2002 Survey by SAIC for Illinois DOT on the Current Use of Design-Build
- What factors drove your DOT to begin using Design-Build (DB)? Did you have the support of organized contractors and/or consultants (AGC, Consulting Engineers Organizations, etc.) in your state? Were any state laws drafted/enacted/modified in order to utilize D-B?
(DE) DEDOT started using DB based on direction from the Secretary of Transportation. There was political pressure to do so. A law had been passed enabling the use of design-build procurement for 4 projects.
Contractors teamed up with local consultants. Most contractors in DE are not experienced in both design and build so there was a learning curve.
(WA) Washington State developed our Design/Build Guidelines/Contract with the direct involvement of both the AGC-Washington and CECW (Now ACEC-Washington). This direct involvement from the contracting/consulting community was critical to our development of successful contracts.
The initial enabling legislation directed WSDOT to develop two design-build projects with a minimum project size of $10 million. WSDOT was to report back to the legislature on the results.
Since that time the legislature has removed the "pilot" status and directed WSDOT to develop a procedure for utilizing design/build on appropriate projects greater than $10 million. There is a sunset clause in the legislation which requires it to be revisited in 1998.
(MD) MDSHA pursued DB as a means to deliver projects to meet the demands of more projects, faster and within budget. MDSHA spent time up front working with the contractors and consultants. We actively tried to address issues that were raised by their organizations. No enabling legislation was drafted.
(VA) Use of DB was prompted by our evaluating the need to improve our rest area program. Current project cycle time is too long. We believed DB would help reduce the cycle time.
For 10 years we had been telling contractors that we WOULD NOT do DB. Then we just started doing it without soliciting their input. Surprisingly, a number of contractors were glad but wondered why we reversed our earlier decision not to do DB.
No state laws were enacted. Rest area buildings have to be approved by State Dept of General Services. General Services is already authorized to do BD.
(CO) CDOT started using DB 4-5 years ago on pavement reconstruction projects that were pretty straight forward low-risk projects (30-40M). We are now working a TREX project which is a light rail transit and highway reconstruction project ($1.7 B Total Project Budget.)
Both the Colorado Contractor's Association and the American Consultant Engineers of Colorado organizations participated in the rule making process, which were formally adopted in Dec. 1999. A law was enacted in 1999 allowing the Dept to use best-value 2 step awards. Previously used low bid.
(PA) Experiment to see if DB was feasible. Dep Secretary of Trans directed 11 districts to each do 2 projects.
We are proceeding slowly with DB, in part, because of concern from the Penn. Assoc. of Contractors. They prefer traditional procurement methods and feel DB puts more risk on them.
No state laws were changed. We had a change in our state procurement code that permitted us to do a quality-based selection.
(GA) TEA-21 provided Georgia with a higher level of funding. The DB delivery method was the most efficient means to use the funding. DB was also attractive in light of the shortened timeline. The SEP-14 process was followed on the first two projects, which were interstate widenings. The subsequent 3 projects were similar in nature and required only a programmatic SEP-14 approval. DB use was studied by a representative group of large and small contractors and consulting firms, and representatives from the GDOT. The GDOT decided early on to pursue DB while still adhering to State Law of low bid.
(NC) Use of DB driven by need to shorten project delivery time. Right now we average 9 years from inception to completion. Using DB we're saving about 2 years. We had some resistance upfront from our contractors. AGC was very concerned with big out-of-state contractors coming in to take their work. Enabling legislation was enacted in 1998. Allows for up to 3 projects per year.
(NJ) In 1994 we got a new governor and commissioner that wanted to be able to get transportation jobs out faster. This led us to try a modified version of design build. Modified in that we employed low bid procedures.
Generally speaking, contractors/consultants don't like DB. They {contractors} feel the two step process could allow favoritism. Consultants don't like it because it makes them subservient to contractors.
We did not enact state legislation.
(FL) Florida was one of the first states to use DB. In the late 80s DOT lobbied the legislature to allow the use of DB. The legislature authorized $50M to pilot DB. We pulsed the districts for potential DB projects and got a wide range of project types (bldgs, bridges, parking garages, resurfacing, etc.). We completed 13 pilot projects. Following the initial 13 projects, DOT opted to move forward with DB. Draft legislation to enable further use of DB was continually killed in the legislature as a result of contractors lobbying against the legislation. We finally partnered with industry and agreed to develop legislation enabling use of DB for major bridges (> $10M), bldgs, and rail corridors. In 1995 industry introduced the bill and it was approved. In 1996 innovative contracting legislation allowed us to do smaller DB projects. Originally capped at $60M now the cap is $120M.
(SC) The need to move projects quickly from inception to finished product was and still is the impetus for using design build as a procurement method. SCDOT began its first major DB project in an effort to bring innovative financing arrangements to major transportation projects for which traditional funding did not exist. In-state contractors were initially very concerned as to the number of projects and the dollar volume of work to be performed under DB contracts. Those fears have largely disappeared as SCDOT has developed a history of limiting the use of Db to projects with special needs such as a very tight schedule or the very large project with funds available to begin immediately. No. DB projects have been accomplished under state law that allows for innovative project delivery. SCDOT recently won a court decision challenging the legality of using DB instead of low bid procurement.
- What were the expected benefits from using DB and have those benefits been realized? Did you encounter any unexpected benefits or pitfalls? Were there any "failures/faults" where lessons could be learned? Was safety (of workers, state employees, and traveling public)enhanced/diminished during the project? Were claims reduced?
Was there any time savings? Were overall contract costs higher or lower? Were incentives / disincentives used?
(DE) Use of DB was largely driven by political pressures rather than expected benefits. However, significant time savings resulted. Project was completed in 14 months vice the planned 2 years. There were no safety issues of note. No claims. Overall contract costs were higher. Estimated 750K using traditional methods. Project cost was approx 1.2M using DB.
(WA) The primary benefits WSDOT anticipated from the contract were a decrease in overall time as well as the potential for innovation. At this time it is evident that the expected decrease in project time will be realized. However, due to the tight timelines the innovation has not manifested with the exception of the maintenance of traffic.
Safety has not been an issue on design/build.
Numerous issues have arisen on WSDOT's first pilot project (please see WSDOT's design/build website for a summary).
At this time the pilot project is not complete, however, claims are anticipated to be reduced through design/build.
The overall contract costs appear to be higher. At the end of the project WSDOT will perform an independent engineer's estimate from the as-builts to develop an estimate for what the project would have cost utilizing design-bid-build.
Incentives/Disincentives were not used on WSDOT's first project. WSDOT will likely consider the value of time on future contracts through incentives.
(MD) We hoped to deliver a project to the public quicker at relatively the same cost as a traditional project. We also hoped to see a reduction in change orders. One benefit that we have seen is a better relationship/ understanding between the consultants and contractors that we do business with. Identify early where the line will be drawn regarding conflict of interest on the designers part. What tasks are appropriate for them to work on during the design (under the states control) without disqualifying them after advertisement when they are partnered with a contractor. Safety was not impacted. Yes. Claims were reduced to under 1% in change orders. Yes, on average we have saved approximately 12 months on these projects. This has mainly been seen on the design side. Overall contract costs were about the same. Incentives / disincentives were used, but these were used on a case by case basis depending on urgency to deliver project to the traveling public.
(VA) The major benefit expected was a reduction in cycle time. DB has resulted in a reduction in cycle time from project inception to advertisement of about 2 ½ years. Similar reductions have occurred from award to contract completion.
Contract cost was higher but a superior product was used and 50 year warranty offered. Also, higher cost was driven, in part, by extremely aggressive schedule. Contractor accepted all the risk.
One thing that was emphasized by experience with the project was the importance of specifying requirements in the RFP. RFP must include everything you want contractor to do. Ex. Left requirement for installation of underground wires and conduits for lights out of contract and expected contractor to do the work.
Safety not an issue. Still have to adhere to all OSHA requirements.
No claims.
(CO) Expected shortened project delivery. TREX project timeline 22 months ahead of original estimated completion. Proposal was also lower than engineer's estimate. No significant time/$ savings on earlier projects which were low risk, less complex projects.
No claims to date, a little over 1 year complete.
Only incentives were in the area of DBE and Small Business Outreach. Liquidated Damages are included in the contract.
Lessons learned: 3rd party issues should be tied down (financial understandings). Level of participation in the final design review process could have been defined better, as opportunities for changes are somewhat limited.
Should specify how contractors will get permits, how agency coordination will be handled, level of input neighborhoods should be allowed, etc.
(PA) The expected benefits were the typical ones: shortened delivery time, cost savings, etc. We have experienced some time reduction and cost savings with our projects although we've not been formally quantifying actual savings.
No impact to safety. DB allows contractor to design safety around their strengths.
We've had no claims or a reduction in claims on all DB projects.
Incentives not yet used.
(GA) Expected acceleration of project completion has allowed the utilization of Federal construction $ up to 1 ½ years sooner.
To date, we have experienced minimal time savings. Contract costs has been higher than we had experienced under traditional procurements. Although Georgia's DB project are somewhat vanilla, we have seen innovation in the area of staging.
(NC) The expected benefits were shortened delivery time, reduced claims, cost savings, innovation. There has been minimal time savings on the 2 completed projects. The projects came in under the engineer's cost estimate so we believe there was a $ savings. However, the estimates are now more difficult when so much of the planning/design remains to be done. Safety was not an issue.
We used an incentive on our bypass project ($5K every month for excellence in erosion control).
(NJ) We expected shortened delivery time, increased constructability, transfer greater risk to contractor, reduce cost and reduce claims. We didn't use criteria in evaluating which projects we'd employ modified DB. we selected a broad range of projects that encompassed the range of traditional highway type project to determine which projects during our follow up evaluation were the best project types for future d/b. In hindsight, we should have evaluated the projects as some lend themselves more to DB than others.
We did see some cost savings but no significant time savings we saw significant time savings in some projects particularly a large bridge replacement project and construction of a new highway on a new alignment ,no time savings on some projects and an actual delay on a couple primarily as the contractor and the department were settling design and administration issues on a totally new procurement process, mainly because we still did the majority of the planning work.
Lessons learned:
Must have a commitment from the Trans. Agency.
Need a more sophisticated knowledge of contracting than the traditional unit pricing/low bid arrangements
Contractors/consultants must understand DB and you must build consensus with them
Must have the RIGHT PEOPLE working a DB project...requires more creative thinking and different skill sets than traditional procurements
Must employ a flexible procurement strategy...don't limit yourself to just low bid
Utilize DB expertise of external consultants for project oversight/management
(FL) Following completion of our original 13 pilots, we contracted with the Univ. of Florida to assess our DB program. The study looked at three areas: innovation, cost savings, and time savings. They determined we achieved no significant innovation through use of DB. In terms of cost, they determined that although we paid a little bit more (approx. 10%) at contract award, there was no contract growth and we came in at or below original project estimate at contract end. They found we had approx 32% reduction in project timelines (16% design/16% construction).
We've continued to see similar savings subsequent to our pilot projects.
We do utilize incentives for things like on-time completion of project milestones
(SC) SCDOT expected to achieve cost savings, time savings, and innovative project finance methods. Time savings have occurred. The ability of the DB contractor to proceed with parts of the work without having complete design and plans is a major factor in the time savings. Time savings is estimated to be in the 25% to 30% range. Time savings are easier to quantify than cost savings. We believe we have achieved cost savings in the range of 5 TO 10%. However, without a detailed initial estimate or a comparative traditional bid, the cost savings are difficult to quantify. Additional benefits are innovative financing and new techniques for design and construction. There have been lessons learned by SCDOT. 1) We now include a draft contract with the RFP package for DB projects. This saves protracted discussions regarding contract provisions. 2) SCDOT Initially had very little construction QA/QC involvement. We now have CE&I staff on the project and conduct a testing program equivalent to 10 TO 20% of the job control testing required and monitors quality issues such as compliance with procedures that cannot be measured by testing. Safety is always a concern on any project. On DB projects we have founded a heightened awareness of safety. Due to the size of the DB projects SCDOT has undertaken safety of the public and convenience of the public have been key items of attention. Claims have been greatly reduced, particularly in regard to design errors. Time savings are the most significant benefit. The overlap of design, right of way acquisition and construction have produced time savings of 25 TO 30%. Contract cost have overall been lower. However, cost savings are more difficult to measure. We estimate a cost savings of 5 TO 10%. Incentives have not been used. Dis-incentives in the form of liquidated damages are always used.
- How many DB projects has your organization completed? What type of projects are they (highways, bridges, rest stops, etc.) and what was the approx dollar range of the projects? Will D-B be expanded in the future, remain constant, or begin to wane in your State? (and why?)
(DE) 2 projects recently completed. 1 is a bridge the other is for a lab facility. Plans to do 2 more. Legislation enables only 4. Will have to demonstrate success to the legislature before getting approval to proceed beyond initial 4.
(WA) WSDOT currently has one ongoing design/build project (22.7 million). This project provides for a new grade separation and construction of a Single Point Urban Interchange directly adjacent to a large retail shopping mall.
WSDOT has one negotiated design/build contract pending for the Tacoma Narrows Bridge (800 million maximum total project cost).
Pending funding, WSDOT will consider Design/Build on future projects based upon the need for an accelerated delivery and the potential for delivering a large program. There is a vote this November which could potentially require WSDOT to administer several extremely large (500 million to 1.5 billion) projects simultaneously. Design/Build would very likely be utilized to deliver a significant portion of these projects.
(MD) We have completed six. Five are currently in progress. They are highway projects with some structures included. However, structures were designed by MDSHA to 100%. Approx. range for construction was $2 - $30 M. Most recent projects have been in the $10 - $30 M range. DB use will remain constant. Approximately 5% of our highway construction budget is allocated to DB projects. We are satisfied with this % and have no desire to have it replace our traditional methods.
(VA) We've completed 1 project for construction of a rest area. The project also included construction of a parking lot, off/on roads to the rest area, and landscaping around the facility. ($8.1M)
We have another rest area project ongoing. ($6.9M)
We will likely continue to use DB for our rest areas.
(CO) Several pavement reconstruction projects completed ($30-40M). Now have a larger light rail transit and highway reconstruction project ongoing ($1.2B). Right now, no further projects planned. This is based on funding limitations. Anticipate that D-B will be utilized on appropriate projects in the future with CDOT.
(PA) We've completed 8 or 10 projects. All bridge replacements. 40 more have been approved to do.
(GA) We currently have 5 projects ongoing, and 1 more planned. The first 5 were interstate projects (reconstruction, widening) and the last one involves seven intersections. To date, there has not yet been enough feedback to determine if GDOT will continue to use DB in the future.
(NC) We've completed 2 projects. One was an intelligent transportation system (ITS) and the other was a railroad bridge. We're in the middle of first major highway project. We have already awarded 3 projects beyond the initial 2 and will likely continue our use of DB into the future.
(NJ) We've completed 9 projects total. 1 was a large ($330M) Atlantic City tunnel. The other 8 were smaller ($240M total). The 8 were everything from a noise wall, tunnel, small and large bridges, and a highway. All were conducted using modified DB (low bid) procedures.
We had mixed results with our projects. With some, we saw innovation and cost savings. In others, it was apparent the contractor did not understand the requirements outlined in the bid documents. A $85M bridge replacement terminated only 6 months one year after award. The contractor had issue with a DOT specified vessel collision criteria. The contractor based his bid on the main piers being able to withstand 1 million pounds of force while the DOT criteria was 3 million pounds. This obviously would have made a huge difference in the contractor's bid if he'd of understood the requirements.
(FL) Not including the original pilot projects, we've completed approx 28 DB projects with an approx value of $521M. The projects cover the gamut of bridges, highway, pedestrian bridges, ITS projects, rest areas, toll facilities, etc.
We currently have 30 projects ongoing valued at approx $600M.
Lessons Learned
Provide contractor all info you have on existing design. Ex. Blackwater Bridge project. A claim was filed after an end abutment started settling. Turned out there was clay and other garbage material stockpiled in the area. The DOT soil boring, which was provided to the contractor, showed that but as-is designs were never provided to the contractor and should have been.
DB is a great tool to respond to customer's needs. Need experience with it in order to maximize DB potential.
(SC) Five projects are complete. Three projects are in progress. Project types are bridge replacements, interchange construction, highway widening and new location highways. The projects range in cost from $3 million to $386 million. The use of DB is likely to wane somewhat in SC. SCDOT has primarily used DB for large projects which have funding immediately available. The funds for additional large projects may not be as readily available.
- Under your DB projects, are you allowing 1 contractor to do 100% of design and construction? Does the contractor often partner with other contractors to ensure the necessary skills are present?
If so, roughly what percentage went to subs?
Were your typical consultant firms asked to partner with contractors or did the contractors bring in their own?
What impact has this had on small or disadvantaged business participation?
Any issues with disadvantaged business policies/laws?
Any issues with pre-qualification of contractors/consultants in the proposals?
(DE) No clauses in the contract directing use of subcontractors. However, all contractors chose to partner to ensure requisite skills. Consultants were primarily used for the design work. No known impact to small/disadvantaged business.
(WA) WSDOT does not provide a maximum prime contract percentage nor does it allow mandatory subcontractor clauses. The utilization of subcontractors has a similar percentage and usage pattern to that found on similar construction projects.
Consultants we're utilized by contractors on all proposals submitted to WSDOT.
The Design/Build program in Washington State is not considered large enough (proportionally) to directly impact the subcontractor/DBE community.
(MD) We are not allowing 1 contractor to do 100%. A certain percentage of work must go to MBE. Contractor often partners with other contractors. I do not have information on how much went to subs.
Contractors are allowed to choose their consultant, however, they typically are firms that have worked with MDSHA before.
No impact on small or disadvantaged business that we are aware. DBE/MBE still participate in these projects. No. MDSHA does not pre-qualify contractors/consultants.
(VA) Prime contractor is required to do a minimum of 30% of the work. DBE goals are included in the RFP (10% of work should go to DBE). The contractor is evaluated are evaluated based on the qualifications of all their team members and their demonstrated past performance teaming with the proposed subcontractors. For the most part we saw the same primes/subs that we were use to seeing bid on traditional projects bid on our DB project. No noticeable impact to small or disadvantaged businesses.
There was a statement in the RFQ that they would accept for further consideration only above-average contractors. RFQ spelled out what constitutes an above average contractor.
(CO) Our Design-Build contractor, Southeast Corridor Constructors, is a joint venture of Kiewit Construction Co. and Parsons Transportation Group. Kiewit is the prime contractor and has major subcontractors and Parsons is the lead designer with many sub-consultants.
We use DBE goals (15%) as well as goals for subcontractors. We have a clause for minimum prime workload (30%). No impact to small/disadvantaged business. Under the contract requirements, the contractor shall sublet no more than 70% of the construction work, and the major sub-consultant responsible for design shall sublet no more than 50% of the design work.
(PA) Prime contractor is required to do a minimum of 50% of the work (Penn. Rqmt). DBE goals are included in the RFP. We saw the same contractors bidding that we'd seen on traditional projects. We've had no complaints from contractors. No issues with small/disadvantaged business.
(GA) DBE goals are still part of the contract. Project by project goals are established. Consultant teams are pre-qualified. Contractors placing bids must declare one of the pre-qualified consultant teams in their proposal. Projects are typically advertised 60 to 90 days in advance of the letting to construction.
(NC) Prime contractor is required to do a minimum of 30% of the work. DBE goals are included in the RFP. For the most part, we saw the same contractors bidding that we'd seen on traditional projects. However, we did award one of our big projects (136M) to a contractor from Colorado. No issues with small/disadvantaged business.
(NJ) Contractors were required to use prequalified consultants. No significant issues with pre-qualifying. No impact to small or disadvantaged businesses
(FL) Contractors and consultants are partnering to bid on the proposals. No mandatory quotas set for DBE participation.
(SC) Yes, contractor may do all the required work both design and construction. Yes, contractors have generally teamed with other contractors due to the size of the work and the specialty areas of the contractors. Subcontract work has ranged from 25% TO 85% with the average being perhaps 40%. Typical design firms have participated as subcontractors. Only in one case has a design firm been an equity partner in the DB team.
DB has aided the DBE firms in that SCDOT strongly emphasizes the use of DBE firms in all phases of the DB work. In addition, it is easier for a small firm to be part of the DB team on large projects than to receive an individual design contract for similar work. No issues with disadvantaged business policies/laws. SCDOT does not require prequalification. Each team is judged on the merits of the qualifications presented in response to project RFQ or RFP.
- Is life-cycle cost a factor in determining the benefit of DB?
How do you measure that? Are user costs considered?
Has DB impacted maintenance costs?
Have you started incorporating warranties in your contracts?
If yes, what is the typical length of a warranty?
If no, warranties were required, were all specifications, policies, codes, material testing followed?
Any concerns on future maintenance / longevity?
(DE) Key is to make sure requirements/product specifications are stated in the contract. Clearly specify acceptable/unacceptable products. Don't anticipate any problems with maintenance cost...superior product was used. Two year warranty was included in the contract.
(WA) Life-Cycle analysis is utilized by WSDOT in evaluating proposals. At this time long term maintenance is not anticipated to be impacted by the use of design/build.
Warranties have been utilized on design/build. At this time, the warranty clauses have not been in effect long enough to provide feedback.
(MD) Life-cycle cost is not a factor in determining the benefit of DB. DB has not impacted maintenance costs. We have evaluated pavement warranties And are moving forward to include in our projects, but have not as of yet. All specifications, policies, codes, material testing were followed. Material testing is handled by MDSHA. No concerns on future maintenance / longevity.
(VA) Life-cycle cost is not a factor in evaluating DB because VADOT ensures quality does not suffer as a result of using DB. Contractors must talk in their proposals to what products and procedures they'll use and are evaluated accordingly. Warranties are incorporated. Length of warranties vary based on the product (road, facility, etc.). Contractor has flexibility in the length of warranties they propose. There are no concerns re: future maintenance.
(CO) No impact to maintenance. We have an aggressive inspection program and inspect the contractors work as it is completed. This helps ensure quality.
We have 1 year warranties on all final products. We're currently exploring pavement warranties.
D-B contractor is required to warranty the work completed on the project for one year following milestone completions.
The D-B contractor is responsible for quality control and quality assurance for both design and construction of the project. The T-REX team audits the contractor's QC and QA processes and provide independent verification of materials incorporated during construction. We do not perform traditional inspection and testing of the work, our role is ensuring contract compliance.
(PA) Life-cycle cost is not an issue. DB has had no noticeable impact on maintenance costs. Warranties not yet incorporated but we plan to.
(GA) Should be no impact to maintenance (no data to date). We have an aggressive inspection program and inspect the contractors work as it is constructed, as in any other design-bid-build project. We are not currently using warranties.
(NC) Life-cycle cost is not an issue. Life-cycle cost is assessed during technical scoring. DB has had no noticeable impact on maintenance costs. The ITS project had a two-year software warranty. We have not fully incorporated the use of warranties but plan to.
(FL) We incorporate warranties into our DB projects. Additionally, we now have contractor maintenance asphalt pavement in some of our contracts. If asphalt falls below threshold the contractor is required to come out and fix it. If not, contractor is kicked off the bidder's list. Incorporation of asphalt maint. was driven by contractor's difficulty in acquiring extended warranties for asphalt.
(SC) Life-cycle cost is not considered in determining the benefit of DB. User cost are only considered when determining liquidated damages or daily value if A+B costing is used. It is too early in our DB experience to determine the effects on maintenance. Warranties have generally been left to the contractors to propose and are considered in the evaluation of proposals. Typical warranties are 10 years on structures with the exception of bridge joints or bearings and 5 years on roadway embankments and pavements. No concern with maintenance and longevity as SCDOT is fairly detailed in what we desire. Special provisions, typical details and design policies are provided.
- Does your organization still complete all or most of the planning before the contract is awarded? How much involvement do you have from the contractor during planning? Explain how the contractor is involved during planning. What is the start point for DB (e.g., before or after the environmental assessment)? If a majority of the Planning Phase was completed prior to selection, were innovation opportunities reduced? Were alterations to planning decisions requested?
Value Engineering proposals higher or lower?
(DE) No. This project was unusual in that contractor did virtually everything including most upfront planning. DOT provided surveys, soil borings, hydraulics, plans from old structure. Contractor did utility relocations, got all permits, all design, negotiated right-of-way (DOT still approved), and environmental.
(WA) The contracting/consulting community is asked to be involved from the project outset. The majority of comments/concerns from the design/builders are centered on risk allocation and contractual language.
(MD) We still do all of the planning. No involvement from the contractor during planning. After the assessment. MDSHA typically prepares 30% design plans then advertises for DB. We have seen some innovation on these projects with wetland minimization. Otherwise, it has been minimal.
No alterations to planning decisions were requested.
We do not allow VE on our DB projects. We consider this to be part of the bid.
(VA) No. The contractor is heavily involved from the earliest phases of the project. The contractor does all environmental planning/obtains all permits, and all design work. VDOT still works all ROW issues (ROW was not an issue for the rest area project). With contractor being responsible for all design and build they are no longer able to come back to us with issues re: problems with design. This happened a lot in the past and can add time. Now the prime and subs have to work it out internally.
(CO) We do all environmental planning and approx 30% design. The light rail system is taken to a higher level of design.
We involve the contractors early on in a general information mtg where we explained the pre-qualification process. We also sent out the draft RFP for contractor review and comment. We've seen an increase in value engineering proposals (8 so far).
We have a document which summarizes our project from the MIS phase in 1995 thru the Notice to Proceed to our D-B contractor on June 1, 2001. The document is called "Design/Build Contracting, Special Experimental Project 14 Initial Report", dated January 15, 2002, which was a requirement of the FHWA.
(PA) We take planning/design to approx 30-40% completion. We do design up through type, size, and location (TSL) phase. Very little involvement from contractor prior to contract award.
(GA) Plans are developed to approximately 15-25%. We provide proposed layouts and complete all required permitting. We have seen some suggestions to alter our design in the area of mainline bridge construction for staging purposes.
(NC) We do all environmental assessment/permits, hydraulics, and most of design. We are currently doing most of the design work. We're working to get beyond doing so much planning and put more of the responsibility on the contractor earlier in the process.
Right now the contractor does not get engaged until they have an opportunity to review/comment on a draft RFP.
Opportunity for innovation still exists.
A contractor actually deleted the need for a bridge that we had built into the design. This saved quite a bit of money.
(NJ) Yes. We do the majority of the planning work Pre-bid meeting held with contractors when contract documents are at the initial draft stage for input by contractors, designers. Yes. Due to the low bid process owners's requirements had to be clearly and narrowly defined.
Yes, alterations to design were requested post award
Value Engineering proposals were lower
(FL) How much planning we do varies with the project. Generally speaking, we do approx 15-30 % of the upfront planning. We do the environmental assessment but may have the contractor get the permits. Contractor does all the design work.
(SC) Yes. We still do all or most of the planning. No involvement from the contractor during planning. SCDOT begins the DB process after securing the necessary environmental document approval.
We believe it is prudent to have completed the public involvement and environmental phase prior to beginning the DB work. There is ample opportunity within the project limits for the contractor to be innovative. Yes. In one case substantial reductions in cost were achieved by the contractors efforts to provide alternate mitigation for additional fill in wetlands in lieu of bridging wetlands. Lower. Most creative ideas have been put forth in the competitiveness of the proposal phase.
- What impact has DB had on internal staffing? Does it increase or decrease the workload of your in-house staff during the design and construction phases? During up-front project planning?
Is DB affecting your ability to maintain the skills necessary for your in-house workforce?
(DE) Decreases workload required by internal staff. Contractor does most planning and all design work. Bi-weekly meetings throughout the project to ensure close coordination between contractor and DOT staff.
The is no concern at this point that in-house skills will be degraded as those people are being used to do other projects.
(WA) WSDOT has found that the overall personnel commitment to a design/build project is lower than for a standard project. However, support groups find themselves much more heavily involved for shorter periods of time (workforce spikes) which could make scheduling challenging if enough design/build projects were ongoing at the same time.
Also, WSDOT has found that, while the overall personnel requirement drops, senior engineering staff are required to administer the projects. The reduction in personnel requirement is clustered around the technician and lower level engineer.
(MD) No impact to internal staffing. Workload has increased during construction, mainly during the preparation of design plans. No impact during project planning. We still have a majority of traditional projects. We only program approximately 5% of our projects to be DB, the majority of our staff is still performing the tasks/roles/responsibilities that they have always had. DB projects are relatively a minor part of our construction program, therefore, we don't foresee a loss of knowledge.
(VA) There has not been an impact to internal staffing. DB does drive some additional work upfront. But it's short bursts. DB has had no impact thus far on the skills. DB will remain only a portion of our project load.
(CO) The right staff is very important to DB. Staff was hand-picked. Need people who think outside the box. We use a mix of organic and contractor resources to ensure the right skills mix. Owners project team of about 80 staff is made up of CDOT (14), RTD (20) and consultant staff.
(PA) No major change to workload. DB forced us to prioritize workload as we have to turn around DB submissions quickly.
(GA) Using contractors for both design and build has allowed GDOT to construct projects that we would not have been able to otherwise complete using internal resources in the timeframe allowed.
(NC) While we've not yet seen a change to staffing from DB, I believe over time our organizational structure will have to be adapted to our use of DB. We will continue to do a number of our projects using traditional procurement methods. Therefore, DB is not likely to cause the loss of needed skills.
(NJ) DB has had no impact on internal staffing There is an initial increase while the procedure are being developed and people are learning. Require more and more sophisticated planning to clearly define the owner's needs. DB is not affecting our ability to maintain the skills necessary for your in-house workforce
(FL) DB did not drive a requirement for additional staffing. In fact, DB actually takes less manpower. People just do different things. Efficiencies can be gained by using DB. For example, we don't approve individual elements of the contractor's design. We perform less QC/QA under DB...we require the contractor to do this.
(SC) No impact to internal staffing. Decreases the total manpower required. However, it does require the concentrated efforts of a few good people on the SCDOT staff. There is little little difference in the planning and environmental manpower requirements as much of this work is handled by in-house staff. No. DB is used selectively for large projects that normally could not have been handled in a timely manner by in-house staff.
- What selection processes did your DOT use (qualification, qualification/price, qualification/price/time)?
Does project size change procedures?
Were there short lists? Second interviews?
Were consultants paid for their design efforts to produce their bid packages?
(DE) Qualification/price used. That could change with a larger or smaller project. Two round selection process was used. 6 or 7 contractors initially. Down selected to 3 in second round. 10,000 stipends were provided to contractors making it to second round.
(WA) WSDOT utilized a Request for Qualifications to short-list from three to five firms. This initial short-list is focused solely on qualifications and experience. Management structure, history, quality approach and safety record are all evaluated.
Those short-listed firms are then invited to submit a formal proposal. This proposal will receive a technical score (which varies based on project type and priorities) which is combined with the project price to determine the overall best value.
Design/Builders submitting a responsive proposal but not awarded the design/build contract receive a stipend from WSDOT.
(MD) We have a two-step process. Short list through rating of technical proposals (based upon information stipulated in the IFB). Short listed firms proceed to step two - the bidding phase. Contract is awarded to low bidder. Project size does not change procedures. Short lists were used. No second interviews. The DB teams that are short listed, but are not awarded the contract receive a stipend (currently valued at $25,000) after submitting all design documentation.
(VA) Used a two-step process. Contractors were evaluated in the second step on qualifications and price. Technical score = 35% and price = 65% of score. We started with 5 contractors and went into the second round with 2. No stipend was offered. We would like to be able to do that, and the contractors would very much like us to, but right now we don't have that flexibility.
(CO) Previous to 1999 legislation we used low bid. We now use a two-step process. Contractors are evaluated qualifications and price.
(PA) All projects based on low bid so far. Projects thus far have been low risk bridge replacement projects. We are moving towards technical/price awards. Stipends have not yet been used but we plan to in the future.
(GA) We are currently using low bid but hope to use a best value selection for the Northern Arc project.
(NC) We use a two-step process. Contractors were evaluated in the second step on qualifications and price. We offer a stipend on our DB projects of 50K-100K.
(NJ) We are currently using low bid but feel our projects could have been more successful if we'd have employed a best value selection process based on both price and technical proposal.
(FL) We use a two-step adjusted score process. We advertise the requirement and ask for letters of qualification. We then shortlist (to 3) based on type of project and type of firms. RFP is then sent to the three contractors. Bids are evaluated based on an adjusted score of cost divided by technical score.
(SC) Selection criteria is tailored to each project and its particular time and money constraints. Qualifications, time and money are always considered. However, the method of consideration varies with each project. Project size does make a difference. We are more detailed and deliberate as project size increases. Short lists for a RFQ/RFP process have been used. On occasions short lists have not been used. Second interviews have been used only to answer any questions the selection committee may have with regard to very large projects. SCDOT does not typically offer a stipend for proposal development.
- Did you meet with any significant opposition from constituents in moving to design-build?
How did you overcome resistance to the change?
(DE) Opposition was minimal. Had a public meeting very early in process to discuss plans without much concrete info to share. There were some safety concerns as the existing structure was a one-lane bridge that was dangerous. Once contractor was in place there was another public meeting. There was some customer concern re: establishment of a detour. Delays to traveling public were limited by adjusting the light to ensure traffic flowed around the detour.
(WA) There has been concern/resistance towards design/build. The majority of concerns regarding design/build have not manifested. As more projects utilize design/build it is anticipated that the concern/resistance will continue to diminish.
(MD) No significant opposition. We have worked very close with the Highway Contractor's Assoc. and CEC to address their concerns and keep them informed of upcoming projects and any changes to our process.
(VA) Contractors who didn't win were very vocal about not having the opportunity to negotiate in the 2nd round. We have had to educate the contractors on importance of stating everything in their proposal. They have traditionally relied on follow-on discussions/negotiations to be able to clarify or further expand their proposal.
(CO)There was pressure to deliver the project quickly. We also have a project website that has current information about our project, http://www.trexproject.com/.
(PA) There was some concern with expanded use of DB. However, no major resistance thus far.
(GA) Information, and communication.
(NC) Contractors continue to be concerned with the potential for big contractors to take their business. We're continuing to work the issue but haven't fully overcome.
(NJ) Contractors do not like DB. We held pre-bid meetings with the contractors. To better understand what they were bidding on. Contractors seemed to take advantage of the gray areas and seemed as if they would figure out how to execute after contract award. We were hamstrung by low bid in that we did not have the opportunity to review contractor's technical proposals.
(FL) As previously discussed, we had opposition from contractors early on. However, our efforts to partner with them proved successful and we were able to draft enabling legislation.
(SC) No opposition. Constituents have generally applauded the DB method due to the quicker project delivery time. DB is a special procurement method reserved for selected projects that are large and have funding immediately available. SCDOT will continue to use the traditional design-bid-build method of procurement for the great majority of projects.