E.1 Email Cover Letter

From: Design-Build Study Team
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2003
To: State Transportation Agency Design-Build Program Managers
Subject: Request for Assistance Regarding FHWA Design-Build Study for Congress

This correspondence announces the long-awaited Program and Project surveys and instructions for the Design-Build Study for Congress being sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration, described below. The survey process is intended to be paperless. Therefore all communication is being done by e-mail, while the survey process is being handled through a website at the University of Colorado at Boulder.

Information on the study and each of the survey forms can be found on the study website, http://construction.colorado.edu/design-build/. To access the survey files, you will need to use the following user name and password:

User name: flastname
Password: xxdot

This has been done to limit access to the survey forms to only those individuals designated to complete the surveys for each participating state and project.

Attached to this e-mail message are several PDF files. One file contains an official Request for Assistance letter which can be used to inform agency leadership that may have to approve staff commitments to this effort, as well as project staff that will be asked to complete the Project Surveys. Another file contains Survey Instructions. These files are attached to enable you and your designated staff to get prepared to complete the surveys and understand which projects are to be reported on, before actually beginning the on-line survey effort. If you need software to download the PDF files, please use the following link to obtain the necessary software from the Adobe Company: http://www.adobe.com/.

Please note that only states involved in the SEP-14 Program are being asked to complete the Program Survey. Also, only those states with design-build projects completed by the end of calendar year 2002 are being asked to complete Project Surveys for a selected number of these projects - as well as a comparable design-bid-build project (selected at your discretion) for each design-build project included in the study sample. The states and sampled projects are listed in the project website by clicking on the word: Survey, on the Design-Build Program and Project Survey section of the Home page, and then clicking on the Proceed to Program Survey and Proceed to Project Survey boxes, respectively.

Please have all requested surveys completed and submitted to the study website on or before Friday, November 21, 2003. A member of the project Research Team, Dan Dornan, Keith Molenaar, Nate Macek, or Jennifer Shane will call to confirm the receipt of this email and answer any questions.

Thank you for your assistance in helping the FHWA-sponsored Research Team obtain the design-build program and project information essential to this important study effort. If you have any questions, please contact the Research Team at: Design-Build@construction.colorado.edu.

Sincerely,
Gerald Yakowenko, P.E.
FHWA Contract Administration Group
Office of Program Administration, HIPA-30

Daniel Dornan, P.E.
Research Team Project Manager
AECOM Consult, Inc.

Keith Molenaar, Ph.D.
Research Team Analyst
University of Colorado

(See attached file: Letter of Assistance.pdf)
(See attached file: Survey Instructions.pdf)

E.2 Letter of Assistance

TO: State Transportation Agency Design-Build Program Coordinators
FROM: The FHWA / SAIC Design-Build Study Research Team
DATE: October 2003

RE: Request for Assistance Regarding FHWA Design-Build Study for Congress

This letter requests your assistance helping the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) respond to one of the requirements of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). This study has significant potential to help both FHWA and state transportation agencies (STAs) across the nation address one of the burning questions regarding the delivery of highway capital projects: what are the measurable differences between projects delivered using a design-build, as opposed to design-bid-build, delivery method. We hope you will appreciate the need for your assistance and the value of this effort for both your agency and other STAs. Before you decide on the merits of this request, please consider the following background information.

Background

While awaiting Congressional reauthorization of the federal highway trust fund, we are reminded that highway funding has not kept up with the needs. Consequently Congress and the Federal Highway Administration have encouraged the development and application of innovative techniques to leverage available transportation program funds and streamline the highway project development process. These include the use of innovative contracting approaches. Among these is the design-build project delivery approach.

In recent years there has been a lot of discussion about the advantages and disadvantages of the design-build project delivery approach. Proponents proclaim its advantages in terms of cost, timeliness, or quality. Opponents point out potential disadvantages in terms of contract development and administration, project control, and industry impacts.

Both sides have good reasons for their positions and are sincere in their views. Unfortunately there is more conjecture than fact behind these strongly-held views. Much of this is driven by agency and industry reluctance to change from a proven technique that has worked all these years - the more traditional design-bid-build approach.

Have you ever considered:

• Whether one of these project development approaches is truly better than the other, in terms of cost, schedule, and quality?
• Whether certain types and characteristics of projects make them more suitable for design-build versus design-bid-build?
• What is the impact on the local design and construction firms when the design build approach is used, particularly smaller firms?
• Under what terms and conditions might one approach be preferred to the other?

Members of AASHTO and the design and construction industries have also considered these same questions. The problem is that no definitive study has been conducted to address these issues. The subject is complex and requires in-depth information regarding state design-build programs and completed design-build projects. In addition, this information should be collected in an objective and unbiased manner based on actual program and project results from agencies such as yours.

We ask for your agency's involvement through its participation in one element of the study's fact-finding effort - namely completing several web-based surveys that are available on the study website (noted below).

There is no financial cost to your agency - FHWA is fully funding the study effort and therefore the study results will be available to all participants for no charge. The study report is due in the spring of 2004 - before reauthorization - and will be made available to participating agencies upon completion.

The ultimate sponsor of the study is the U.S. Congress, with the Federal Highway Administration serving as administrator. The intended audience for the study report is the U.S. Congress and all stakeholders in the funding and development of highway capital projects, particularly those projects using federal funds.

With the Congressional mandate and the strong backing of the FHWA, we hope to have gained your commitment to participate in this important study effort. We assure you that this is not just another troublesome survey request but a valuable and objective fact-finding effort to produce usable results for all involved in developing our nation's highway system. The nature of the assistance being requested is described below. We have endeavored to streamline the fact-finding process as much as possible, while remaining true to the requirements of TEA-21 and Congress for this study.

Nature of Assistance Requested

In 1997, TEA-21 ushered in a new funding program for the nation's surface transportation systems. Section 1307 (f) of the act requires a comprehensive national study to evaluate the effectiveness of design-build contracting in the Federal-Aid highway program, with the results subsequently reported to Congress. The report to Congress will comprise the results of an extensive literature search, interviews with key stakeholders in the Federal-Aid highway program and the SEP-14 program, and surveys of state transportation agency representatives with design-build program or project experience.

Each STA with design-build experience under the SEP-14 program is requested to complete a design-build Program Survey. In addition, those states that have completed at least one design-build project (as of the end of calendar year 2002) are asked to complete a Project Survey for a select sample of these projects. For comparative purposes, respondents are also asked to identify a similar design-bid-build project for each design-build project reported on, where available. Completion of a separate survey is requested for each of these comparable projects.

Survey Completion Process

The survey process is intended to be paperless to facilitate ease of completion, submittal, and tabulation of results. To this end, the Research Team¹ developed a website specifically for this study. The study website can be reach at the following address: http://construction.colorado.edu/design-build/.

This website provides public access to the following information:

• A description of this study;
• A virtual library of resource materials relating to design-build, including some that are accessible from the site in PDF format; and
• A listing of useful web sites on design-build, including state DOT websites.

Several activities on this website require a user name and password. This includes access to the following listings, which include the survey forms to be used by study participants:

• Design-build program contacts for each state participating in the SEP-14 Program (whether or not they have a design-build project completed prior to 2003).
• Sample of design-build projects for each state for which completed surveys are requested.
• Design-build program survey form.
• Project-specific survey form for design-build projects and design-bid-build projects.

The password limits access to the survey forms to those individuals designated to complete the surveys for each participating state.

Survey Instructions - Next Steps

The person identified as the primary point of contact for each agency's design-build program is being requested to complete the Program Survey on the website, following the instructions provided in an attached memo. We are also requested the state agency's Design-Build Program coordinator to assign individual staff to complete each of the project surveys, with one survey for each of the sample design-build projects listed and a comparable design-bid-build project that can be identified. Staff respondents should be those persons most familiar with these projects. Information and directions for designated survey respondents are also being sent to each participating state agency.

Both the Program Survey and the Project Survey can be completed by more than one person, if necessary, so long as all respondents are given user names and passwords. Additional user names and passwords can be established for your agency per your request by emailing Design-Build@construction.colorado.edu. These additional respondents will have the ability to view the Program Survey and edit the Project Survey(s). The surveys are also designed to allow respondents to complete portions of the survey at different times, and then submit the completed survey when done. The website will let respondents know when the survey form is completed and ready for submission. All surveys should be completed and submitted on the designated website - we are requesting that respondents do not attempt to print out the survey forms, fill them out by hand, or mail them in.

Please have all requested surveys completed and submitted to the study website on or before Friday, November 21, 2003. Thank you for your support in helping the Research Team assess the effectiveness of the design-build project delivery process in the Federal-Aid highway program. Thank you for encouraging agency staff to complete the program and project surveys on the study website. If you have any questions regarding the study or this request for assistance, please call either Dan Dornan (Study Project Manager) or me at the numbers listed below.

Sincerely,

Gerald Yakowenko, P.E.
FHWA Contract Administration Group
Office of Program Administration, HIPA-30

Daniel Dornan, P.E.
Research Team Project Manager
AECOM Consult, Inc.

E.3 Survey Instructions

To: State Transportation Agency Design-Build Program Coordinator
From: FHWA-Sponsored Design-Build Study Research Team
Date: October 2003

Re: Instructions for Completing Survey(s) Relating to Design-Build Study for Congress

Background Information

Two web-based surveys have been developed to streamline the data collection effort for this study: 1) Program Survey, and 2) Project Survey. To participate in the survey, users will need to register on the website. The Design-Build Study website (located at the University of Colorado at Boulder) is: http://construction.colorado.edu/design-build/. Use this website to login to the system and complete the appropriate survey(s), as well as to view details regarding the Design-Build Study for Congress and to access a vast array of design-build information. To login to the section of the website that contains the study surveys, use the unique user name and password provided to you in the e-mail message that conveyed this file.

User Profile Information

There are 2 types of respondents for this set of surveys.

1. Adm - The person who is the lead respondent for the agency, the Program Contact. This person can edit both the Program Survey and Project Survey(s) and is responsible for providing the Design-Build Study Team with names and email addresses for other persons within the agency who will complete the Project Survey(s).
2. Usr - A person designated by the Adm to complete one or more Project Surveys for his or her agency. This person can view both the Program Survey and Project Survey(s) for the agency as well as edit the agency's Project Survey(s) as designated by Adm. There may be multiple Usr respondents for each agency/project.

There are 2 features available to each respondent. The first feature allows for the respondent to edit their profile, including changing his or her password. This can be achieved once signed in to the system simply by clicking on the respondent's name on the right side of the screen between the banner and the main body of the web page. The second feature allows respondents who forget their password to receive an email with their password. Simply click on "Forget Password?" on the sign in screen, fill out the information requested, and the password will be sent to the respondent's email address.

Instructions for both the Program Survey and Project Survey are provided on the next page.

Please note: All surveys should be completed and submitted on the designated website - do not attempt to print out the survey forms, fill them out by hand, or mail them in. Please have all requested surveys completed and submitted to the study website on or before Friday, November 21, 2003.

Program Survey Instructions

1. Click on website address (noted above) to access system and files
2. Sign in to system using unique user name and password
3. Go to survey link
4. Select 'Proceed with Program Survey'
5. A program list will appear, find and click on your Agency
6. Fill out the survey. A 'save' function is available for use if you would like to complete the survey in more than one sitting; this is located at the bottom of the survey form.
7. Once you have completed the survey please select the 'Save' button.
8. A report indicating the percentage of the survey completed will appear. To view a detailed report select the 'Show Report' function. If the survey is 100 percent complete please select the 'Submit' button. Once the survey is submitted changes cannot be made without contacting the Research Team. If all of the information that is available is input into the survey and the survey is still not 100 percent complete, and therefore not able to be submitted, please contact the Research Team at: Design-Build@construction.colorado.edu.

Project Survey Instructions

1. Click on website address (noted above) to access system and files
2. Sign in to system using unique user name and password
3. Go to survey link
4. Select 'Proceed to Project Survey'
5. The projects are listed by the state in which they are located. Each respondent will only be allowed to view the projects under their agency.
6. Each project survey can be viewed or edited.
   1. To view the survey click on the project name.
   2. To edit the survey you must check out the survey by clicking on the lock icon next to the project name. If you check a survey out please remember to return the survey when you are done editing. The survey can only be edited by one person at a time.
7. Fill out the survey. A 'save' function is available for use if you would like to complete the survey in more than one sitting; this is located at the bottom of the survey form.
8. Once you have completed the survey please select the 'Save' button.
9. A report indicating the percentage of the survey completed will appear. To view a detailed report select the 'Show Report' function. If the survey is 100 percent complete please select the 'Submit' button. Once the survey is submitted changes cannot be made without contacting the Research Team. If all of the information that is available is input into the survey and the survey is still not 100 percent complete, and therefore not able to be submitted, please contact the Research Team at: Design-Build@construction.colorado.edu.

All surveys should be completed and submitted on the designated website - please do not attempt to print out the survey forms, fill them out by hand, or mail them in.

We look forward to reviewing the information you and your colleagues provide and incorporating the results in the overall study effort and report to Congress, which will be distributed to respondents once authorized by FHWA. Thank you for your time and effort in support of this important study.

E.4 Survey Introduction

Home | FeedBack
	Report to Congress on the Effectiveness of Design-Build as Required by TEA-21 Section 1307(f), United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration
This Design-Build Program Survey requests information on the general nature and results of your agency's design-build program involving Federal-aid highway projects. The agency's designated design-build contact person should complete the Design-Build Program Survey. The Design-Build Project Survey requests information on a sample of design-build projects completed by the end of 2002. A separate survey should be used for each of the projects that have been pre-selected by the SAIC/AECOM study team. For each design-build project reported on, we request that respondents also complete Part 2 of the survey form, which requires similar data for a comparable design-bid-build project (if there is one). By comparable we mean a project of similar type, size, and purpose. The individual(s) most familiar with the sampled design-build projects and comparable design-bid-build projects should complete a Design-Build Project Survey for each project reported on. Please complete the surveys at the study web site. If required, a paper copy of the survey is available, but it will likely take more time to complete than the web survey.Please have the program or project cost data available before you begin the survey. The survey may be saved to complete a later time. If you have any questions regarding the study, please contact Study Team member Nathan Macek at (703) 645-6849 or mailto:nathan.macek@aecomconsult.com. Questions about the Web survey can be directed to Keith Molenaar at (303) 735-4276 or keith.molenaar@colorado.edu. Program Survey (1.15MB) Project Survey (679KB)

E.5 Program Survey

Please note that this is NOT the actual survey. This research project was completed in early 2005. The final report is currently being reviewed by FHWA. Results will be posted when they become available.

Home | FeedBack
	Report to Congress on the Effectiveness of Design-Build as Required by TEA-21 Section 1307(f), United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration
PROGRAM SURVEY State: Liberty Agency: Liberty Department of Transportation Respondent Information First Name Last Name Email Job Title Organization Phone 1 Phone 2 Fax Address Address (Cont.) City State Zip Code * Enter a valid US zip code Definition of Key Terms Used in the Survey Design-Bid-Build (D-B-B): The traditional project delivery method in which design and construction are distinct, sequential steps in the project development process, subject to separate procurement approaches and processes. Design-Build (D-B): A project delivery method in which the design and construction phases are contractually-integrated activities of the project development process. As used in this study, design-build includes the design and construction development stages. The term can also be used to encompass services in addition to design and construction, such as maintenance, operations, and finance (i.e., design-build-maintain, design-build-operate-maintain, and design-build-finance). Franchise and concession agreements are included in the term if they provide for the franchisee or concessionaire to develop the project that is the subject of the agreement. Design-Builder: The entity contractually responsible for delivering the project design and construction that holds the design-build contract with the owner. Designer: The lead professional design firm for the project. Builder: The lead general construction contractor for the project. Subconsultant: A designer that has a design subcontract with the lead design firm. Subcontractor: A construction firm that has a subcontract with the lead general contractor. Contracting Agency: Public agency awarding and administering a design-build contract. The contracting agency may be the State Transportation Agency or another state or local public agency. ITS: Intelligent Transportation Systems. Agency Procurement Practices 1. How important are the following factors when making the decision whether or not to use the design-build project delivery approach: Selection Criteria: Unimportant: 1 - Extremely Important: 6   Importance Cost of Project 123456 N/A Urgency of Project 123456 N/A Opportunity for Innovation 123456 N/A Opportunity for Appropriate Risk Transfer 123456 N/A Federal Program Initiative (SEP-14) 123456 N/A State Program Initiatives 123456 N/A Lack of In-House Resources 123456 N/A Quality 123456 N/A Other - Specify: 123456 N/A 2a. Rate the following cost and non-cost factors relative to their importance in awarding design-build contracts: Selection Criteria: Unimportant: 1 - Extremely Important: 6   Importance Cost 123456 N/A Duration 123456 N/A Cost & Duration (A+B Contracts) 123456 N/A Quality Management Plan 123456 N/A Team Reputation (Past Performance) 123456 N/A Other: 123456 N/A 2b. If factors other than cost are used for awarding of design-build projects, what is the average weighting of the cost factor? (%) * 3. Is project prequalification generally required for design-build projects? No Yes, general or annual prequalification Yes, one step, project specific prequalification Yes, two step, project specific prequalification reduced to short list Other? 4. Is there a minimum and/or a maximum percentage participation of total contract value typically required for the prime contractor on a design-build team? No Yes If yes, indicate percentages below: (%) Maximum Percent * (%) Minimum Percent * Agency Design-Build Policies and Procedures 5. Did your agency require special permission or legislation to use design-build contracting? No Yes If yes, check which of the following changes were needed (check more than one category if applicable): Special Legislation Change in agency regulation Other - specify: 6. Does your agency have written design-build contracting policies? No Yes If yes, did the development of design-build contracting policies and procedures precede the first design-build project? No Yes 7. To what extent was the highway design/construction industry involved in developing the agency's design-build program? None: 1 - Significant: 6 123456 N/A 8. Was any assistance provided to the highway design/construction industry to help them respond to design-build project opportunities? No Yes N/A If yes, check whichever applies: Training workshops Design-Build guidebook or manual Stipends Other - specify: 9. How adequate/appropriate are your agency's procedures and resources used for handling the procurement and contract administration of design-build projects: Rating: Inadequate: 1 - Adequate: 6 Administrative Procedures/Resources Rating Procurement Procedures 1 2 3 4 5 6 Procurement Resources 1 2 3 4 5 6 Contract Administration Procedures 1 2 3 4 5 6 Contract Administration Resources 1 2 3 4 5 6 10. At what point in the design-build project delivery process does your agency typically verify compliance with the contract requirements and accept/reject the work? (check one): As work progresses At project's end At warranty's end Other - explain: 11. Is the agency's role in performing these quality assurance activities specified in the design-build contract? No Yes General Experience with Design-Build versus Design-Bid-Build Projects 12. Relative to design-bid-build contracting, how much agency administrative time (pre-award and post award) is typically required for design-build project? (indicate a positive or negative percentage change in agency administrative time relative to design-bid-build contracting): Agency Project Administration D-B Projects Relative to D-B-B Projects (%) Procurement time * Contract administration time * 13. Which group(s) are typically responsible for the following functions, for design-build projects and for design-bid-build projects, respectively? (check all that apply): Risk/Responsibility Category Design-Build Project Design-Bid-Build Project   Owner Design-Builder Owner Designer Builder Final Alignment Geometry Geotechnical Data Environmental Permits Design Criteria Design Defects Constructability of Design Obtaining ROW Coordinating with Utilities/Railroads Quality Assurance 14. Which project stakeholder(s) are typically responsible for providing the following type of insurance for design-build projects, and for design-bid-build projects (check all that apply): Type of Insurance Design-Build Project Design-Bid-Build Project   Agency Contractor Agency Contractor Commercial General Liability Excess Liability Environmental Liability Workers' Comp./Employer's Liability Professional Liability Small Business Implication 15. In assessing the level and type of competition for design-build projects, provide your best estimate of the average number of teams/firms competing per project by project delivery approach below: (use N/A for Not Applicable or Not Available) Dimension (average per project) D-B Projects D-B-B Projects Average number of teams responding to RFQ per project * * Average number of teams responding to RFP per project * * Average percentage of project costs to be provided by small firms (%) * * Average number of local competing teams (led by local firms) per project * * Average percentage of project costs to be provided by small local firms on local competing teams (%) * * Average amount of stipends paid per team per project ($000s) * * * Note: Small business is defined as any organization with less than 500 employees and $6 million in average annual receipts for service organizations ($28.5 million for general building and heavy construction contractors and $12 million for special trade construction contractors) For applicable small business size standards by industry category, see the U.S. Small Business Administration's Small Business Size Regulations, 13 CFR §121 or the Table of Small Business Size Standards. 16. Have small businesses (engineering firms and construction contractors) been more or less involved in design-build projects versus design-bid-build projects? (check one for each category below): Type of Insurance Rating Less: 1 - More: 6 Involvement by small design firms: 123456 N/A Involvement by small contractors: 123456 N/A 17. On average, are design-build companies and their subcontractors similar in size to those of similar design-bid-build projects? NoYes If no, how do they differ from design-bid-build teams? (check one for each category) Design-Build Teams Rating Smaller: 1 - Larger: 6 Design-Build Contractor Size 1 2 3 4 5 6 Design-Build Subcontractor Size 1 2 3 4 5 6 The following questions seek information to characterize the nature and extent of your agency's Design-Build program 18. Please list the volume of design-build projects completed in the past fiscal year versus all capital projects for each project type: Design-Build Project Volume Highway Bridge Tunnel ITS Total   New/ Realign't/ Widening Rehabilit'n/ Reconstr. Resurfacing   Number of D-B projects finished in the past fiscal year (#) * * * * * * * Total costs of D-B projects finished in the past fiscal year ($000s) * * * * * * * Number of all projects finished in past fiscal year (#) * * * * * * * Total costs of all projects finished in past fiscal year ($000s) * * * * * * * 19. For each project type estimate the proportion (%) of all capital program costs that used each of the following project delivery approaches for projects completed during the past fiscal year: (each column should sum 100% or 0%) Project Delivery Approach Highway Bridge Tunnel ITS   New/ Realign't/ Widening Rehabilita'n/ Reconstr. Resurfacing   In-House (force account) * * * * * * Design-Bid-Build Contract * * * * * * Design-Bid-Build Warranty Contract * * * * * * Standard Design-Build Contract * * * * * * Design-Build Warranty Contract * * * * * * Design-Build-Operate-Maintain Contract * * * * * * D-B-Operate-Maintain-Finance Contract * * * * * * Performance-Based Asset Mgt. Contract * * * * * * Job Order Contracting (indefinite quantity) * * * * * * Other: * * * * * * Total All Projects (%) 20. For each project type, estimate the proportion (%) of design-build program costs that used each of the following procurement approaches for projects completed during the past fiscal year: (each column should sum 100% or 0%) Procurement Approach Highway Bridge Tunnel ITS   New/ Realign't/ Widening Rehabilita'n/ Reconstr. Resurfacing   Low Bid * * * * * * Bid Averaging Method (BAM) * * * * * * Alternative Bids/Designs * * * * * * Request for Proposals * * * * * * Multi-Parameter Bidding, such as: Schedule, Cost-plus-time or Lane Rental, Traffic Control, Warranty, Warranty Credit, Quality Parameter * * * * * * Best-Value, such as: Adjusted Bid, Adjusted Score, Weighted Criteria, Cost-technical Tradeoff, Fixed Price- Best Design * * * * * * Total All Design-Build Projects 21. For each project type estimate the proportion (%) of design-build program costs that used each of the following contract payment approaches for projects completed during the past fiscal year: (each column should sum 100% or 0%) Contract Payment Approach Highway Bridge Tunnel ITS   New/ Realign't/ Widening Rehabilita'n/ Reconstr. Resurfacing   Unit Price * * * * * * Cost Plus * * * * * * Lump Sum * * * * * * Time & Material * * * * * * Other - please specify: * * * * * * Total All Approaches Agency Perspectives on Design-Build Program 22. Based on your agency's experience to date, indicate in general, how suitable certain types of highway projects are to design-build project delivery, versus design-bid-build project delivery? Highway Widening/New Alignment Suitability None: 1 - Highly: 6 Mega (>$100 million) 123456 N/A Large ($50-$100 million) 123456 N/A Medium ($10-$50 million) 123456 N/A Small ($2-$10 million) 123456 N/A Micro (<$2 million) 123456 N/A Highway Rehabilitation/Reconstruction Suitability None: 1 - Highly: 6 Mega (>$100 million) 123456 N/A Large ($50-$100 million) 123456 N/A Medium ($10-$50 million) 123456 N/A Small ($2-$10 million) 123456 N/A Micro (<$2 million) 123456 N/A Bridges/Tunnels Suitability None: 1 - Highly: 6 Mega (>$100 million) 123456 N/A Large ($50-$100 million) 123456 N/A Medium ($10-$50 million) 123456 N/A Small ($2-$10 million) 123456 N/A Micro (<$2 million) 123456 N/A Highway Resurfacing Suitability None: 1 - Highly: 6 Large (>$5 million) 123456 N/A Medium ($1-$5 million) 123456 N/A Small (<$1 million) 123456 N/A ITS Suitability None: 1 - Highly: 6 Large (>$2 million) 123456 N/A Medium ($1-$2 million) 123456 N/A Small (<$1 million) 123456 N/A 23. Indicate the degree to which your agency plans to use design-build project delivery in the future, by project type: Project Type Rating None: 1 - Significantly : 6 Highway new or widening 123456 N/A Highway rehabilitation 123456 N/A Pavement resurface 123456 N/A Bridge 123456 N/A Tunnel 123456 N/A ITS 123456 N/A 24. What major changes have been made in the agency's design-build program to improve its effectiveness since its inception? Have they accomplished their intended purpose?No YesPartiallyN/A 25. What major changes are planned in the agency's design-build program to improve its effectiveness in future years? 26. Other comments (Optional)

E.5 Project Survey

Please note that this is NOT the actual survey. This research project was completed in early 2005. The final report is currently being reviewed by FHWA. Results will be posted when they become available.

Home | FeedBack
	Report to Congress on the Effectiveness of Design-Build as Required by TEA-21 Section 1307(f), United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration
PROJECT SURVEY (Design-Build) State: Liberty Agency: Liberty Department of Transportation Project: I-50 Liberty City Bridge Repair Contact and Respondent Information Primary Team Contact First Name Last Name Email Job Title Organization Phone 1 Phone 2 Fax Address Address (Cont.) City State Zip Code * Enter a valid US zip code Respondent Information First Name Last Name Email Job Title Organization Phone 1 Phone 2 Fax Address Address (Cont.) City State Zip Code * Enter a valid US zip code Definition of Key Terms Used in the Survey Design-Bid-Build (D-B-B): The traditional project delivery method in which design and construction are distinct, sequential steps in the project development process, subject to separate procurement approaches and processes. Design-Build (D-B): A project delivery method in which the design and construction phases are contractually-integrated activities of the project development process. As used in this study, design-build includes the design and construction development stages. The term can also be used to encompass services in addition to design and construction, such as maintenance, operations, and finance (i.e., design-build-maintain, design-build-operate-maintain, and design-build-finance). Franchise and concession agreements are included in the term if they provide for the franchisee or concessionaire to develop the project that is the subject of the agreement. Design-Builder: The entity contractually responsible for delivering the project design and construction that holds the design-build contract with the owner. Designer: The lead professional design firm for the project. Builder: The lead general construction contractor for the project. Subconsultant: A designer that has a design subcontract with the lead design firm. Subcontractor: A construction firm that has a subcontract with the lead general contractor. Contracting Agency: Public agency awarding and administering a design-build contract. The contracting agency may be the State Transportation Agency or another state or local public agency. ITS: Intelligent Transportation Systems. Project Specific Information 1. Project Specific Information Project Name * Project Location Project Team or Contractor Respondent Role in this project 2. Project Description a. Facility Type (Estimate percentage of total project cost that falls into each category) % Road % Bridge(s) % Tunnel(s) % HOV Lanes % ITS % Other: b. Project Type (Estimate percentage of total project cost that falls into each category) % * New Construction/Expansion % * Rehabilitation/Reconstruction % * Resurfacing/Renewal % * Other: c. Highway Type (Estimate percentage of project cost that falls into each category) % * Rural Interstate % * Urban Interstate % * Rural Primary % * Urban Primary % * Rural Secondary % * Urban Secondary d. Project Size (Indicate dimensions) ($000s) Total Cost Lane-Miles * Road Length Square Feet * Square Feet of Bridge Deck Feet * Maximum Bridge Height (#) * Number of Bridge Columns * unit Other (ITS, etc.): 3. Project Delivery Approach (Indicate approach used for this project) Design-Bid-Build Design-Bid-Build w/Warranty Design-Build Design-Build w/Warranty Design-Build-Operate-Maintain (DBOM) Design-Build-Operate-Maintain-Finance (DBOM-F) Performance-Based Total Asset Management Job Order Contract (Indefinite Delivery/ Indefine Quantity) In-House Agency Staff (i.e. force account) Additional Comments: 4. Procurement Approach (Indicate approach used for this project) Low Bid - no technical evaluation Bid Averaging Method (BAM) Request for Proposals w/Design Alternatives Multi-Parameter Bidding Schedule Lane Rental Cost Plus Time (A+B) Traffic Control Warranty Warranty Credit Quality Parameter Measures within Percent Limits Quality Parameter Measures within Performance Indicators Best-Value Low Bid - Meets Technical Criteria Adjusted Bid Adjusted Score Weighted Criteria Cost-Technical Tradeoff Fixed Price - Best Design 5. Award Basis Competitive bid Negotiated award 6. Contract Type Fixed Price - Lump Sum Unit Price Cost Plus Fixed Fee Cost Plus Fixed Fee with Guarantee Maximum Price Other: 7. Use of Incentives or Disincentives 7a. Were incentive clauses used for this project? No Yes If "yes", indicate the kind of incentives used: 7b. Were disincentive or penalty clauses used for this project? No Yes If "yes", indicate the kind of disincentives or penalty clauses were used: 8. Extended Warranty Beyond Specified Minimum a. Was any kind of warranty associated with the contract for this project? No Yes If "No", skip to question 9. b. Type of warranty included in the project contract: Material & workmanship Performance or Condition Other (indicate below): c. Duration of warranty - after project completion, in years: d. Escape clause criteria (specify which type(s) used in the contract): Time limit Cumulative axle loading Other (indicate below): e. Was the extended warranty a competitive factor in the selection process? No Yes f. Did the extended warranty increase or decress any of the following project attributes? Project Duration No Yes; if "Yes", by what (+ or -) Project Quality No Yes; if "Yes", by what (+ or -) Project Cost No Yes; if "Yes", by what (+ or -) Additional Comments: 9. Project Team Organization Builder as prime Designer as prime Joint Venture Multi Prime/Multiple Prime Contracts Integrated design-builder Other: 10. Project Characteristics: a. Primary project purpose: b. Characterize the project according to the following criteria Project Characteristics Rating Low: 1 - High: 6 Degree of technical/engineering complexity 123456 N/A Degree of schedule urgency 123456 N/A Flexibility of project scope 123456 N/A c. What percentage of the following activities were complete when the design-build contract or the construction contract was issued for this project? Activity % Completed Design: % * NEPA Clearance: % * Permit Clearance: % * Right-of-way Acquisition: % * d. Describe any unique feature about this project that significantly influenced any of the following project attributes: Duration: Cost: Quality: e. Was lifecycle costing taken into account during project conceptualization? No Yes If so, was it a factor in your agency's bid evaluation process? No Yes Comments: 11. Specification Type Specification Type % of Total Specifications Prescriptive % * Performance % * 12. Prevailing Labor Environment (Complete all applicable portions - percentage refers to portion of total project costs): Union State: No Yes Percent union involvement (%): * 13. Contract Work Split (Complete as appropriate - percentage refers to portion of total project costs): Direct hire: Design (%): * Construction (%): * or, Combined (%): * Subcontracted: Design (%): * Construction (%): * or, Combined (%): * 14. Competition (Complete as appropriate): Number of responsive proposers/bidders: Design Construction Design/Build Additional Comments: 15. Duration Performance Metrics. Indicate the dates or characteristics for the following project delivery activities: Activity Dates Units Start RFP development (mm/dd/yyyy) Date project advertised (mm/dd/yyyy) Date RFPs submitted (mm/dd/yyyy) Date of Project Award (mm/dd/yyyy) Design initiation date (mm/dd/yyyy) Construction initiation date (mm/dd/yyyy) Planned project acceptance date (mm/dd/yyyy) Actual project acceptance date (mm/dd/yyyy) Number of liquidated damages days days Project Velocity - average per month: Lane-miles completed Lane mile/month Square feet of bridge deck completed sq ft deck/month Project cost spent $000s/month 16. Cost Performance Metrics.Indicate the planned and actual costs (in thousands of dollars) for the following project delivery activities: Project Development Stage Agency PE Cost / RFP Cost Design-Builder Design Costs Design-Builder Construction Costs Agency Contract Admin. & Inspections Costs Total Project Costs At Budget (Engineer's estimate) * * * * * At Contract Award * * * * * At Final Cost * * * * * b. Indicate the reasons for major changes in project costs: Rating None: 1 - Major: 6 Owner required additions or subtractions 123456 N/A Design-Builder or Contractor suggested additions or subtractions 123456 N/A Events not controllable by sponsor or contractor (weather, etc.) 123456 N/A Poor design 123456 N/A Differing site conditions 123456 N/A Unit price adjustment clauses 123456 N/A Sponsor delays (environmental clearance, land acquisition) 123456 N/A Contractor delays (design, environmental clearance, land acquisition, construction, inspection approval) 123456 N/A Third party additions or subtractions 123456 N/A Third party delays 123456 N/A Other: 123456 N/A c. Indicate the number and total cumulative value of all change orders/extra work orders for this project: Number of approved change/extra work orders Number * Cumulative net value of approved change/extra work orders ($000s) * d. Indicate the number and total cumulative value of all claims for this projects: Number of approved claims Number * Cumulative net value of approved claims ($000s)* e. Indicate the amount (value) of any re-work required after the project was accepted by the owner (re-work means additional work required to correct deficiencies that appear after the project is put into service as a result of design or construction errors): Within 1 year ($000s)* Beyond 1 year ($000s)* 17. Quality Performance Metrics a. List the success criteria used for this project by the agency and the relative performance acheived: b. Indicate the overall quality results for this project: Quality Criteria Rating Poor: 1 - Superior: 6 Conformance with standards/specifications 123456 N/A Compliance with warranty provisions 123456 N/A Overall sponsor satisfaction 123456 N/A c. Characterize the prior experience/expertise of the key stakeholders of this project with the project development approach used (check whichever boxes apply, with one box checked per row): Stakeholder Group Prior Experience None: 1 - Excellent: 6 Agency/Owner 123456 N/A Design-Builder 123456 N/A Designer 123456 N/A Builder/Constructor 123456 N/A Subconsultant(s) 123456 N/A Subcontractor(s) 123456 N/A Finance (bond underwriter) 123456 N/A Insurance (surety vendor) 123456 N/A 18. Lessons Learned from this project: a. Did the project fulfill its intended purpose? NoYes If "No", in what way(s) b. Did the project delivery approach significantly impact the outcome of the project in fulfilling its intended purpose? NoYes If "Yes", in what way(s) c. For design-build projects only, how did the following performance criteria change because of using the design-build delivery approach? (Indicate positive (+) percentage for increase, negative (-) percentage for decrease, zero (0) percent for no change) Project Performance Criteria Value (+% or -%) Duration % Cost % Quality % d. Lessons learned from the project regarding the delivery approach used? e. Could this project have been delivered more successfully, based on what you now know about the delivery approach used? NoYesUnclear If "Yes", explain how: Additional Comments:

FOOTNOTES

1. The research team for this effort consists of AECOM Consult, Inc. and the University of Colorado at Boulder's Construction Engineering & Management Program, working under a competitive open contract between SAIC, Inc. and FHWA.