Click for next page ( 29


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 28
29 active Highway Safety Design Model--IHSDM (57), which of, or those who can speak for, key stakeholders. These stake- is currently under development. The Roadside Safety Analy- holders might include community groups, elected officials, sis Program (58) has been used to assess the safety benefits environmental agencies, and other government agencies. associated with changes in roadside geometrics during VE An example of a FAST diagram for a recent CSD-focused studies (37). value planning study is presented in Figure 12. VALUE OPPORTUNITIES DURING Road Safety Audits CONSTRUCTION Transportation agencies in the United Kingdom first began VE was originally introduced into construction projects in to perform road safety audits (RSAs) more than 20 years ago. the form of VECPs in the 1960s. The intent of the VECP RSAs are independent safety performance reviews of a road process is to encourage innovation with the hope that cost transportation project. The use of RSAs has spread to other savings will be realized. The VECP remains an element of countries and has recently been introduced in North Amer- construction contracts and most states use a similar form. ica. The Canadian Road Safety Audit Guide (59) highlights The VECP process rarely uses the formal VE. several ways for VE and RSA initiatives to integrate: The basic process for VECPs follows: Include road safety specialists on VE teams (this could also include human factors specialists if appropriate), Contractor must submit a VECP for ideas to reduce Conduct the VE study and RSA concurrently and ensure the project cost (note that some states also permit time interactive linkages between the two workstreams, or savings). Conduct the RSA after the VE study to assess the VE Agency reviews the merit of the VECP to determine proposals. its feasibility to support the agency's decision-making process. A recent pilot study (60) suggested that RSAs and VE could Agency makes decision on acceptance or rejection. be integrated. If accepted, the contractor and the STA will split the identified savings to the contract 50%/50%. Context-Sensitive Design The impact of VECPs on the overall cost of the federal- Another key initiative in transportation is context-sensitive aid projects is very small when compared with the approved design (CSD). Neuman et al. (61) wrote that "CSD is among project savings associated with the VE proposals developed the most significant concepts to emerge in highway planning, during the planning and design phases of project develop- design, and construction in recent years." This is because ment. For fiscal years 1997 to 2003, total accepted VECPs project development, under CSD, fully considers not only the averaged $46.7 million per year compared with $900 million needs of the road users, but also the needs of the community. per year for VE proposals (11). On average, VECPs account for approximately 5% of the total federal-aid project cost VE can align well with the principles of CSD, provided savings generated by VE. that the right perspective is considered. As with road safety, there is the potential for VE and CSD to be at odds. NCHRP Report 480 cautioned that: ALTERNATIVE DELIVERY METHODS It is common practice in many agencies to perform value engi- Several alternative and innovative project delivery and/or neering (VE) studies prior to construction or bidding. Such prac- tices, although well-intentioned, can lead to unforeseen adverse contracting methods have emerged in North America within decisions. In [one state], it was noted that an unintended result the last two decades, including D/B, Accelerated Construc- of VE studies was the removal of items from the project that rep- tion, and Best Value Contracting. resented commitments to stakeholders in the effort to maintain economy (61). DesignBuild This situation appears to reflect more of a breakdown in the application of VE than of the inability to integrate VE and VE in D/B has been applied for some time. One of the key CSD. VE can be used to identify the needed functions of the benefits to the STA is the level of innovation inherent in the project during the VE study. Typically, the functions identified D/B proposal development process. D/B proponents may or for a CSD-focused project can be organized into two primary may not use the formal VM when developing their alterna- groups: functions related to the road user and functions related tive approaches to the compliant (base) bid. to stakeholder expectations and needs. The evaluation criteria used for the VE proposals should consider stakeholder inter- The motivation to use VE is typically twofold. First, cost ests. To accomplish this, VE teams should include members is a major consideration in the selection process and con-

OCR for page 28
30 FIGURE 12 Sample CSD-type FAST diagram (62). tractors will look extensively into ways in which their costs The STAs do not directly share in any cost savings with can be lowered. Second, STAs typically have elaborate eval- the contractor derived from alternatives developed during the uation processes for D/B projects. The evaluation criteria proposal stage. However, the agency will be able to benefit usually include consideration of innovative procedures and from generally lower costs and risk with D/B. The agency designs. As such, proponents are also motivated to achieve must still decide on the merits of accepting any alternative the highest proposal ratings. concepts proposed by the D/B proponent.

OCR for page 28
31 Recent experience in the city of New York on a D/B to advancing the pace of construction to reduce the impact on project suggests that STAs can benefit from incorporating the traveling public. VE into the D/B procurement and project development processes. The New York State DOT requested that New TRB's Task Force on Accelerating Innovation in the York City's OMB manage two VE studies of the Belt Park- Highway Industry (Committee A5T60) sponsored a series of way Bridge Over Ocean Parkway project that was being three workshops in late 2000 and again twice in early 2002. delivered using D/B. The first VE study was undertaken The focus of the workshops was to identify ways to acceler- after the preferred D/B proponent had been selected, but ate construction on the nation's highways (35). Several sug- before finalizing the contract and issuing the Notice to Pro- gestions pertinent to VE were reported: ceed. The initial VE study identified construction staging modifications that could reduce the overall cost and schedule DOTs should consider increasing the contractor's share of the project. The city was able to renegotiate the contract to of the approved VECP; take advantage of these benefits. The second VE study, per- DOTs should also permit time-saving VECPs; formed during the design phase, identified additional modifi- Consideration should be given to educating contractors cations to improve project performance by reducing the dis- on how VE can contribute to time savings; and ruption of the community and road users (J. Woller, New Consideration should be given developing a process to York City Office of Management and Budget, personal com- collect and disseminate the creative techniques used by munication, May 2, 2005). the DOTs and contractors. In 2002, a final rule regarding VE on D/B projects was published in the Federal Register (10). The final rule requires Best Value Contracting STAs to undertake a VE study on D/B projects before the Best Value Contracting considers both cost and technical release of the RFP document. This is considered the mini- merit (64) and is used by agencies to reduce project risk. The mum requirement for VE on federal-aid NHS D/B projects contractor is required to submit an extensive technical pro- costing $25 million or more. However, the rule does not pre- posal that elaborates on: clude additional VE studies if desired at other milestones in project development. Methodology and approach, Management capability, Accelerated Construction Past performance, and Team qualifications. Highway projects are becoming increasingly complex and expensive in many corridors across the country. Impacts to The Best Value Contracting approach requires both the road users are often severe or protracted because of the lim- STA and the contractor to do more work up front. The agency ited space available to create usable and safe work zones. needs to clearly define its expectations (scope and require- These impacts influence the mobility and safety needs of the ments). The contractor will need to invest more effort to pre- traveling public and the economy. This is especially true for pare the submission bid. However, like the D/B process, it is urban highway renewal projects in highly congested corri- anticipated that the contractor will be motivated to focus dors (63). One initiative, Accelerated Construction, is geared more on improved constructability and reliability.