Skip to contentUnited States Department of Transportation - Federal Highway AdministrationSearch FHWAFeedback

Construction

<< Previous ContentsNext >>

Current Design-Build Practices for Transportation Projects

8. Schedule

The following is an overview of each agency's scheduling procedures. This information is based on responses to the questions in Section 7 of Appendix 3.

8.1. Establishing Completion Deadlines

The first question addressing schedule issues in the original survey requested information regarding how contract completion dates were set and how schedules were used in the evaluation and selection process.

Most agencies set the completion dates or contract times in their RFP documents. However, schedule information was solicited and used as part of the evaluation and selection process.

Table 2 Approach to Establishing Completion Date(s)
Agency/Project Set in RFP Established in Proposals and Evaluated A+B Bidding
AC/BC X    
ACTA X    
AZ DOT X   Maximum contract days allowable given in RFP but shortened by Contractor through A+B pricing
CDOT   X  
FDOT   X X
Greenville Co. X    
LADOTD   X  
Montana DOT   X  
NAVFAC X X  
NC DOT X    
TCA X    
UT DOT X X  
UTA X X  
WSDOT   X  
VDOT X X Future Projects

8.2. Early Completion Incentives, Liquidated Damages, Stipulated Damages

Almost all agencies in the original survey provided for liquidated damages (LDs) and/or stipulated damages (SDs). Early completion incentives were not uncommon, but not universally provided.

Typically the amount (rate) of LDs and SDs were determined using standard agency formulas. For toll road projects, the rate was based on estimated loss of toll revenues.

The amount of incentive for early completion was directly tied to toll revenues in the case of toll road projects (for example, 70% of net revenue for period up to contractual completion date). For non-toll projects, the amount was generally established based on the importance of early completion.

Some projects provided incentives payable throughout the project (not just at final completion) for on-schedule (or better) performance at predetermined intervals during the project.

MnDOT (2008) On the I-35W design-build bridge replacement contract, MnDOT used a locked incentive date (essentially an A+B bidding provision) with a $7 million lump sum incentive and a graduated early completion incentive schedule with a maximum total incentive of $27 million. The contract provisions were successful in providing the incentive for the design-builder to finish the project 100 calendar days in advance of the proposed completion date. With the September 18, 2008 completion date, the design-builder earned a $25 million incentive payment. MnDOT used a $200,000/day contractual incentive / disincentive clause based on a calculated user impact of $400,000 per day.

Table 3 Approach to Incentive Fees, Liquidated Damages, and Stipulated Damages
Agency/Project Early Completion Incentive Liquidated Damages/Stipulated Damages
AC/BC No Loss of toll revenue
ACTA No Yes, based on lost revenue
AZ DOT No Yes; based on road user costs
CDOT No Yes
FDOT Based on user costs, business impacts & inspection costs Standard formula
Greenville Co. No No
LADOTD   Yes, project-by-project basis
MassHighways Yes, where appropriate  
Montana DOT No Standard Formula
NAVFAC No Based on impacts of late delivery
NC DOT No Yes
TCA 70% of net toll revenue Varied; $10k-$144k per day
UT DOT Yes Yes; standard formula modified for different areas of project
UTA Yes Yes
WSDOT No Yes; standard formula
VDOT Yes Yes (Project specific - road user costs)

8.3. Required Schedule Submittals and Remedies Available for Failure to Submit Schedules

Most agencies in the original survey required submittal of schedules with the proposal, which was used during the evaluation and selection process. All required schedules during the contract, although the frequency of updates varied. The most common remedy available for failure to submit required schedules/updates was suspension of payment (rarely used).

Some agencies required varying levels of detail for schedule submittal with the proposals and after award. Generally preliminary schedules were required at proposal and early in the project, with more detail required as the work progressed.

Table 4 Approach to Schedule Submittals
Agency/ Project Required in Proposal Required After Award Frequency of Updates Remedy
AC/BC Yes Yes Monthly with payment request No response
ACTA Yes Yes With payment request No response
CDOT Yes Yes Very detailed schedule requirements in contract & with payment request Suspension of payment
FDOT Yes Yes   Suspend payment; not used
Greenville Co. Yes Yes No response No response
Michigan DOT Yes Yes Varies every 2-4 weeks  
Montana DOT Yes Yes Monthly  
NAVFAC Yes Yes Varies by project  
NC DOT Yes Yes Monthly Suspend payment
TCA Preliminary Split for NTP1 and NTP2 (cost- loaded) 6 months Suspend payment; used once
UT DOT Preliminary Yes Monthly Suspend payment; not used
UTA Preliminary Preliminary by NTP+30; detailed by NTP + 90 Monthly Suspend payment on price component that included schedule; not used.
WSDOT Yes Yes No response No response
VDOT Yes Yes Monthly Suspend Payment

8.4. Schedule Float

The original survey addressed "ownership" of float. Agencies had a variety of approaches from "Project Float" (at times referred to as "first come, first served"); to Contractor-owned, or owned by the entity that generated the float. There were indications that the latter approach was difficult to measure and administer. The preference seemed to be the "Project Float" approach.

Table 5 Approach to Float
Agency/Project Project Float Contractor-Owned Owned by Entity Generating Float Variable, Depending on Situation
AC/BC       X
ACTA     X  
AZ DOT Not considered      
CDOT X      
FDOT X      
Greenville Co.   X    
LADOTD   X    
NAVFAC   X    
NC DOT X Shared Shared  
TCA     X  
UT DOT X      
UTA     X  
WSDOT X      

8.5. Recovery Schedule

The fifth schedule question solicited information regarding requirements for Recovery Schedules and the triggers for same.

Most agencies required a recovery schedule if progress fell behind a specified amount. The actual triggers varied, but there were close similarities among five agencies because their contract provisions were based on a similar model.

Table 6 Approach to Recovery Schedules
Agency Recovery Schedule Required "Trigger"
AC/BC Yes Greater of 10 days or 2% of remaining time
ACTA Yes Greater of 10 days or 2% of remaining time
AZ DOT N/A; project always ahead of schedule  
CDOT Yes Baseline schedule evaluated and revised at 3 mos. & 6 mos. intervals to hold contract completion deadlines.
FDOT Yes No specific response provided
Greenville Co. No N/A
LADOTD Yes When design-builder is 30 days behind schedule
NAVFAC N/A N/A
TCA Yes Greater of 10 days or 2% of remaining time
UT DOT Yes Greater of 10 days or 2% of remaining time
UTA Yes Greater of 10 days or 2% of remaining time
WSDOT N/A N/A

8.6. Recommended Changes for Future Projects

Only three agencies in the original survey made recommendations for changes in how schedule issues were addressed:

AZ DOT (Jan 2002)

AZ DOT recommended use of A+B bidding that allows contractor to drive schedule.

TCA (Jan 2002)

TCA recommended that float be Project Float rather than owned by entity generating it.

WSDOT (Jan 2002)

WSDOT recommended that the contractor be allowed to set start and completion dates in proposals with the thought that this approach might reduce impact of construction on the public.

<< Previous ContentsNext >>

Contact

Jerry Yakowenko
Office of Program Administration
202-366-1562
E-mail Jerry

 
 
Updated: 05/21/2014
 

FHWA
United States Department of Transportation - Federal Highway Administration