Construction Program Guide
Alternative Technical Concepts
Alternative Technical Concepts (ATC) are suggested changes submitted by proposing teams to the contracting agency's supplied basic configurations, project scope, design or construction criteria. These proposed changes provide a solution that is equal or better to the requirements in the Request for Proposal document. If the ATC concept is acceptable to the contracting agency, the concept may be incorporated as part of the proposing teams technical and price submittal. ATCs provide flexibility to the proposers in order to enhance innovation and achieve efficiency.
ATCs have been shown to be cost effective on large design-build projects where the scope is significant and the contracting agency believes that the best-value selection may depend on the degree of innovation in the technical solutions offered by the teams. The following State DOTs have used ATCs on large design-build or public-private partnership projects: California, Colorado, Florida, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nevada, Texas, Utah, Virginia and Washington. Similarly, the following local public agencies have used ATC's on design-build projects: the Port of Long Beach, and the Riverside County Transportation Commission.
While there is relatively little experience with the use of ATC's in design-bid-build project delivery, Missouri DOT has evaluated this approach in a traditional low bid environment with some degree of success.
Authority/Legal Basis - Laws
- There is no FHWA statute that directly addresses ATCs. Contracting agency use of the ATC concept will depend on the state/local statutes.
- Title 23 CFR 636.209(b) allows for the use of ATCs in design-build projects so that proposing design-build teams may submit equal or better alternatives to the RFP design.
- There is no corresponding regulation for the use of ATCs in the design-bid-build process.
ATC SEP-14 Evaluations / Reports
State DOT ATC Guidance
ATC Contract Provisions
- Colorado DOT Instructions to Proposers, US 36 Managed Lane/BRT Project, (Sections 2.1.1, and 2.3.1) (.pdf, 0.5 mb)
- Colorado DOT Instructions to Proposers, 120th Avenue Connection, (Sections 2.1.1, and 2.3.1) (.pdf, 0.6 mb)
- Maryland SHA US 113 Draft Special Provision (see Attachment 1)
- Massachusetts in Section 8 – Contract Provisions (.pdf, 0.5 mb)
- North Carolina DOT DRAFT Special Provision for I-2304AD, Davidson County, NC (.pdf, 0.1 mb)
- Missouri DOT DRAFT Procedures and Guidelines for the Use of ATCs on the New Mississippi River Bridge Project (.pdf, 0.7 mb)
- Mississippi DOT, RFP for Proposed Improvements to State Route 9; see "Pre-Proposal Technical Approach Modification Submittals, page 6.
- South Carolina, See attachments No. 1 and 2 for SCDOT procedures and contract provisions
- Texas DOT North Tarrant Express, Instructions to Proposers, Section 3.0 (.pdf, 0.4 mb)
- Texas DOT Toll Operations & CSC, Instructions to Proposers Section 2.0 (.pdf, 0.1 mb)
- Texas DOT Contract Provisions for Design-Build and Comprehensive Development Agreement Projects – See Attachment A
- Vermont contract provision for confidential meetings (.pdf, 0.1 mb)
- Virginia DOT Draft U.S. Route 460 Draft Request for Proposal Provisions related to ATCs
- Section 4.7 Procedures for Alternative Technical Concepts (.pdf, 0.1 mb)
- Attachment D (pdf, 0.1 mb)
- Attachment E (pdf, 0.1 mb)
Office of Program Administration