Construction Management Expert Technical Group

(revised March 28, 2007)

What is the Construction Management Expert Technical Group?

The Construction Management Expert Technical Group (ETG) is a group of AASHTO, FHWA, academia and industry representatives who want to improve transportation construction management procedures. This group has been formed to prioritize new implementation techniques, coordinate with other industry associations, designate lead States for implementation efforts, and assist these States in developing guidelines, training programs, presentations, and information exchange programs.

The ETG is an outgrowth of the 2004 SCAN of Construction Management Practices in Canada and Europe. The SCAN Team's findings and recommendations are documented in a report titled: "Construction Management Practices In Canada and Europe."

A short synopsis of the SCAN Team Recommendations is also available through a four-page brochure titled: "Common Ground: Construction Management Practices in Canada and Europe."

What is Construction Management?

The Construction Management Association of America defines construction management as "... a professional management practice consisting of an array of services applied to construction projects and programs through the planning, design, construction and post construction phases for the purpose of achieving project objectives including the management of quality, cost, time and scope."

For the purpose of defining our scope and focusing our mission, the Construction Management ETG developed the following definition to describe the broad nature of transportation construction management programs and to capture the evolving role of the transportation construction manager:

"Construction Management is the totality of activities that address the managerial and technological aspects of highway construction, conducted during the planning, design, construction and post-construction phases of a project, for the purpose of achieving scope, quality level, cost, schedule and other project performance objectives."

What are the ETG's major emphasis areas?

The following are some of the major emphasis areas of the ETG. Some activities are direct recommendations from the 2004 Construction Management SCAN; other activities and emphasis areas will be added as time and resources permit to reflect current construction management needs.

Current Activities

• International Construction Management Conference.
  
  

  Save the date!! September 8-11, 2008, Location: Doubletree Hotel, at the entrance to Universal Orlando, Orlando, Florida.

  Potential topics and subject tracks under consideration include:

  • Project delivery functions
  • Alternative procurement & contracting systems - emerging concepts and lessons learned,
  • Public-Private Partnerships - concepts and case studies
  • Emerging quality systems
  • Contractor qualifications
  • Construction cost escalation
  • Environmental controls during construction
  • Risk Management as a Discipline and case studies
  • Construction management legal issues
  • Promoting emerging technologies and innovation in construction management
  • Construction Management of Rapid Renewal Projects
  • Managing the program inspection work force
  • Advancement in specifications
  • Understanding project control
  • Advancements in construction program management
  • How to manage worker and public safety
  • Role of post-construction efforts in a feedback system
• Research Statement for Quality Systems. The ETG has developed a draft research statement titled: "Examining Alternative Quality Systems for Possible Application in Highway Construction." This research proposal would examine alternate quality management procedures that are used in other construction sectors (ISO-9001, Corps of Engineers, and other construction markets) with the intent of documenting the advantages and disadvantages of such systems and describing potential applications in the highway industry.
• Risk Assessment and Allocation. The international community has an awareness of risk assessment and allocation techniques that is just now evolving in our U.S. highway agencies. The objective of this task is to provide guidance on risk assessment and allocation techniques and to implement these procedures in the project delivery process. To accomplish this objective, the following tasks are under development
  • The FHWA published a "Guide to Risk Assessment and Allocation for Highway Construction Management" in October 2006. The Guide is also available in hard copy format (contact: Gerald.yakowenko@dot.gov for copies).
  • The Construction Management ETG will use this "Risk 101" guide to:
    • Identify how risk assessment and allocation integrate into highway project delivery from scoping through construction management activities.
    • Define a common vocabulary for risk assessment and allocation in the industry though the use of recognized standards.
    • Incorporate applicable practices from multiple Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) international scans on related topics with a focus on the Construction Management Scan.
    • Promote risk management concepts through case studies from U.S. highway agencies.
  • Risk Workshops (under development) The ETG is planning to conduct three pilot risk workshops based on the guidance above, to provide technical assistance to the DOTs, to document case studies, and to prepare other technology transfer type documents. The workshops are tentatively scheduled for Florida, Texas and North Carolina in late 2007.
• Best Value Implementation.
  • Best-Value Research The Scan Implementation Team was successful working with NCHRP to modify the scope of NCHRP 10-61 ("Best-Value Procurement Methods for Highway Construction Projects"). Additional case studies were included to document the use of best value contracting in some of the European countries. The NCHRP published a final report for this research as NCHRP Report 561: Best-Value Procurement Methods for Highway Construction.
  • Best Value Pilot Projects The ETG intends to monitor the current use of best-value contracting through the FHWA's Special Experimental Project No. 14 (SEP-14) - Innovative Contracting program. See the FHWA's SEP-14 Approval List for specific pilot projects that have been approved for best-value. FHWA's current SEP-14 listing for current best value pilot projects.
  • Web-based seminars to share information on best-value pilot projects (under consideration)
• Alternative Payment Methods. During the scan tour, the Scan Team observed that the visited countries used alternative payment methods such as contractor invoicing, milestone payments, and lump-sum payments to align team goals and/or promote efficiency. A variety of methods were available for different project types and customer goals. These alternative payment methods could potentially improve cash flow on projects, minimize measurement requirements, and allocate risk. It appears that these payment techniques were developed in collaboration with industry to ensure that they did not limit competition. The ETG's document titled "Alternative Payment and Progress Reporting Methods" documents the use of alternative payment methods in the US. It summarizes the advantages and disadvantages of alternative payment methods and the associated impacts on construction management functions.

Future Activities

• Enhance Qualification Rating Process. While the traditional U.S. low-bid procurement system is employed abroad, the majority of countries visited on this scan use a best-value procurement system as their standard procedure. Procurements based solely on qualifications (without a bid price) are also in use in compliance with European procurement directives. Best-value methods use factors in addition to price for the selection of teams. These additional factors include team qualifications, past performance, design alternatives, and a number of other items based on the needs of a particular project. Tasks include:
  • Update and revise questionnaire survey issued in 2002 working with ETG.
  • Summarize the procedures and experiences of three states that utilize contractor rating systems that have a feedback into the State's prequalification system
  • Seek information specifically from FL, MO, and PA. Recommend another state if mentioned in the updated survey. ETG will identify the final three states.
  • Collect and review guidelines. Interview state DOT staff to identify issues associated with consistency and objectivity in ratings, due process and industry issues.
  • Recommend the elements that should be required in a rating system that includes standardized project criteria, guidelines for evaluation and a tie to prequalification procedures and ability to bid. Compare and contrast with the Ontario's RAQs system. This should focus on eventually on having a more national, more uniform approach for the future.
• Alternative Bidding State of the Practice. In contrast to the majority of U.S. design-bid-build projects, the scan team discovered widespread use in the countries visited of alternative bids proposed by contractors and design-builders. Innovations in design and construction management are being captured in the procurement phase-not as contractor-initiated change proposals after the contract is awarded. Confidential pre-proposal meetings are often conducted in conjunction with the use of alternative bids to clarify concepts while maintaining competition. The scan team believes that more use of these two mechanisms will improve construction management procedures in the United States. Tasks include:
  • Describe the state of US practice in alternative bidding for highway construction products. Possible sources of information include bridges (PA) and pavements (LA, SC, MD, MO, MI, AL, KY).
  • Examine both conventional (design-bid-build) and non-conventional (design-build, design-build-warranty, D-B-F-O, etc.) contracting techniques.
  • Describe the processes used for advertisement, proposal evaluation and award.
  • Evaluate alternate bids that examine products or processes such as materials, pavements, bridge types, quality factors, structures, and traffic control plans.
  • Address several issues of concern: approval of design alternates, design liability, pre-award discussions/confidentiality and warranties.

Other Activities

The Construction Management ETG will evolve gradually, adjusting its mission as the funds become available. Included in the work are efforts:

• Better Align Team Goals to Customer Goals. Develop procurement, contract provisions and construction management methods that better align the goals of the customer, owner, and contractors.
• Contractor Quality Management. Use more contractor quality management systems with reliance agency assurance. On design-build contracts, provide designer assurance of critical construction components. Consider use quality management process certifications when appropriate.
• Strategic Use of Alternative Delivery Methods. Choose delivery methods that better align goals and allocate risk properly.
• Pilot Early Contractor Involvement. Test a system of contractor qualifications based selection to deliver a project from the planning and/or environmental process through construction using a target price contract.
• More Qualifications in Procurement. Team recommends more use of best-value procurement including considerations for price, qualifications, time, and technical approach.
• Pre-Proposal Meetings. When design alternates are being entertained, conduct confidential proposal meetings to validation of compliance for innovative concepts. Develop DBB, DB, DBFO concepts.
• Warranties and Life Cycle Responsibility. Consider appropriate long-term warranties on critical components on appropriate projects to deliver better products, allow for more innovation and eliminate redundant quality processes. Qualify items within control of the contractor.
• Coordination with other national activities including:
  • SAFETEA-LU Pilot Project Program for D-B-B Best Value, etc.
  • TRB SHRP II - Contracting Slate of Projects
  • Performance Specifications Working Group
  • Construction Management Training Programs

Who is represented on the ETG?

• Stuart Anderson, Professor of Civil Engineering, Texas A&M University
• Tim Aschenbrener, Materials and Geotechnical Branch Manager, Colorado Department of Transportation.
• Brian A. Blanchard, Director, Office of Construction, Florida Department of Transportation
• Thomas R. Bohuslav, Director, Construction Division, Texas Department of Transportation
• John Brandvik, Senior VP, PBS&J, Tampa, FL
• Bob Burns, Vice President, Transportation Business Group, CH2M HILL
• Steven D. DeWitt, (Cochair), Director of Construction, North Carolina Turnpike Authority
• Tucker Ferguson, Chief, Contract Management Division, Bureau of Construction and Materials, Pennsylvania Department of Transportation
• Ted Ferragut, President, TDC Partners, Ltd.
• Matt Girard, Project Manager, HBG Flatiron
• Eugene Hoelker, Construction and Contract Administration Engineer, Federal Highway Administration Resource Center
• Rich Juliano, Vice President of Chapter Relations and Grassroots Programs, Managing Director, Contractors Division, American Road and Transportation Builders Association
• Ken Leuderalbert, Manager, Project Management, Research and Development, Florida Department of Transportation
• Mike Loulakis, Attorney, Partner, Wickwire Gavin
• Keith R. Molenaar, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, Department of Civil, Environmental & Architectural Engineering, University of Colorado at Boulder
• Jerry Porter, Vice-President, Design-Build, Kiewit Corporation
• Greg L. Schiess, Pavement Management and Materials Engineer, Federal Highway Administration, Florida Division
• Sid Scott, Vice President, Trauner Consulting Services, Inc.
• John M. Smythe, Construction Engineer, Iowa Department of Transportation
• Jim Sorenson, Construction & System Preservation Team Leader, Federal Highway Administration, Headquarters
• James E. Triplett, President, United Contractors
• W. Richard Wagman, Chairman and CEO, G.A. & F.C. Wagman, Inc.
• Gerald Yakowenko, (Cochair), Contract Administration Group Leader, Federal Highway Administration, Headquarters

Who may I contact for more information?

• Steve Dewitt, Co-chair, North Carolina Turnpike Authority, (919) 715-3000, steve.dewitt@ncturnpike.org
• Jerry Yakowenko, Co-chair, FHWA, (202) 366-1562, gerald.yakowenko@dot.gov
• Ted Ferragut, TDC Partners, LTD., (703) 836-1671, tferragut@tdcpartners.com

How is the ETG funded?

To date, the ETG activities have been funded by the FHWA; however, consideration is being given for a long-term program that is joint-funded by AASHTO and FHWA.