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 R2
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 R3
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 R4
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 R5
OCR for page R6
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 R7
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 R8
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 R9
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 R10
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
