources, is a potential cause. The effects of constructability reviews on the design phase, construction phase, and project durations are modeled and analyzed. Results illustrate and explain how intermediate-sized constructability reviews reduce project durations more than very large or small reviews and the potential impacts of a design-build approach on constructability review effectiveness.

76

Index Terms: Construction management, Highway planning, Construction engineering, Project management, Financing, User benefits, Road construction, State highway departments, Procurement, Construction industry

Available from: American Society of Civil Engineers 1801 Alexander Bell DriveReston, VA 20191-4400 USA

ID: 00969591Title: PREDICTING PERFORMANCE OF DESIGN-BUILD AND DESIGN-BID-BUILD PROJECTSAuthor(s): Ling, FYY; Chan, SL; Chong, E; Ee, LPLanguage: EnglishJournal Title: Journal of Construction Engineering and ManagementVolume: 130 Issue: 1 Publication Date: 01/00/2004 Pagination: pp 75-83 ISSN: 07339364 Features: TABS: 7 Tab. REFS: Refs. Publisher/Corporate Author(s):

American Society of Civil Engineers 1801 Alexander Bell DriveReston, VA 20191-4400 USA

Abstract: Design-build (DB) and design-bid-build (DBB) are 2 main project delivery systems used in many countries. This paper reports on models constructed to predict performance of DB and DBB projects in 11 areas, using project-specific data collected from 87 construction projects. The study included collecting, checking, and validating industry data, and the statistical development of multivariate linear regression models for predicting project performance. Robust models are developed to predict construction and delivery speeds of DB and DBB projects. Gross floor area of the project is the most significant factor affecting speed. Other than this, for DBB projects, contractors' design ability, and adequacy of plant and equipment would ensure speedy completion of the projects. For DB projects, if the contract period is allowed to vary during tender evaluation, it will slow down the project. Robust models to predict turnover and system quality of DB projects are also developed. A DB contractor's history is a key variable. They must have satisfactorily completed past projects and have ability in financial, health, and safety management.

Index Terms:

77

Project management, Design build construction, Construction industry, Performance evaluations, Road construction, Contractors

Available from: American Society of Civil Engineers 1801 Alexander Bell DriveReston, VA 20191-4400 USA

ID: 00957775Title: ROCK ON DOWN THE ROAD: THE RECONSTRUCTION OF 11 MILES OF U.S. HIGHWAY 52 THROUGH THE HEART OF ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA - KNOWN AS THE ROC 52 PROJECT - APPEARS POISED TO BECOME THE STANDARD BY WHICH ALL DESIGN/BUILD PROJECTS IN THE STATE WILL BE MEASURED.Author(s): TAYLOR, JEFF.Language: ENGLISHJournal Title: CIVIL ENGINEERING.Publication Date: 00/00/2004 Abstract:

No abstract provided.

Supplemental Information: CIVIL ENGINEERING. VOL. 74, NO. 6 (JUNE 2004), P. 50-55.

Index Terms: Expressways, Maintenance, Design Minnesota Express highways, Maintenance and repair, Design and construction, Rochester

ID: 01000161Title: "Value Engineering...?" During ConstructionAuthor(s): Bedian, Maral PapazianEditor(s): Turner, John PLanguage: EnglishConference Title: GeoSupport 2004: Innovation and Cooperation in the Geo-IndustrySponsored by: American Society of Civil Engineers; Geo-Institute and American Society of Civil Engineers; International Association of Foundation DrillingLocation: Orlando, Florida, United StatesDate Held: 01/29/2004 - 01/31/2004 Publication Date: 00/00/2004 Pagination: pp 52-69 Report No: Geotechnical Special Publication No. 124ISBN: 0784407134Features: FIGS: 6 TABS: 1 PHOT: 7 REFS: 14 Publisher/Corporate Author(s):

78

American Society of Civil Engineers 1801 Alexander Bell DriveReston, VA 20191-4400 USA

Abstract: Construction contracts in the USA frequently contain a clause on "Value Engineering" which allows contractor-initiated design changes. Misleading is the interpretation of value engineering to imply cost savings shared with the owner, and its implementation, just before or during actual construction, is problematic. It is not surprising that such a clause would simply be ignored because it involves changes in design, often major changes in very short time; and change is feared, and moreover, vehemently resisted by all parties: owner, designer, and contractor. Major design changes were nevertheless successfully implemented in record speed on several very large projects in the metropolitan New York area. Four case histories spanning from 1998 to 2002 are presented in this paper. They include two Design/Build projects: the redesign of large diameter drilled shafts for the Hudson-Bergen Light Rail Transit System; and the elimination of deep caissons in favor of spread footings for a new $90 million MTA bus depot in Manhattan. The other two case histories are conventional Design/Bid/Build projects: maintaining in lieu of removal of a 100-year old abutment of the $72 million Queens Boulevard Bridge Replacement; and the complete redesign of major retaining walls and actual use of the "Giken" tubular pressed-in pipe piles as very high cantilever retaining walls, for the $150 million expansion of the Long Island Expressway. The author describes how the changes in each case were unconventional, painful, and even comical at times.

Supplemental Information: Full conference proceedings available on CD-ROM.

Index Terms: Bridge foundations, Bus terminals, Construction engineering, Construction management, Costs, Design build construction, Expressways, Light rail transit, Piles (Supports), Spread footings, Value engineering New York (New York) Hudson-Bergen Light Rail Transit System, Long Island Expressway, MTA New York City Transit, Queens Boulevard Bridge

Available from: American Society of Civil Engineers 1801 Alexander Bell DriveReston, VA 20191-4400 USA

ID: 00969882

79

Title: EVALUATION OF OREGON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PROJECT DELIVERY - OUTSOURCING PROJECT DELIVERY IN STATE DEPARTMENTS OF TRANSPORTATIONAuthor(s): Rogge, DF; Carbonell, T; Hinrichsen, RLanguage: EnglishPublication Date: 12/00/2003 Pagination: 163p Period Covered: 0207-0306 Report No: FHWA-OR-RD-04-07Features: FIGS: Figs. TABS: Tabs. REFS: Refs. APPS: 3 App. Publisher/Corporate Author(s):

Oregon State University, Corvallis Department of Civil, Construction and Environmental EngineeringCorvallis, OR 97331 USA Oregon Department of Transportation Research Unit, 200 Hawthorne Street, Suite B-240Salem, OR 97301- USA Federal Highway Administration 400 7th Street, SWWashington, DC 20590 USA

Abstract: This report summarizes a review of literature regarding outsourcing by Departments of Transportation (DOTs), with particular emphasis on outsourcing of project delivery, and on performance measures for project delivery. The report also summarizes information obtained from a brief e-mail survey of the 50 U.S. DOTs, and a follow-up detailed questionnaire survey and telephone interviews. The information in this report lays the groundwork for comparative evaluation, over a three-year period, of projects delivered by the Oregon DOT using in-sourced design-bid-build, outsourced design-bid-build, and design-build. The results of this analysis and the proposed guidelines for selecting project delivery methods for specific projects will be included in the final report in 2006.

Index Terms: Literature reviews, State departments of transportation, Surveys, Questionnaires, Interviewing, Contracting out, Design build construction, Construction engineering Project delivery, Performance measures, Design-bid-build Oregon Department of Transportation

Available from: National Technical Information Service 5285 Port Royal RoadSpringfield, VA 22161 USA

80

ID: 00944085Title: DESIGN/BUILD IN TRANSPORTATION FROM THE RESEARCH PERSPECTIVEAuthor(s): Gransberg, DDLanguage: EnglishJournal Title: Leadership and Management in EngineeringVolume: 3 Issue: 3 Publication Date: 07/00/2003 Pagination: pp 133-136 ISSN: 15326748 Features: REFS: Refs. Publisher/Corporate Author(s):

American Society of Civil Engineers 1801 Alexander Bell DriveReston, VA 20191-4400 USA

Abstract: In 1996, twenty seven states reported to the Design-Build Institute of America survey that design/build was a permissible procurement mechanism; only nine states had laws that expressly forbade design/build. Today, design/build project delivery is still an emerging methodology in the transportation industry, and its successful adoption will necessitate a transfer of lessons learned from those agencies with experience to those that are about to try it for the first time. This article looks at the research community as an excellent catalyst for capturing data regarding design/build projects, appropriately analyzing those data, and distilling them into useful information of value to the industry. Although it is noted that potential for cost savings through design/build is less on transportation projects than on construction projects, the potential for time savings appears to be quite substantial. Research on topics of immediate use to the transportation industry is seen as vital to the successful implementation of this project delivery system.

Index Terms: Design build construction, Project management, Transportation planning, Cost control, Time management, Data collection, Data processing, Financing, Contracting, Research

ID: 00938302Title: FEDERAL DESIGN-BUILD REGS LIMIT INNOVATIVE CONTRACTINGAuthor(s): Smith, NCLanguage: EnglishJournal Title: Public Works FinancingVolume: 169 Publication Date: 01/00/2003

81

Pagination: pp 24-27 ISSN: 10680748 Publisher/Corporate Author(s):

Public Works Financing 154 Harrison AvenueWestfield, NJ 07090-2433 USA

Abstract: Increasingly, public agencies are relying on design-build and public-private partnerships as tools to accelerate delivery of and obtain financing for needed transport infrastructure. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), through its recently published final rule on Design-Build-Contracting, has succeeded in expanding the potential for use of these tools in certain respects but, unfortunately, has also placed significant limitations on the ability of state and local agencies to use them. This article discusses the potential implications of this new FHWA rule for transport-related contracting and procurement, which was adopted for the purpose of implementing federal legislation enacted in 1998 as part of TEA-21.

Index Terms: Procurement, Contracting, Design build construction, Regulations, Public private partnerships, Financing, Infrastructure United States U.S. Federal Highway Administration, Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century

Available from: Public Works Financing 154 Harrison AvenueWestfield, NJ 07090-2433 USA

ID: 00960080Title: AN INITIAL EVALUATION OF DESIGN-BUILD HIGHWAY PROJECTS PERFORMED BY THE INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIONAuthor(s): Tymvios, NM; McCullouch, BG; Sinha, KCLanguage: EnglishPublication Date: 09/00/2002 Pagination: 117p Report No: FHWA/IN/JTRP-2002/21,; Final ReportFeatures: FIGS: 31 Fig. TABS: 3 Tab. REFS: 25 Ref. APPS: 4 App. Publisher/Corporate Author(s):

Purdue University/Indiana Dept of Transp JTRP Purdue University, 1284 Civil Engineering Bldg, Room 4154West Lafayette, IN 47907-1284 USA

82

Indiana Department of Transportation Indiana Government Center North, 100 North Senate AvenueIndianapolis, IN 46204-224 USA Federal Highway Administration 400 7th Street, SWWashington, DC 20590 USA

Abstract: Design-Build has been an effective contracting method in the private and public arenas. State departments of transportation (DOTs) have used this contracting method on various projects for a variety of reasons. The Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT) has used this contract delivery method on a few projects with mixed responses from those involved in the process. INDOT therefore felt that an evaluation of the Design-Build program was appropriate to determine its future use in Indiana. This report gives an historical perspective of Design-Build and how the program has been received and perceived by INDOT; describes the project's survey and the data collected from the designer and contractor perspectives; relates the experiences of other DOTs with Design-Build; provides a somewhat limited comparison with the Design-Bid-Build approach; and makes recommendations for INDOT's future Design-Build practices.

Index Terms: Design build construction, State departments of transportation, Evaluation and assessment, Surveys, Recommendations Indiana

ID: 00927909Title: FRAMEWORK OF SUCCESS CRITERIA FOR DESIGN/BUILD PROJECTSAuthor(s): Chan, APC; Scott, D; Lam, EWMLanguage: EnglishJournal Title: Journal of Management in EngineeringVolume: 18 Issue: 3 Publication Date: 07/00/2002 Pagination: pp 120-128 ISSN: 0742597X Features: FIGS: 3 Fig. TABS: 6 Tab. REFS: Refs. Publisher/Corporate Author(s):

American Society of Civil Engineers 1801 Alexander Bell DriveReston, VA 20191-4400 USA

Abstract: This paper aims to establish criteria for project success for a design/build project in construction, first by identifying relevant measures of project success for a construction project in past studies, with particular emphasis on design/build

83

projects, and then by establishing a comprehensive assessment framework for project success for design/build projects. The significant impacts on the construction field of study, in terms of educational value and practical use, are also presented. With little research in the project success of design/build projects, the authors suggest a research focus for the study.

Index Terms: Construction industry, Construction management, Project management, Design build construction, Highway transportation, Highway planning, Road construction, Planning methods, Management science, Highway engineering

Available from: American Society of Civil Engineers 1801 Alexander Bell DriveReston, VA 20191-4400 USA

ID: 00923287Title: VALUE ENGINEERING AND ITS REWARDSAuthor(s): Bedian, MPLanguage: EnglishJournal Title: Leadership and Management in EngineeringVolume: 2 Issue: 2 Publication Date: 04/00/2002 Pagination: pp 36-37 ISSN: 15326748 Publisher/Corporate Author(s):

American Society of Civil Engineers 1801 Alexander Bell DriveReston, VA 20191-4400 USA

Abstract: The value engineering clause in most construction contracts is often ignored because it involves design change in a short time. However, value engineering is necessary because of the complex and often adversarial relationship between the designer and the contractor. In this paper, the author, a design manager and geotechnical engineer, recounts her experiences in seeking to revise plans on projects before the start of construction. The projects involved were a design/build rail project, a design/build bus depot project, a design/bid/build project involving the reconstruction of a 100-year-old bridge, and a design/bid/build project to widen the Long Island Expressway. In all these projects, the author encountered initial resistance to her redesign recommendations, but ultimately derived satisfaction from having her value engineering solutions accepted.

Index Terms:

84

Value engineering, Case studies, Contracts, Contractors, Designers, Geotechnical engineering, Construction, Design, Railroad construction, Design build construction, Bus terminals, Road construction, Bridge design, Bridge engineering

Available from: American Society of Civil Engineers 1801 Alexander Bell DriveReston, VA 20191-4400 USA

85

A.2 RIP Database Search Results

No results for: “Accelerated Delivery”“A + B”“Variable Lead Time”

“INCENTIVE”

Guidelines for Incentive/Disincentive ContractingAbstract: The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) currently uses Incentive/Disincentive (I/D) contracting on a project-by-project basis. Currently, the selection process is proactive to the needs of each particular project rather than a proactive procedure based on a set of established guidelines. This research proposal seeks to develop an I/D process to assist the selection of I/D contract methods with associated values and timeframes based on guidelines or standards that have been developed in the construction industry. With the continued evolution of using both insourced and outsourced project delivery at ODOT, the I/D process needs to be flexible, encompassing a wide range of problems and issues associated with both preliminary engineering and construction engineering. The implementation of such a process will require substantial support and documentation. The information will need to be highly organized and articulate the elements of cost, schedule, quality and public support associated with a particular I/D clause.Start date: 2004/7/1Status: ActiveSource Organization: Oregon Department of Transportation

EVALUATION OF CURRENT INCENTIVE/DISINCENTIVE PROCEDURES IN CONSTRUCTIONAbstract: The objectives of this research project are to: 1) review current incentive/disincentive programs in Kentucky for highway construction projects; (2) review other state DOT's incentive/disincentive programs for highway construction projects; (3) identify project completion incentives/disincentives based on either lane rental, and/ or road user costs generated from life-cycle cost analysis in pavement design; (4) determine project quality incentive/ disincentives based on material characteristics/performance data, i. e., densities, percent air voids, pavement thickness, rideablility, etc.; and (5) develop a computer model to optimize incentives/ disincentives of highway construction projects based on both project completion and quality of construction.Start date: 2001/7/1Status: ActiveTRB Accession Number: 929401Source Organization: Kentucky Transportation Cabinet

86

“CONSTRUCTABILITY REVIEW”

Constructability Review of Surface Treatments Constructed on Base CoursesAbstract: It is common practice for Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) to construct surface treatments (1-, 2- or 3- course) directly over base courses. Such surface treatments may act as either wearing surfaces or underseals. There are also many other states that use surface treatments directly over base. The decision to use surface treatments is based on a number of factors including low life-cycle cost, low initial construction cost, inexpensive maintenance, years of favorable experience, availability of experienced contractors, and availability of good local materials. These surface treatments have a significant influence on pavement performance. Problems associated with surface treatments include flushing/bleeding in wearing courses, debonding at the interface with the base layer, poor ride, loss of aggregate (raveling) and ineffective sealing of the pavement. When surface treatments are used as underseals, failure of the underseal may lead to failure of the surface layer. Constructability issues related to surface treatments often dictate their performance. However, a formal statewide constructability review of surface treatments over base has not been conducted either by TxDOT or by other state highway agencies in the recent past. Recently concluded TxDOT research project 0-1787: Seal Coat Constructability Review, was well received by TxDOT personnel as well as the contracting community. It resulted in a number of operational changes in seal coating procedures including a specifications update. A similar study on surface treatments placed on prepared base could make the surface treatment construction operations more effective, resulting in longer lasting and higher quality pavements. This objective of this research project is to conduct a comprehensive constructability review of surface treatment as practiced by TxDOT districts, and to identify best practices. These best practices will be published by way of four products; a training workshop for district personnel, a design and construction manual, an update for the seal coat training manual, and an update of specifications.Start date: 2004/9/1End date: 2006/8/31Status: ActiveContract/Grant Number: 0-5160Total Dollars: 0Source Organization: Texas Department of TransportationDate Added: 9/16/2004Index Terms: Base course (Pavements), Base course (Pavements), Stabilized materials, Surface treating, Life cycle costing, Pavement performance, Pavement layers, Ride quality, Research projects, Texas,  Sponsor Organization     Project Manager

Texas Department of Transportationhttp://www.dot.state.tx.us/11th and Brazos StreetsAustin, TX 78701USAPhone: (512) 463-8585 or (800) 558-9368

   

Passmore, Lynn

 Performing Organization     Principal Investigator

Texas Tech UniversityP.O. Box 4089Lubbock, TX 79409USAPhone: (806) 742-3503

   

Senadheera, Sanjaya Phone: (806) 742-3503

87

Fax: (806) 742-3892 Subjects     Pavement Design, Management and Performance

“ENVIRONMENTAL STREAMLINING”

Environmental Streamlining: Measuring the Performance of Stakeholders in the Transportation Project Development ProcessAbstract: No summary provided.Start date: 2002/3/28End date: 2003/9/30Status: ActiveSource Organization: Federal Highway Administration

Small Mammal CrossingAbstract: This study will investigate the possibility of improving passageways for small mammals, especially Preble's Meadow Jumping Mice, through culverts and underpasses. The use of a shelf built into the side of a culvert could create a significant difference in populations of mice that have become fragmented. The long-term goal of this study is to provide environmental streamlining of highway drainage crossings. Information from the study could be employed in programmatic assessments and agreements related to highways that intersect drainages occupied by Preble's Meadow Jumping Mice.Start date: 2002/8/15End date: 2006/3/1Status: ActiveTRB Accession Number: 931057Source Organization: Colorado Department of Transportation

Monitoring, Analyzing, And Reporting On The Environmental Streamlining Pilot ProjectsAbstract: The objective of this project is to identify effective ways to improve efficiency and reduce delays in the project development process while ensuring environmental protection.Start date: 2001/7/13End date: 2004/1/12Status: ActiveTRB Accession Number: 809150Source Organization: National Cooperative Highway Research Program

TEA-21 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL STREAMLINING-DEVELOPMENT OF COMMUNICATION AND MATERIAL RESPONSES TO KEY STAKEHOLDER GROUP COMMENTSAbstract: The purpose of this project is to develop a communications strategy and user friendly informational materials on two Notices of Proposed Rulemaking. The project will draft responses to key stakeholder concerns.Start date: 1999/9/30

88

Status: ActiveTRB Accession Number: 810420Source Organization: Federal Highway Administration

Evaluating the Performance of Environmental Streamlining: Continuing PerformanceAbstract: The NEPA Baseline study has received generally good reviews and has generated interest in further study, both from within the FHWA and from FHWA customers. The objective of this contract is to provide for the expansion of the original research.Start date: 2001/9/20End date: 2003/1/31Status: ActiveTRB Accession Number: 925197Source Organization: Federal Highway Administration

SUPPORT THE NEW HAMPSHIRE DIVISION'S EFFORTS IN FACILITATING THE ENVIRONMENTAL STREAMLINING INITIATIVE FOR THE INTERSTATE 93 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECTAbstract: Congress, in the Conference Report (106-940) for public law 106-346, has directed the Secretary of Transportation to designate the I-93 project as an environmental streamlining pilot project to demonstrate methods for timely resolution of issues and flexibility.Status: ActiveTRB Accession Number: 925221Source Organization: Federal Highway Administration

ENVIRONMENTAL STREAMLINING PILOT PROJECT FOR THE I-69 STUDYAbstract: The Texas Department of Transportation has selected I-69 as an Environmental Streamlining pilot project and has elected to conduct all of the studies concurrently through the use of consultant contracts for each segment of independent utility (SUI) and on General Engineering Consulting.Status: ActiveTRB Accession Number: 925222Source Organization: Federal Highway Administration

ENVIRONMENTAL STREAMLINING: MEASURING THE PERFORMANCE OF STAKEHOLDERS IN THE TRANSPORTATION PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PROCESSAbstract: No summary provided.Start date: 2001/7/23Status: ActiveTRB Accession Number: 925235Source Organization: Federal Highway Administration

“DELIVERY

Alternatives to Liquidated Damages for Ensuring Project Performance and Adherence to Completion Dates

89

Abstract: The problem to be addressed by this research project is that the umbrella time control practice of liquidated damages has proven insufficient and multiple cost control methods are not readily available to managers to improve on-time performance. Other methods, whether design, contract, or project management related, are likely used elsewhere nationally and should be discovered and incorporated into ODOTs toolbox to improve performance.The objectives of this study are to:1) Document current national DOT project performance practices and lessons learned.2) Discover and document statistics which demonstrate the problem related to on-time contract delivery.3) Update current ODOT listings of time-based performance techniques and enhance that list with national best practices.4) Develop appropriate documentation to transmit this information as an available and encouraged tool set.Start date: 2005/7/1End date: 2007/6/30Status: ActiveSource Organization: Oregon Department of Transportation

Evaluation of ODOT Project Delivery SystemAbstract: The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) is facing increasing pressure to deliver high-quality construction projects at low costs and accelerated timelines. During the 2001 Legislative Session, the Oregon Transportation Investment Act (OTIA) created a $500 million bond that financed projects over the next six years. This has led ODOT to look into innovative contracting practices such as Design-Build (DB) to expedited the project delivery process. However, other project delivery methods exist that could potentially enable ODOT to meet aggressive project funding timelines. This research will investigate and evaluate methods used to deliver OTIA projects and the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program. The research will focus on the resource requirements and implication of implementing three different types of project delivery models: Standard ODOT Design-Bid-Build, Outsourced Design-Build, and Outsourced Design-Bid-Build. The research will result in a redefined and revitalized project delivery process that could bring about: a more streamlined delivery process, a reduced timeline from project development through construction, greater public confidence, better understanding of available resources, and documented guidelines that provide ODOT staff with the tools necessary to make informed decisions on which project delivery method is best suited for a particular project.Start date: 2002/7/1End date: 2006/6/30Status: ActiveSource Organization: Oregon Department of Transportation

Turnkey Demonstration Program OversightAbstract: Turnkey, the Design-Build delivery method, is the focus of this oversight activity. Under this project, the Volpe Center will provide oversight and evaluation of oversight data collected for each of the five FTA-sponsored Transit Turnkey

90

Demonstration Projects - Baltimore Central Light Rail Line Extensions, Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) District Airport Extension, Los Angeles Union Station Gateway, San Juan Tren Urbano Rail Transit, and New Jersey Hudson-Bergen Line. Oversight contractors will assess the experience, effectiveness and value in the development of each turnkey/Design-Build transit project, and the value of the Turnkey method of project delivery vis-à-vis the conventional method. Special emphasis will be placed on cost, scheduling, technology and project management. Guidance will be based on best practices and lessons learned from the five demonstration projects, and how Design- Build can best be applied in the context of New Starts planning, project development, and implementation processes. The turnkey approach is expected to result in lower capital costs and fewer change orders and contract difficulties. The goals of Design-Build project delivery method are to speed project delivery, reduce costs, and introduce technological innovations.Start date: 2001/3End date: 2002/7Status: ActiveTRB Accession Number: 929859Source Organization: Federal Transit Administration

91