Click for next page ( R2


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 R1
TRANSIT TCRP REPORT 131 COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM Sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration A Guidebook for the Evaluation of Project Delivery Methods

OCR for page R1
TCRP OVERSIGHT AND PROJECT TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD 2009 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE* SELECTION COMMITTEE* CHAIR OFFICERS Robert I. Brownstein AECOM Consult, Inc. CHAIR: Adib K. Kanafani, Cahill Professor of Civil Engineering, University of California, Berkeley VICE CHAIR: Michael R. Morris, Director of Transportation, North Central Texas Council of MEMBERS Governments, Arlington Ann August Santee Wateree Regional Transportation Authority EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Robert E. Skinner, Jr., Transportation Research Board John Bartosiewicz McDonald Transit Associates MEMBERS Michael Blaylock J. Barry Barker, Executive Director, Transit Authority of River City, Louisville, KY Jacksonville Transportation Authority Linda J. Bohlinger Allen D. Biehler, Secretary, Pennsylvania DOT, Harrisburg HNTB Corp. Larry L. Brown, Sr., Executive Director, Mississippi DOT, Jackson Raul Bravo Deborah H. Butler, Executive Vice President, Planning, and CIO, Norfolk Southern Corporation, Raul V. Bravo & Associates Norfolk, VA Gregory Cook Veolia Transportation William A.V. Clark, Professor, Department of Geography, University of California, Los Angeles Terry Garcia Crews David S. Ekern, Commissioner, Virginia DOT, Richmond StarTran Nicholas J. Garber, Henry L. Kinnier Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Nathaniel P. Ford, Jr. Virginia, Charlottesville SF Municipal Transportation Agency Jeffrey W. Hamiel, Executive Director, Metropolitan Airports Commission, Minneapolis, MN Kim R. Green GFI GENFARE Edward A. (Ned) Helme, President, Center for Clean Air Policy, Washington, DC Jill A. Hough Will Kempton, Director, California DOT, Sacramento North Dakota State University Susan Martinovich, Director, Nevada DOT, Carson City Angela Iannuzziello Debra L. Miller, Secretary, Kansas DOT, Topeka ENTRA Consultants Neil J. Pedersen, Administrator, Maryland State Highway Administration, Baltimore John Inglish Utah Transit Authority Pete K. Rahn, Director, Missouri DOT, Jefferson City Jeanne W. Krieg Sandra Rosenbloom, Professor of Planning, University of Arizona, Tucson Eastern Contra Costa Transit Authority Tracy L. Rosser, Vice President, Corporate Traffic, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Bentonville, AR David A. Lee Rosa Clausell Rountree, Consultant, Tyrone, GA Connecticut Transit Clarence W. Marsella Steve T. Scalzo, Chief Operating Officer, Marine Resources Group, Seattle, WA Denver Regional Transportation District Henry G. (Gerry) Schwartz, Jr., Chairman (retired), Jacobs/Sverdrup Civil, Inc., St. Louis, MO Gary W. McNeil C. Michael Walton, Ernest H. Cockrell Centennial Chair in Engineering, University of Texas, Austin GO Transit Linda S. Watson, CEO, LYNXCentral Florida Regional Transportation Authority, Orlando Michael P. Melaniphy Steve Williams, Chairman and CEO, Maverick Transportation, Inc., Little Rock, AR Motor Coach Industries Frank Otero PACO Technologies EX OFFICIO MEMBERS Keith Parker Thad Allen (Adm., U.S. Coast Guard), Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard, Washington, DC Charlotte Area Transit System Jeffrey Rosenberg Rebecca M. Brewster, President and COO, American Transportation Research Institute, Smyrna, GA Amalgamated Transit Union George Bugliarello, President Emeritus and University Professor, Polytechnic Institute of New York Michael Scanlon University, Brooklyn; Foreign Secretary, National Academy of Engineering, Washington, DC San Mateo County Transit District James E. Caponiti, Acting Deputy Administrator, Maritime Administration, U.S.DOT Beverly Scott Cynthia Douglass, Acting Deputy Administrator, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority James S. Simpson Administration, U.S.DOT FTA LeRoy Gishi, Chief, Division of Transportation, Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of the James Stem Interior, Washington, DC United Transportation Union Edward R. Hamberger, President and CEO, Association of American Railroads, Washington, DC Frank Tobey John C. Horsley, Executive Director, American Association of State Highway and Transportation First Transit Officials, Washington, DC EX OFFICIO MEMBERS Rose A. McMurry, Acting Deputy Administrator, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, U.S.DOT William W. Millar Ronald Medford, Acting Deputy Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, APTA U.S.DOT Robert E. Skinner, Jr. TRB William W. Millar, President, American Public Transportation Association, Washington, DC John C. Horsley Lynne A. Osmus, Acting Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration, U.S.DOT AASHTO Jeffrey F. Paniati, Acting Deputy Administrator and Executive Director, Federal Highway Administration, Jeffrey F. Paniati U.S.DOT FHWA Steven K. Smith, Acting Deputy Administrator, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, TDC EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR U.S.DOT Louis Sanders Jo Strang, Acting Deputy Administrator, Federal Railroad Administration, U.S.DOT APTA Robert L. Van Antwerp (Lt. Gen., U.S. Army), Chief of Engineers and Commanding General, SECRETARY U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC Christopher W. Jenks Matthew Welbes, Executive Director and Acting Deputy Administrator, Federal Transit Administration, TRB U.S.DOT *Membership as of February 2009. *Membership as of February 2009.

OCR for page R1
TRANSIT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM TCRP REPORT 131 A Guidebook for the Evaluation of Project Delivery Methods Ali Touran NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY Boston, MA Douglas D. Gransberg UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA Norman, OK Keith R. Molenaar University of Colorado Boulder, CO Kamran Ghavamifar NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY Boston, MA D. J. Mason KEVILLE ENTERPRISES Marshfield, MA Lee A. Fithian FITHIAN ARCHITECTS Norman, OK Subject Areas Public Transit Research sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration in cooperation with the Transit Development Corporation TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD WASHINGTON, D.C. 2009 www.TRB.org

OCR for page R1
TRANSIT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM TCRP REPORT 131 The nation's growth and the need to meet mobility, environmental, Project G-8 and energy objectives place demands on public transit systems. Current ISSN 1073-4872 systems, some of which are old and in need of upgrading, must expand ISBN: 978-0-309-11779-1 service area, increase service frequency, and improve efficiency to serve Library of Congress Control Number 2009903118 these demands. Research is necessary to solve operating problems, to 2009 Transportation Research Board adapt appropriate new technologies from other industries, and to intro- duce innovations into the transit industry. The Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) serves as one of the principal means by which the transit industry can develop innovative near-term solutions COPYRIGHT PERMISSION to meet demands placed on it. Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously The need for TCRP was originally identified in TRB Special Report published or copyrighted material used herein. 213--Research for Public Transit: New Directions, published in 1987 Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce material in this and based on a study sponsored by the Urban Mass Transportation publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is given with the Administration--now the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). A understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, FAA, FHWA, report by the American Public Transportation Association (APTA), FMCSA, FTA, or Transit Development Corporation endorsement of a particular product, Transportation 2000, also recognized the need for local, problem- method, or practice. It is expected that those reproducing the material in this document for educational and not-for-profit uses will give appropriate acknowledgment of the source of solving research. TCRP, modeled after the longstanding and success- any reprinted or reproduced material. For other uses of the material, request permission ful National Cooperative Highway Research Program, undertakes from CRP. research and other technical activities in response to the needs of tran- sit service providers. The scope of TCRP includes a variety of transit research fields including planning, service configuration, equipment, NOTICE facilities, operations, human resources, maintenance, policy, and The project that is the subject of this report was a part of the Transit Cooperative Research administrative practices. Program conducted by the Transportation Research Board with the approval of the TCRP was established under FTA sponsorship in July 1992. Pro- Governing Board of the National Research Council. Such approval reflects the Governing posed by the U.S. Department of Transportation, TCRP was autho- Board's judgment that the project concerned is appropriate with respect to both the rized as part of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act purposes and resources of the National Research Council. of 1991 (ISTEA). On May 13, 1992, a memorandum agreement out- The members of the technical advisory panel selected to monitor this project and to review lining TCRP operating procedures was executed by the three cooper- this report were chosen for recognized scholarly competence and with due consideration for the balance of disciplines appropriate to the project. The opinions and conclusions ating organizations: FTA, the National Academies, acting through the expressed or implied are those of the research agency that performed the research, and Transportation Research Board (TRB); and the Transit Development while they have been accepted as appropriate by the technical panel, they are not Corporation, Inc. (TDC), a nonprofit educational and research orga- necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board, the National Research Council, nization established by APTA. TDC is responsible for forming the the Transit Development Corporation, or the Federal Transit Administration of the U.S. Department of Transportation. independent governing board, designated as the TCRP Oversight and Project Selection (TOPS) Committee. Each report is reviewed and accepted for publication by the technical panel according to procedures established and monitored by the Transportation Research Board Executive Research problem statements for TCRP are solicited periodically but Committee and the Governing Board of the National Research Council. may be submitted to TRB by anyone at any time. It is the responsibility The Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, the National Research of the TOPS Committee to formulate the research program by identi- Council, the Transit Development Corporation, and the Federal Transit Administration fying the highest priority projects. As part of the evaluation, the TOPS (sponsor of the Transit Cooperative Research Program) do not endorse products or Committee defines funding levels and expected products. manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers' names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the clarity and completeness of the project reporting. Once selected, each project is assigned to an expert panel, appointed by the Transportation Research Board. The panels prepare project state- ments (requests for proposals), select contractors, and provide techni- cal guidance and counsel throughout the life of the project. The process for developing research problem statements and selecting research agencies has been used by TRB in managing cooperative research pro- grams since 1962. As in other TRB activities, TCRP project panels serve voluntarily without compensation. Because research cannot have the desired impact if products fail to reach the intended audience, special emphasis is placed on dissemi- Published reports of the nating TCRP results to the intended end users of the research: tran- sit agencies, service providers, and suppliers. TRB provides a series TRANSIT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM of research reports, syntheses of transit practice, and other support- are available from: ing material developed by TCRP research. APTA will arrange for Transportation Research Board workshops, training aids, field visits, and other activities to ensure Business Office that results are implemented by urban and rural transit industry 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 practitioners. The TCRP provides a forum where transit agencies can cooperatively and can be ordered through the Internet at address common operational problems. The TCRP results support and http://www.national-academies.org/trb/bookstore complement other ongoing transit research and training programs. Printed in the United States of America

OCR for page R1

OCR for page R1
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAMS CRP STAFF FOR TCRP REPORT 131 Christopher W. Jenks, Director, Cooperative Research Programs Crawford F. Jencks, Deputy Director, Cooperative Research Programs Gwen Chisholm Smith, Senior Program Officer Eileen P. Delaney, Director of Publications Ellen M. Chafee, Editor TCRP PROJECT G-8 PANEL Field of Administration Robert I. Brownstein, AECOM Consult, Inc., New York, NY (Chair) Joan Berry, EJM Engineering, Inc., Chicago, IL Peter A. Cannito, Armonk, NY Lee L. Davis, Lee L. Davis & Associates, Oakland, CA Sergio Gonzalez, University of Puerto Rico--Mayaguez, San Juan, PR Rick Smith, Washington State DOT, Seattle, WA Robin C. Stevens, Robin Stevens Consulting, Ltd., New York, NY Mukhtar Thakur, Minnesota DOT, St. Paul, MN John Walewski, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX Joel R. Washington, Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, Washington, DC Susan Herre, FTA Liaison Venkat Pindiprolu, FTA Liaison James P. LaRusch, Other Liaison Frederick Hejl, TRB Liaison AUTHOR ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The research herein was performed under TCRP Project G-8 by a team consisting of Northeastern Uni- versity, the University of Oklahoma, and the University of Colorado. Northeastern University was the contractor for this study. Dr. Ali Touran, Associate Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Northeastern University, was the Project Director and the Principal Investigator. Dr. Douglas D. Grans- berg, Professor in the Construction Science Division, University of Oklahoma, and Dr. Keith R. Molenaar, Associate Professor of Civil Engineering, University of Colorado at Boulder, were co-Principal Investiga- tors. D. J. Mason of Keville Enterprises and Lee A. Fithian of Fithian Architects were consultants. Kamran Ghavamifar of Northeastern University was a Research Assistant.

OCR for page R1
FOREWORD By Gwen Chisholm Smith Staff Officer Transportation Research Board TCRP Report 131: A Guidebook for the Evaluation of Project Delivery Methods describes various project delivery methods for major transit capital projects. This guidebook also includes an evaluation of the impacts, advantages, and disadvantages of including opera- tions and maintenance as a component of a contract for a project delivery method. The proj- ect delivery methods discussed are design-bid-build (DBB), construction manager at risk (CMR), design-build (DB), and design-build-operate-maintain (DBOM). The guidebook offers a three-tiered project delivery selection framework that may be used by owners of transit projects to evaluate the pros and cons of each delivery method and select the most appropriate method for their project. Tier 1 is a qualitative approach that allows the user to document the advantages and disadvantages of each competing delivery method. The user can then review the results of this analysis and select the best delivery method. If, at the con- clusion of this analysis, a clear option does not emerge, the user then moves on to Tier 2. Tier 2 is a weighted-matrix approach that allows the user to quantify the effectiveness of competing delivery methods and select the approach that receives the highest score. The third tier uses principles of risk analysis to evaluate delivery methods. The selection frame- work may also be useful as a means to document the decision in the form of a Project Deliv- ery Decision Report. The guidebook will be helpful to transit general managers, policy- makers, procurement officers, planners, and consultants in evaluating and selecting the appropriate project delivery method for major transit capital projects. Developers of major public and private projects in the United States and elsewhere are using a variety of project delivery methods to complete those projects. In the United States, transit projects have been traditionally carried out through a design-bid-build process. There is considerable interest on the part of transportation agencies in alternative forms of project delivery and their potential benefits. However, a comprehensive discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of these methods in the context of the U. S. transit environ- ment has been lacking. The objective of TCRP Project G-08 was to develop a guidebook to help transit agencies evaluate and select the most appropriate project delivery method for major capital projects and evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of including operations and maintenance as a component of a contract for the project delivery system. To accomplish the project objec- tive, Northeastern University, in association with the University of Oklahoma, the Univer- sity of Colorado, Keville Enterprises, and Fithian Architects, described and critiqued perti- nent issues related to each project delivery method in terms of its application to transit in the United States. The research team also identified agencies, suppliers, and individuals with experience in using the various project delivery and contracting methods and conducted in-

OCR for page R1
depth interviews with those entities to gather lessons learned. In addition, the research team described and critiqued pertinent issues related to contracting out operations and mainte- nance with new construction projects. The research team included a discussion of the impacts, advantages, and disadvantages of including operations and maintenance in the project delivery contract in the guidebook. Finally, the researchers developed a decision matrix to guide decision makers in selecting the most appropriate project delivery and con- tracting method(s) in various transit environments. A companion publication to this report, TCRP Web Document 41: Evaluation of Project Delivery Methods, reviews pertinent literature and research findings related to various project delivery methods for transit projects. It contains definitions of project delivery methods and discusses the existing selection approaches commonly used by transit agencies. TCRP Web Document 41 may found on the TRB website at http://trb.org/news/blurb_detail.asp?id=9886.

OCR for page R1
CONTENTS 1 Summary 4 Chapter 1 Overview 4 Introduction and Purpose 4 Selection System Framework 6 Organization of the Guidebook 8 Chapter 2 Background and Definitions 8 Distinguishing Characteristics of Transit Projects 9 Evolution of Current Alternative Delivery Methods in Transit Projects 10 Definitions of the Delivery Methods 15 Statutory Authorization of Delivery Methods in Various States 16 Existing Selection Approaches for Project Delivery Methods 18 Timing of Project Delivery Method Selection 19 Chapter 3 Advantages/Disadvantages of Each Project Delivery Method 19 Introduction 19 Project-Level Issues 25 Agency-Level Issues 31 Public Policy/Regulatory Issues 35 Lifecycle Issues 38 Other Issues 40 Conclusion 41 Chapter 4 Tier 1--Analytical Delivery Decision Approach 41 Introduction 43 Step 1. Create Project Description 45 Step 2. Define Project Goals 46 Step 3. Review Go/No-Go Decision Points 50 Step 4. Review Project Delivery Method Advantages and Disadvantages 75 Step 5. Choose the Most Appropriate Project Delivery Method 75 Step 6. Document Results 77 Conclusion 78 Chapter 5 Tier 2--Weighted-Matrix Delivery Decision Approach 78 Introduction 80 Step 1. Define Selection Factors 81 Step 2. Weight Selection Factors 82 Step 3. Score Project Delivery Methods

OCR for page R1
85 Step 4. Choose the Most Appropriate Project Delivery Method 85 Step 5. Document Results 86 Conclusion 87 Chapter 6 Tier 3--Optimal Risk-Based Approach 87 Introduction 88 Qualitative Analysis 90 Quantitative Analysis 92 Conclusion 93 Chapter 7 Summary 95 Appendix A References 99 Appendix B Definitions 101 Appendices C through H