Project Delivery Methods

2.13.4.1 Procurement Approaches

Developers of major public and private transportation projects in the United States and elsewhere are using a variety of project delivery methods to complete these projects. In the United States, transporta- tion projects have been traditionally procured through a design-bid-build process. There is considerable interest on the part of transportation agencies in alternative forms of procurement and their benefits. 2.13.4.1.1 Design-Bid-Build

Design-bid-build is the traditional procurement approach for a project. The owner provides the com- pleted plans and specifications and procures the construction services based on the lowest bid. The pri- mary intent of a design-bid-build project is to build the project exactly as the owner specifies. The ability of the contractor to innovate is limited because of this.

2.13.4.1.2 Design-Build

Design-build is a procurement approach where the contractor provides both design and construction through a single contract between the owner and the design-build contractor. The owner will prepare a portion of the design, usually 15 to 35%, before bid. The major benefit of design-build is that it allows the contractor to be innovative during the design phase because the designer and the contractor are on the same team and constructability related issues can be addressed during design. When used with perfor- mance/end result specifications, design-build allows the contractor greater innovation.

2.13.4.1.3 Privatization

Privatization is a procurement approach in which a private entity finances or invests in a transpor- tation project and develops, design, builds, and maintains a roadway or bridge for a specified dura- tion in return for toll revenue, the cost of long-term financing, or development rights. The finance can take the form of a public-private partnership or a wholly private venture. Privatization also applies to FIGURE 2.86 Consensus on the bridge type and span arrangement for proposed Monongahela River Bridge.

contracting with a private entity for maintenance or other services traditionally performed in-house by the public agency. The benefit of this type of procurement is that it encourages the private entity to innovate or implement research findings to reduce maintenance costs, to ensure long performance, and to allow for recovery costs.

2.13.4.1.4 Construction Manager/General Contractor

Construction management is a contracting approach in which an owner contracts with an independent construction manager to provide program or project management or administrative services. The con- struction manager acts on behalf of the owner in overseeing and coordinating design and construction. With an owner-construction manager scheme, the construction manager does not contract directly with the construction contractors. This method of procurement can bring innovative or state-of-the-art techniques to the management of large or complex projects, such as improvement of cost control, iden- tification and resolution of potential changes earlier in construction, or the reduction of construction time through fast-tracking design and construction activities and closely coordinating and tracking multiple design and construction contracts in a master schedule.

2.13.4.2 Contracting Approaches

The difference between a procurement approach and a contracting approach is one of scope. A pro- curement approach is a general scheme for purchasing services. A contracting approach is a specific technique used under the larger umbrella of a procurement approach to provide techniques for bidding, managing and specifying a project. There is a growing list of contracting approaches that are being incorporated into today’s transportation projects. The top four are explained next, in order of their per- ceived acceptance in the transportation industry.

2.13.4.2.1 Partnering

Partnering is a method for establishing a relationship that focuses on achieving mutually beneficial goals through a formal procedure for better communication, shared risks, and resolving disputes at the lowest level. Partnering in the broadest sense can be performed between the owner, contractor, and other parties at the project level, among disciplines within the contracting agency, or between the owner and industry organizations on a broader scale. There are several benefits to partnering:

• Develops trust and communication

• Helps reduce perceived risk by building confidence in the project participants

• Helps the owner and the contractor reach a mutually acceptable decision on the proposed innovation

• Provides open communication and tools for working through avoidable problems and the owner’s concerns

2.13.4.2.2 Value Engineering

Value engineering (VE) in design is the analysis of a design or process to identify individual components or functions that can be provided with improved quality or the same quality at a reduced lifecycle cost. VE in construction takes the form of proposals by the contractor that could produce a savings to the owner without impairing the essential functions and characteristics of the facility, including service life, economy of operation, ease of maintenance, desired appearance, and safety. VE in design encourages innovations from an in-house or process VE team that may result in a reduction of project cost or in the functionality of the design. VE in construction provides a means for the contractor to suggest inno- vative changes to the design or construction of the project with a value engineering change proposal (VECP), resulting in a savings in cost or time.

2.13.4.2.3 Incentives/Disincentives

Incentives/disincentives (I/Ds) are contract provisions intended to motivate a designer/contractor to complete the work on or ahead of schedule or to provide a product at a higher level of quality, safety, or overall performance. The benefits of using I/Ds include:

• Provides opportunities to try an innovative technique to meet I/D requirements that have an associated financial bonus

• Promotes innovations to reduce construction time in areas such as construction phasing or main- tenance of traffic or the use of innovative materials

• Encourages innovation to improve quality or safety through new methods or materials in other ways 2.13.4.2.4 Performance/End Result Specifications

Performance/end result specifications define the required results of construction using measurable cri- teria or properties of the finished product. The measureable criteria or properties are used to verify compliance with the specifications when the work is completed. Performance/end result specifications differ from material and method specifications in that they specify the performance requirements of the end product and let the contractor determine how these performance criteria are to be met. These types of specifications provide flexibility in the design or construction of a project by allowing the contractor to be creative in its approach to construction to meet the specifications.

2.13.4.2.5 Other Contracting Approaches

Other contracting approaches that are gaining ground include multiparameter bidding, construction warranties, lane rental, constructability reviews, and bid alternate/design alternate.

2.13.4.3 Representative Project: I-15 Reconstruction

This project (Figure 2.87) consisted of the demolition, redesign, and reconstruction of 17 miles of I-15 in Salt Lake City, Utah. The existing highway was deteriorating and it carried a traffic volume higher than the design volume. Based on these conditions, the Utah DOT (UDOT) decided to completely rebuild the highway instead of making repairs. This work included widening I-15 to 10 lanes and building 137 bridges. The work, which had a construction cost of just over $1.5 billion, was completed in 4 1/2 years in order to be ready for the winter Olympics held in Salt Lake City in 2002.

A design-bid-build approach would have required 10 years to complete. UDOT decided to perform the project on a design-build basis to reduce this time. In addition to the time constraints, UDOT was interested in receiving a high-quality highway. Therefore, UDOT used performance/end-result specifi- cations, construction warranties, and a preventative maintenance program. UDOT developed the per- formance/end-result specifications using task forces composed of consultants, professional associations, UDOT, and the FHWA. This partnering approach ensured that the performance/end-result specifica- tions addressed the needs of the contractors, designers, and UDOT. UDOT also provided a $950,000 stipend for each unsuccessful bidder on a short list of qualified bidders.

The contractor introduced a number of innovations to the project through the design-build process and the performance/end-result specifications. For example, on the design-build side, the contractor was able to address traffic maintenance concerns as the design was developed. The contractor planned to install portions of the advanced traffic management system (ATMS) early in the project so that the ATMS could be used to reduce construction impacts on the public.

On the performance/end-result specifications side, the contractor used the flexibility of the specifica- tions to introduce innovations and improve the quality of the project. For example, the geotechnical specification stipulated maximum allowable soil settlement values for the embankments and substruc- tures, but did not specify the means for mitigating settlement. The contractor chose to take an aggressive approach that combined the use of wick drains, surcharge loads, and lime cement stabilization with the use of Styrofoam fill in the embankments to meet the settlement requirements. The contractor also introduced innovations to address the maintenance requirements of the projects. For example, the con- tractor used pipes embedded in the bridge abutments to allow grout to be injected into the abutments, to stabilize them if settlement occurs.

References

AASHTO. 2002. Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, 17th Edition, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC.

AASHTO. 2003. Guide Specifications for Design and Construction of Segmental Concrete Bridges, 2nd Edition, with 2003 Interim Revisions, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC.

AASHTO. 2008. AASHTO Guide Specifications for Design of FRP Pedestrian Bridges, 1st Edition, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC.

AASHTO. 2009. LRFD Guide Specifications for Design of Pedestrian Bridges, 2nd Edition, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC.

AASHTO. 2010a. AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 5th Edition with Interims through 2010, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC.

AASHTO. 2010b. AASHTO LRFD Bridge Construction Specifications, 3rd Edition, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC.

AASHTO. 2011. AASHTO Transportation Asset Management Guide: A Focus on Implementation, 1st Edition, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC. Abrahams, M., Bryson, J., Wahl, P. and Stoyanoff, S. 2003. “Replacement of the Cooper River Bridges,

Charleston, South Carolina,” Roads and Bridges Magazine, November.

Andrew, C.E. 1939. “The Lake Washington Pontoon Bridge,” ASCE Civil Engineering, 9(12), New York. AREMA. 2011. Manual for Railway Engineering, American Railway Engineering and Maintenance of Way

Association, Lanham, MD.

ASCE. 1977. Civil Engineering, 47(10), October. American Society of Civil Engineers.

ASCE. 2002. Civil Engineering, 72(11/12), November/December 2002. American Society of Civil Engineers.

Brown, C. 2008. “Meandering Across the Missouri,” Modern Steel Construction, March. American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, IL.

Caltrans. 1997. San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge West Spans Seismic Retrofit Design Criteria, L. Duan, ed., California DOT, Sacramento, CA.

CAS. 1998. Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code, Canadian Standards Association, Rexdale, Ontario, Canada.

Donley, S. 2005. Pennsylvania, Our Home, Gibbs Smith, Layton, UT.

FHWA. 2006 Prefabricated Bridge Elements and Systems Cost Study: Accelerated Bridge Construction Success Stories,Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC.

FHWA. 2007. Manual on Use of Self-Propelled Modular Transporters to Remove and Replace Bridges, FHWA-HIF-07-22, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC.

FHWA. 2007. Connection Details for prefabricated Bridge Elements and System, FHWA-00-010, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC.

FHWA. 2011. Framework for Decision-Making, FHWA-IF-06-30, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC.

Fridell, R. 2010. Seven Wonders of Transportation, Twenty-First Century Books, Minneapolis, MN. Ghosn, M. and Moses, F. 2001. Redundancy in Highway Bridge Superstructures, NCHRP Report 458,

Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC. Gloyd, C.S. 1988. “Concrete Floating Bridges,” ACI Concrete International, 10(5): 17–24.

Griggs, F.E. Jr. 2010. “Joseph B. Strauss, Charles A. Ellis, and the Golden Gate Bridge: Justice at Last,” Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, 136(2): 71–83.

HSP. 1908. The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, 32(1), Historical Society of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.

Kumarasena, S., McCabe, R.J., Zoli, T. and Pate, W.D. 2003. “Zakim Bunker Hill Bridge, Boston, Massachusetts,” Structural Engineering International, 13(2): 90–94, May.

Lwin, M.M. 1989. “Design of the Third Lake Washington Floating Bridge,” ACI Concrete International, 11(2): 50–53.

Lwin, M.M. 1993a. “Floating Bridges—Solutions to A Difficult Terrain,” Proceedings of the Conference on Transportation Facilities through Difficult Terrain, Wu, J.T.H. and Barrett, R.K., eds., Aspen- Snowmass, Colorado, August.

Lwin, M.M. 1993b. “The Lacey V. Murrow Floating Bridge, USA,” Structural Engineering International, 3(3): 145–148.

Lwin, M.M., Bruesch, A.W. and Evans, C.F. 1995. “High-Performance Concrete for a Floating Bridge,” Proceedings of the Fourth International Bridge Engineering Conference, Vol. 1, Federal Highway Administration, Washington DC.

Lwin, M.M. and Gloyd, C.S. 1984. “Rebuilding the Hood Canal Floating Bridge,” ACI Concrete International, 6(6): 30–35.

Meiners, W. 2001. “Credit Where Credit Was Due: Charles Ellis, a Purdue Civil Engineering Professor from 1934–1946, is Finally Recognized as the True Designer of the Golden Gate Bridge,” Purdue Engineering Extrapolations, Purdue University Schools of Engineering, Summer, 6–11.

Melnick, S. 2004. “Sun Sculpture,” Modern Steel Construction, October, American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, IL.

Murrow, L.V. 1938. “A Concrete Pontoon Bridge to Solve Washington Highway Location Problem,” Western Construction News.

Nichols, C.C. 1962. “Construction and Performance of Hood Canal Floating Bridge,” Proceedings of Symposium on Concrete Construction in Aqueous Environment, ACI Publication SP-8, Detroit, MI. OMTC. 1994. Ontario Highway Bridge Design Code, Ontario Ministry of Transportation and

Communications, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

PCI. 1986. “Sunshine Skyway Bridge Closes the Gap,” PCI Journal, November/December. pp. 168–176. PTI. 2008. Recommendations for Stay Cable Design, Testing and Installation, 5th Edition, Post-Tensioning

Reno, M. and M. Pohll. 1998. “Seismic Retrofit of San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge West Span,” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1624: 73–81.

Shaw, R.E. 1990. Canals for a Nation: The Canal Era in the United States 1790–1860, The University Press of Kentucky, Lexington, KY.

Strasky, J. 2002. “Long-Span, Slender Pedestrian Bridges,” ACI Concrete International, 24(2): 42–48. Tang, B. and Podolny, W. Jr. 1998. “A Successful Beginning for Fiber Reinforced Polymer (FRP) Composite

Materials in Bridge Applications,” FHWA Proceedings, International Conference on Corrosion and Rehabilitation of Reinforced Concrete Structures, December 7–11, Orlando, FL.

Tuan, C. 2004. “Aurora Arch Bridge,” ACI Concrete International, 26(4): 64–67.

Van Der Zee, J. 1986. The Gate: The True Story of the Design and Construction of the Golden Gate Bridge, Simon and Schuster, New York, NY.