| AK |
Authorization for all agencies for projects using state funds |
Alaska Stat. §36.30.200 |
Competitive sealed proposals if appropriate findings are made; otherwise, competitive sealed bids |
| AZ |
Authorization for: State Transportation Board; pilot projects by DOT |
Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§28-7361, 7363, 7364 and 7365 |
2 phase process: pre-qualification then proposal; award is to lowest score when price is divided by technical score; time valued adjustments may be made to score |
| CA |
Authorization for transit agencies, certain cities and counties |
Cal. Pub. Cont. Code §§20209.5 and 20133 |
N/A |
| CO |
Authorization for DOT |
Colo. Rev. Stat. §§43-1-1401 et seq. |
2 phase process: pre-qualification then proposal; any appropriate basis for award if basis is described in RFP;; award is to proposal providing best value to department |
| DE |
Public-private initiative authorization allowing authorization for Secretary to solicit design-build proposals |
Del. code Ann. tit. 2, §2003 |
Proposals solicited through RFP; Department authorized to assess non-refundable proposal review fee not to exceed $50,000; each proposal weighed on its own merits and ranked according to selection criteria; only highest ranking proposal shall be selected. |
| FL |
Authorization for DOT for buildings, major bridges and rail corridor projects |
Fla. Stat. Ann. §337.11(7) |
Governed by rules adopted by Department (specifically allows short listing, request for proposals and award based on technical criteria) |
| HI |
Authorization for all governmental bodies to use competitive sealed proposal procurement process |
Haw. Rev. Stat. §103D-303 |
Allows discussions with offerers within competitive range, award to most advantageous offer |
| ID |
Legislation stating that State agencies are not prohibited from using design-build |
Idaho Code §67-2309 |
None itemized. |
| IL |
Specific authorization for Regional Transportation Authorities |
70 Ill. Comp. Stat. 3615/4.06(b)(2) |
N/A |
| KS |
Authorization for turnpike authority Attorney General has opined that design-build may be possible for other agencies as well |
Kan. Stat. Ann. §§68-2001 et seq.
Op. Kan. Att'y Gen. 62 (1978) |
N/A |
| LA |
Authorization for DOT to implement a design-build pilot program for the development of transportation facilities |
La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §48:250.2 et seq. |
Two phase selection process. Short-listing based upon Qualification Submittals Contract award based on a formula using the sum of proposer's price bid plus schedule value divided by its technical score. |
| ME |
Authorization for DOT |
Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 23, §753-A |
Low-bid award or best-value award. Best value award should be submitted to the department in two components - technical and sealed price proposal |
| MD |
Authorization for capital projects Has been used for light rail |
Md. Code Ann., State Fin. & Proc. §3-602(g)(1) |
N/A |
| MA |
Authorization for Department of Highways to enter into Development Agreement for Route 3 North Authorization for Mass Bay Transportation Authority |
1999 Mass. Acts 53, 56
2000 Mass. Acts 125 |
Pre-qualification, request for proposals, possibly oral presentation; award to developer who best meets the selection criteria for the benefit of the Commonwealth; selection of other than lowest-overall-cost is allowed if a written explanation of the reasons is given |
| MN |
Authorization for streets, highways, bicycle paths, bicycle trails and pedestrian facilities, light rail transit facilities and DOT projects |
Minn. Stat. Ann. §473.3993
Minn. Stat. Ann. §160.262
Minn. Stat. Ann. §161.3410 |
DOT authorized to procure design-build contracts using either a two-step, best-value selection process or a low-bid process, not to exceed 10 percent of DOT contracts each year; light rail contracts may be awarded on the basis of the RFQ or RFP without bids |
| MO |
Authorization for DOT to use alternative procurement process |
Mont. Code Ann. §60-2-112 |
Award by means other than competitive bidding is allowed if special circumstances so require and are specified in writing |
| NV |
Authorization for public bodies and DOT for projects that exceed $30,000,000 may also be used for projects over $5,000,000.00 that meet certain criteria. |
Nev. Rev. Stat. §§338.1711-338.1727 and 408.3875-408.3887 (effective until Sept.30, 2003) |
Request for preliminary proposals followed by issuance of request for final proposals to "finalists"; award based on most cost effective and responsive proposal using criteria and weight assigned to each factor. Preference for local contractors if not federally funded |
| NH |
Projects authorized to use design-build by the State capital budget |
N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §228:4(I)(f) |
Selection to be based on objective standard, measurable criteria for evaluation |
| NM |
Authorization for Highway Department pilot program |
1999 N.M. Laws ch. 97, §1; N.M. Stat. Ann. §§13-1-111 and 13-1-119.1 |
Two-phase process: shortlisting followed by evaluation of technical cost proposals schedule. Phase Two: proposals evaluated on technical concepts or solutions, costs and scheduling; awarded to highest ranking firm. |
| NC |
Authorization for DOT to enter into design-build-warrant contract for "CARAT" traffic management system Authorization for DOT pilot projects (1998, 3 projects per year; law changed in 2002 - 10 projects allowed in 2003, 25 projects annually from 2004 through 2009) Authorization for Turnpike Authority to use alternative procurement process |
N.C. Gen. Stat. §136-28.1(j); 1997 N.C. Sess. Laws 443, §32.11 H.B. 644, 2001 Gen. Assem., Reg. Sess. (N.C. 2001) |
None itemized |
| OH |
Authorization for DOT pilot program |
Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §5517.011 |
Allows value based selection process combining technical qualifications and competitive bidding elements; two phase process, pre-qualification then separate technical and price proposals; scored tech proposal weighed at 25% or less of value based criteria; technical scores used to adjust price, award to finalist with lowest adjusted price |
| OR |
Authorization for DOT tollway projects |
Or. Rev. Stat. §383.005 |
Department may award any (tollway) contract under a competitive process or by private negotiation or any combination of competition and negotiation; factors considered are: cost, design quality, structural integrity/maintenance, aesthetics, traffic, safety, small business participation, financial stability & experience |
| PA |
Authorization for Department of General Services |
62 PA. Cons. Stat. §§103 and 322(2) |
N/A |
| SD |
General authorization for public corporations |
S.D. Codified Laws §5-18-26 |
Performance criteria on a project by project basis (assuming the DOT is a "public corporation") |
| TN |
Authorization for state agencies and authorities--specifically excludes DOT contracts |
Tenn. Code Ann. §§4-15-102 and 12-10-124 |
N/A |
| TX |
Development agreement authorization for Texas Turnpike Authority (a division of TxDOT) |
Tex. Transp. Code Ann. §361.302 |
None itemized |
| UT |
Authorization for transportation agencies including the DOT |
Utah Code Ann. §63-56-36.1; Utah Admin. Code R916-3 |
2 phase process, pre-qualification then proposals; after considering price and other identified factors, award is to proposal which is most advantageous to the state |
| VA |
General authorization for state agencies, specific authorization for VDOT |
Va. Code Ann. §§11-41 et seq. and 33.1-12 |
Award based on objective criteria adopted by Commonwealth Transportation Board |
| WA |
Authorization for DOT for projects over $10m; authorization for other public bodies for projects over $12m |
Wash. Rev. Code §§39.10.051 (effective until July 1, 2007) and 47.20.780 |
DOT to "develop a process for awarding competitively bid highway construction projects." |
| WI |
Special legislation is required for the use of D/B. 2 Bridge projects have been allowed to date since 2000. |
Wis. Stat. Ann. §§84.11(5n) et seq. |
2 phase competitive selection process; pre-qualification then proposals; evaluation criteria must include qualifications, quality, completion time and cost. |
