Click for next page ( 44


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 43
Tier 1--Analytical Delivery Decision Approach 43 Research and practical experience have shown that the definition of project goals is a key suc- cess factor in the project delivery decision. The objective of Step 2 is to provide guidance to agen- cies on how to write and rank their project goals. The guidance provides general categories for goals. This section also provides examples of goals from transit projects across the country to show how agencies have defined their project goals for a variety of project delivery methods. Materials for completing Steps 1 and 2 (a project description checklist and a blank form on which to document the project goals and objectives) are included in Appendix C, available on the TRB website at http://trb.org/news/blurb_detail.asp?id=10054. The objective of Step 3 is to exclude those project delivery methods from consideration that are not viable options. A legal review of project delivery and procurement laws in the United States revealed that some delivery methods are not allowed in all states. There are additional schedule and third-party issues that could exclude a delivery method from consideration. Step 3 describes a quick go/no-go decision process to determine whether a delivery method should be excluded from consideration. The primary objective of Step 4 is to present a comprehensive listing of the generic poten- tial advantages and disadvantages of each delivery method in 24 critical areas (forms for working through Step 4 are included in Appendix D, available on the TRB website at http://trb.org/news/blurb_detail.asp?id=10054). These potential advantages and disadvantages must be examined in the context of each individual project. Variations in the project character- istics, the people involved, and the processes used by an agency (the "three Ps") will determine whether the potential advantages or disadvantages of a project delivery method are actual advantages or disadvantages for a particular project. In Step 4, agencies will have to consider actual advantages and disadvantages and rate each project delivery method as "most appro- priate," "appropriate," or "least appropriate or not applicable" on each of the 24 issues. A form for this rating and a structure for documenting comments are provided (see Table 4.29 and Appendix D). The objective of Step 5 is to make the final project delivery choice if a dominant or obvious choice exists. Upon the transference of the 24 individual ratings from Step 4 into an overall sum- mary, agencies must determine whether there is a dominant choice. In Step 5, the agencies con- sider the significant benefits of what appears to be the most appropriate delivery method as well as any risks or fatal flaws of that delivery method. If a dominant method is not apparent, the user will document the Tier 1 approach and move to the Tier 2 approach for further analysis of the most applicable methods emerging from the Tier 1 analysis. The objective of the final step, Step 6, is to provide a framework for documenting the decision made on the basis of the Tier 1 approach. This is done in the form of a Project Delivery Decision Report. This report will provide an archival record for the project delivery decision. It will serve to communicate the decision to interested stakeholders and to justify the decision if issues arise years later. The framework organizes the report into sections that follow the five previous steps in the Tier 1 approach--project description, definition of project goals, go/no go decision points, advantages and disadvantages, delivery method decision, and any relevant appendices. Step 1. Create Project Description The first step in the Tier 1 approach involves the creation of a concise, yet comprehensive, project description that serves to communicate the important project characteristics to decision- makers and also to provide a "snapshot" of the project scope at the time in which the project deliv- ery decision was determined. Projects differ in scope of work and major elements (e.g., people

OCR for page 43
44 A Guidebook for the Evaluation of Project Delivery Methods involved, physical project characteristics, project duration, project budget, and so forth). The project description should include necessary information about the project and address all aspects of the project that may be influenced by the selected delivery method. The project description will serve to communicate the decision to interested stakeholders and to justify the decision if issues arise years later. Below is a checklist of the important project character- istics that should be covered in the project description (see Figure 4.2 for an example of a project description): Project Name Location Mode of Transportation Estimated Budget Project Name: Weber County to Salt Lake City Commuter Rail Project. Location: Utah. Mode of Transportation: Commuter Rail. Estimated Budget: $196 million for the main contract (total program is estimated at $611 million). Estimated Project Delivery Period: 6 years (including design phase). Required Delivery Date: September 2008. Source(s) of Project Funding: FTA and Local Sales Tax. Project Corridor: From Pleasant View through the new Ogden Transit Center at 2349 Wall Street, in Downtown Ogden, and terminating at the Salt Lake City Intermodal Center at 600 West 200 South Street, just west of the central business district. Project Corridor Dimensions: 43 miles with 8 stations, starting from Pleasant View, Ogden, Roy, Clearfield, Layton, Farmington, Woods Cross, and North Temple in Salt Lake City (Future) and finishing at the Salt Lake Intermodal Center. Additionally, the project has 6 parking lots in its design. Major Features of Work: Track, at-grade stations, platforms, and parking lots. Ridership Forecast: 11,800 average weekday boarding. Major Schedule Milestones: Project completion date--September 2008. Major Project Stakeholders: Utah Transit Authority (UTA), Union Pacific-Santa Fe Railroad, FTA, and local jurisdictions. Labor Union Status: No labor union issues anticipated. Major Challenges: UTA entered into an interlocal agreement to build in the existing freight rail corridor with the jurisdictions that it passed through to be able to build without the need to procure building permits from every single local entity. The entire project requires working within 25 feet of the active mainline Union Pacific Railroad corridor from Salt Lake City to Ogden, which has up to 35 trains a day passing through at speeds up to 70 mph. The project runs through 14 different municipalities and intersects at 42 road crossings. Main Identified Sources of Risk: Storm drainage system, safety of construction (narrow corridor), coordination with Union Pacific for the work that Union Pacific has to do, unsuitable soil conditions, incomplete design on some aspects of the work such as station design. Sustainable Design and Construction Requirements: Enhance the environment through less traffic congestion and pollution. Figure 4.2. Project description example.